Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 42 of about 438 results (0.015 seconds)Sh. Ashok Yadav Vs. Smt. Mary Karuna Pushpa Terasa Toppo and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA1682014 and CM APPL. 7775-7777/2014 IN THE MATTER OF : SH. ASHOK YADAV Decided on 05.05.2014 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Swastik Singh and Mr. Ajay Gulati, Advocates with appellant in person. versus SMT. MARY KARUNA PUSHPA TERASA TOPPO & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate for R-1. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The appellant (objector in Execution Petition No.126/2013) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 11.04.2014, passed by the Execution Court, whereunder his objections filed under Order XXI Rules 26, 58 and 99 read with Section 151 CPC, have been dismissed.2. By the impugned order, the Executing Court has rejected the objection petition filed by the appellant/objector, who claims that he is the owner and in occupation of the premises No.RZ-26-P/66 on land measuring 200 square yards comprising in Khasra No.690/308, Indira Park, Palam...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Anand Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
11 & 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6668/2013 & CM No.14471/2013 Decided on :05. 05.2014 IN THE MATTERS OF SHIV ANAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate AND + W.P.(C) 8191/2013 & CM No.17286/2013 JAMIL AHMED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(ORAL) 1. This order shall govern two petitions filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for identical relief, which is for issuance of directions to the respondents/Railways to declare the proceedings of closure of STD/PCO/FAX/Internet booths allotted to them at New Delhi Railway Station, as illegal and arbitrary and to call upon the respondent/Railways to explain failure on their part to invite fresh bids for the aforesaid PCO booths.2. For the sake of conveni...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tejpal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:5. h May, 2014 % + MAC.APP.261/2013 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate. Versus TEJPAL SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Represented by: Mr. Jayant Pawar with Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocates for R-1 & R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the award dated 01.12.2012 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.25,05,656/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount.2. Mr. L.K. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for on behalf of appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in adding 50% in his actual income towards future prospects, which is contrary to law settled in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors., 2009 (6) SCC121 which has been affirmed by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Reshma K...
Tag this Judgment!C.B.i. Vs. R.C.Bhargava and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: May 2nd, 2014 + CRL.REV.P. 51/2005 C.B.I. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel, CBI with Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. versus R.C.BHARGAVA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar & Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Mohit Mathur with Mr. Pankaj Verma, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. Present is a criminal revision petition under section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the impugned order dated 12th October, 2004 passed by the ld.Special Judge, P.C Act, Delhi wherein both the respondents have been discharged.2. The case of the petitioner is as under:M/s Maruti Udyog Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the MUL) which was a Government company, at the relevant time was importing car components in completely knocked down condition (referred to as CKD kits) from Japan through various Indian ports. The charge sheet in question relates to the award of contract for transp...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Makkar Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :26. h MARCH, 2014 DECIDED ON :2. d MAY, 2014 + CRL.A. 1322/2012 & CRL.M.B.No.1594/2013 RAHUL MAKKAR Through : ..... Appellant Mr.R.S.Mahla, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellant Rahul Makkar challenges the correctness and legality of a judgment dated 11.09.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.7/11 arising out of FIR No.265/10 PS Geeta Colony by which he was held guilty under Section 307 IPC. By an order dated 14.09.2012, he was awarded RI for four years with fine ` 5,000/-.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge- sheet was that on 05.10.2010 at about 08.00 P.M. in front of house No.12/99, Geeta Colony, the appellant and his father Satish Makkar in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Rakesh Kumar and Amandeep Singh by a sharp edged weapon in an attempt to m...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.29 of 2008 Reserved on: April 29, 2014 Decision on: May 2, 2014 BABU RAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal with Mr. Akshay Bhatia and Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Spl. PP. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0205.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th December 2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI) in CC No.05/05 convicting the Appellant under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 14th December 2007 sentencing him to one years rigorous imprisonment (RI) with a fine of Rs. 3,000, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for fifteen days for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and RI for two years with a fine of Rs. 7,000, and in default, to undergo SI for fifteen days for the offence und...
Tag this Judgment!ifci Factors Ltd. Vs. Vasudev Rao and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : May 02, 2014 + FAO(OS) 214/2014 IFCI FACTORS LTD Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Anjali Sharma, Advocate versus VASUDEV RAO & ANR Represented by: ..... Respondents None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM No7757/2014 Allowed subject to just exceptions. FAO (OS) No.214/2014 1. It is trite that a liquidated demand has to be concerning an amount which can be made certain by mathematical calculations from factors which are or ought to be in possession or knowledge of the party to be charged. It must thus exclude demands which need to be quantified after determining disputed facts.2. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated March 21, 2014 whereunder it has been held that appellants suit is not maintainable under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The suit has been filed on ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Sharma Vs. the State Through C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 283 of 2008 Reserved on: April 22, 2014 Decision on: May 2, 2014 P.K.SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh Bora, Advocate. versus THE STATE THROUGH C.B.I. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Spl. PP. WITH CRL.A. 295 of 2008 YOGENDER NATH VAID ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.M. Tufail with Mr. Anwar A. Khan, Mr. Farooq Chaudhary, Mr. Vishal Raj Sehijpal, Mr. Ghufram Ahmad and Mr. Varun Agarwal, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Spl. PP WITH CRL.A. 284 of 2008 SOYUZ ELECTRONICS P.LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh Bora, Advocate. versus THE STATE (THROUGH: C.B.I.) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Spl. PP. And CRL.A. 285 of 2008 RAVI SHANKAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain, Advocate. versus THE STATE (THROUGH: C.B.I.) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Spl. PP. CO...
Tag this Judgment!Kumagai Skanska Hcc Itochu Group Vs. the Commissioner of Value Added T ...
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 05.2014 REVIEW PET. 420/2012 in W.P.(C) 974 /2010 KUMAGAI SKANSKA HCC ITOCHU GROUP ..... Petitioner versus THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR. .... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr Rajesh Jain, Ms Neetika Khanna and Mr Sumit Batra : Mrs Avnish Ahlawat and Mr Nitesh Kumar Singh CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length. Review of our judgment dated 22.05.2012 has been sought by the respondents / review petitioners. By virtue of our said judgment, we had taken the view that a revision under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 initiated after 01.04.2005 would have to be governed by the period of limitation of four years prescribed in Section 74A(2)(b) of the DVAT Act, 2004. We had repelled the contention of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Harjeet Sharma and ors Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5492/2013 Date of decision:2. d May, 2014 % HARJEET SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. S.N. Gupta and Mr. Sahil Dhwan, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through : ..... Respondents Mr. Prasouk Jain, Adv. for Mr. B.V. Niren, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioners assail the order dated 24th January, 2013 passed in O.A.No.3201/21011 and O.A.No.3644/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are within extremely narrow compass. The petitioners before us are working in the post of accountants performing the supervisory functions over head clerks. Their grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that despite exercising a supervisory role over head clerks they were receiving pay scale of Rs.4500 7000 whereas head clerks had been upgraded to Rs.5000 8000.3. As per the Recruitment Rule...
Tag this Judgment!