Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 44 of about 438 results (0.058 seconds)icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. Sanjya Sachdev
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No. 170/2010 is directed against the order dated 09.04.2013 of the CDRF (Central District), Kashmere Gate, Delhi whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 207 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Hemant Gupta, Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Sumit Kumar, counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 207 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant is that the impugned order dt. 09.04.2013 was never served upon him. Copy of the order was not received by the appellant from the Honble Forum as per prescribed rules. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonation of such a long delay in filing the appeal. The Law of limitation ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Geeta Kumari
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial):1. We have heard Ms Arti Bansal, Counsel for the Appellant and Ms Geeta Kumari, respondent in person. 2. Present appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi. Vide impugned orders, the complainant / respondent, Ms Geeta Kumari was awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. Facts in brief are that the complainant, Ms Geeta Kumari got herself registered with OP/DDA for the allotment of a flat in a scheme floated by DDA in the year 1979. She was allotted flat bearing No. 98, Sector A-9, Pocket-4, Group-I, Narela, Delhi in a draw of lots held on 15.5.98. Admittedly, the complainant deposited the amounts demanded from her by the DDA from time to time, as per schedule. It is also not in dispute that the complainant instead of taking physical possession of the flat, requested for a flat in a different locality. Complainant al...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Laxmi Suiting, Jodhpur Vs. State of Rajasthan Through the Secreta ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson). 1. By this judgment, we shall dispose of the above 62 appeals/applications, as they raise common questions of law, based upon somewhat similar facts before the Tribunal. 2. Thus, in view of above, it is not necessary for us to notice facts, in any greater detail, of all the appeals/applications. Suffice would it be to refer to the facts of the Original Application No. 358(THC)/2013 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8074/2010) and limited reference of facts in other connected appeals/applications. FACTS: 3. The State of Rajasthan had handed over a piece of land to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short the œRIICO?) for the purpose of setting up an industrial area. RIICO planned the land into plots for leasing out to industrialists for erection/setting up/establishing industrial units. These industrial premises allotted by RIICO were to be used for manufacture of industrial products by the respective units...
Tag this Judgment!Khoday India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rakesh Gupta
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REVIEW PETITION No.556/2013 and CM No.2093/2014 in RFA (OS) 30/2013 KHODAY INDIA LTD. & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Padma Priya, Advocate. versus RAKESH GUPTA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. L.M. Asthana, Mr. Siddhant Asthana and Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmed, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ORDER (ORAL) : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.Review Petition No.556/2013 1. This review petition has been filed to seek review of order dated August 12, 2013 passed by this Court in RFA No.30/2013.2. The contention of the Review Petitioner is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as the date of the last cheque (Cheque No.563092) is 31.08.07 and not 09.10.07 and this cheque was handed over to the Respondent on 21.08.07. The suit CS(OS) No.2150/2010 was filed by the Respondent only on 07.10.2010, which is after 3 years from the date on which the cheque could firs...
Tag this Judgment!Deb Dutta Mitra and anr Vs. Isan Chandra Basu and ors
Court: Delhi
$~44. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1241/2010 % Judgment dated 01.05.2014 DEB DUTTA MITRA & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.S.C. Rana and Ms.Ruchika Bhari, Advs. versus ISAN CHANDRA BASU & ORS ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Amit Sanduja, Advs. for defendants no.1 and 4. Mr.Subrat Deb, Adv. for defendant no.8/DDA. Mr.Ajay Mehrotra, Adv. for defendant no.9. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A. 8153/2010.1. This is an application filed by plaintiff seeking condonation of nine days delay in re-filing the suit.2. Heard and for the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing the suit is condoned.3. Application stands disposed of. I.A. 14995/2013 4. This is an application filed by defendant no.8/DDA seeking condonation of 159 days delay in filing O.A.No.120/2013.5. Heard and for the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing O.A.No.120/2013 is condoned. Let O.A.No.120/2013 be taken on record.6. Application stands disposed of...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SUNITA FAO No.402/2012 Through:1. t May, 2014 ......Appellant Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 31.5.2012, which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant. By the claim petition statutory compensation was sought on account of the death of appellants husband Ram Prakash. Ram Prakash was shot at the Sadar Bazar Railway Station by some assailants in order to snatch the bag he was carrying. The deceased Ram Prakash was travelling on a valid MST bearing No.O-0412823 by Ferozpur Janta Express Ex.Jind and he had got down at the Sadar Bazar Railway Station where the untoward incident as per Section 123(c) and ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. M/S Arora Finance Co.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.392/2013 1st May, 2014 % MAHESH CHAND SHARMA Through: ......Appellant Mr. D.B. Yadav, Adv. VERSUS M/S ARORA FINANCE CO. Through: ...... Respondent None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the judgment of the court below dated 27.8.2013 by which the petition filed by the respondent herein, petitioner before the court below under Section 9 of the Act, was allowed and a receiver was appointed with respect to the subject vehicle /three wheeler scooter (TSR) bearing registration No.DL1RL-1382.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant herein, respondent in the court below, had under a purchase-cum-loan facility extended by the respondent, purchased the subject vehicle on the loan of Rs. 3,30,000/- and which loan was to be repa...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Public Works Department and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.85/2013 % 1st May, 2014 M/S SCHINDLER INDIA PVT. LTD. ......Appellant Through: Mr. Avinash Kumar & Mr. Abhay Pandey, Advocates. VERSUS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Yogesh Saini for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the judgment of the Commissioner dated 11.4.2012 which has allowed the claim petition filed by respondent no.2 herein who is the widow of the deceased workman/employee Vijay Singh who died in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment pertaining to maintenance and running of the escalator owned by respondent no.1 herein and contracted for running and maintenance to the appellant herein.2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Vijay Sin...
Tag this Judgment!