Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 9 of about 438 results (0.026 seconds)M/S. Weston Tubes (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: May 02, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: May 28, 2014 % + RFA (OS) 87/2013 M/S WESTON TUBES (PVT.) LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Samrat Nigam, Advocate versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. .... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Bhaskar Tiwari, Advocate with Mr.L.K.Tyagi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. M/s.Weston Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Weston) is engaged in the business of manufacturing PVC flexible pipes. The National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as National) is engaged in the business of insurance. Vide Ex.P-1, through its Divisional Office No.X at Hanuman Road New Delhi National undertook to indemnify Weston the loss arising out of, amongst other calamities fire, limited to `15,00,000/(Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) for one DG Set and machinery, tools and accessories at its factory in Gali No.10, S...
Tag this Judgment!Nokia Corporation Vs. Bharat Bhogilal Patel
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:28. h May, 2014 + CS(OS) 3071/2011 NOKIA CORPORATION Through: Ms. Tusha Malhotra and Ms. Kirti Balasubramanian, Advocates .... Plaintiff versus BHARAT BHOGILAL PATEL Through: None ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration of non infringement, restraining groundless threat of infringement proceedings and damage against the Defendant.2. Summons were issued in the suit on 08.12.2011. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that this case is similar to the case of LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd Vs Bharat Bhogilal Patel & Ors, bearing CS(OS) No 2982/2011 in which order dated 30.11.2011 was passed. Also the operation of letter dated 29.09.2010 issued by Defendant was stayed. None appeared on behalf of the Defendant on various dates, consequently defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 23.01.2014.3. Plaintiffs have filed affidavit by wa...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr Vs. National Commission for Scheduled Castes an ...
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2390/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through ..... Petitioners Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate versus NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Baldev Malik with Mr. Arjun Malik, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Vivek Sheel with Mr. S. Rao, Advocates for R-2. Date of Decision :28. h May, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 1st September, 2011 and 23rd September, 2011 passed by National Commission for Scheduled Castes (for short Commission) by virtue of which not only the adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report [ACR]. for the period 2005-2006 but also the transfer order of respondent No.2 has been set aside.2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 had joined Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) as an Assistant Commandant on 25th January, 1997 and promoted as a Depu...
Tag this Judgment!Baaj Singh and anr Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: May 28th 2014 + BAIL APPLN. 417/2014 BAAJ SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Bora, Mr. Vishal Gosain, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Mr. Kushdeep Gaur & Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, SPP with Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Adv. & Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. This is a petition under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.497/12 under Section 307/452/365/342/368/395/397/34/120B IPC registered at P.S. Mehrauli pending before the ld.ASJ, Saket Court, New Delhi in a case titled State vs. Bhupinder Singh Bisht & Ors.2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on 17.11.2012 at P.S. Mehrauli on the complaint of Nandlal s/o Sh. Ram Kirpal. The complainant has alleged that he had been working with Hardeep Singh Chadha for the past 22 years as...
Tag this Judgment!Shishpal @ Shishu Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.768/2011 Reserved on :20. h March, 2014 Date of decision:28th May, 2014 SHISHPAL @ SHISHU ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.K. Manan, Mr. Ankush Narang, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj & Ms. Anjali Rajput, Advocates. Versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.993/2011 AMIT ..... Appellant Through Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Advocate. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.839/2011 ROSHAN ..... Appellant Through Mr. K.K. Manan, Mr. Ankush Narang, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj & Ms. Anjali Rajput, Advocates. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.: Shishpal @ Shishu, Amit and Roshan by the impugned judgment dated 23rd May, 2011 stand convicted for murder of Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Asif @ Shabbu Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :25. h March, 2014 Date of Decision:28. h May, 2014 % + CRIMINAL APPEAL No.615/2011 ASIF @ SHABBU STATE ..... Appellant Through Mr. R.S. Dakha and Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocates. versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. RajatKatyal, APP with Inspector Manoj Pant, SHO Gandhi Nagar. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.688/2011 NADEEM @ CHICKNA ..... Appellant Through Mr. Gurbaksh Singh and Ms. RichaSamhita, Advocates. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. RajatKatyal, APP with Inspector Manoj Pant, SHO Gandhi Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J: The impugned judgment dated 31st March, 2011 convicts Asif @ Shabbu and Nadeem @ Chikna under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC, for short) and Section 392 read with Section 397/34 IPC.2. By order on sentence dated 6th April, 2011, the two appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Hardayal Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 28th, 2014 + BAIL APPLN. 418/2014 HARDAYAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Bora, Mr. Vishal Gosain, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Mr. Kushdeep Gaur & Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, SPP with Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Adv. & Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. This is a petition under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.497/12 under Section 307/452/365/342/368/395/397/34/120B IPC registered at P.S. Mehrauli pending before the ld.ASJ, Saket Court, New Delhi in a case titled State vs. Bhupinder Singh Bisht & Ors.2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on 17.11.2012 at P.S. Mehrauli on the complaint of Nandlal s/o Sh. Ram Kirpal. The complainant has alleged in the FIR that he had been working with Hardeep Singh Chadha for the past 22...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv NaraIn Mittal Vs. Chander Bhan Mittal
Court: Delhi
$~02. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 406/2010 % Judgment dated 28.05.2014 SHIV NARAIN MITTAL Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr.S.C. Singhal, Adv. versus CHANDER BHAN MITTAL ..... Defendant Through : Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A.17627/2013 1. This is an application filed by plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC for passing a preliminary decree.2. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition and injunction, with respect to the plot of land bearing no.21/43, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi.3. As per the plaint, parties to the present suit are close relations, being real brothers. The abovestated plot of land was purchased by late Sh.Ajudhiya Prasad Gupta, father of the parties, in the name of both his sons i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant. At the time of execution of the sale deed on 18.4.1955 both the sons were living at Village Rohtak. It has further been averred in the plaint that the plot o...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1133/2014 Date of decision:28. h May, 2014 % SUNIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.U.Srivastava, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Saqib, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12 th December, 2013 passed in O.A.No.2811/2012. The facts giving rise to the instant petition, to the extent necessary, are briefly noted hereafter.2. It appears that the respondent notified an advertisement for the post of Security Assistant (Executive) Group-C (Non Gazetted & Non Ministerial) in General Category for their Centre of Leh in Jammu & Kashmir. It is the admitted position that out of 15 vacancies, 8 were unreserved whereas four vacancies were reserved for OBC candidates, one for SC and two for ST candidates.3. The respondents have disclosed that 5,31,499 candidates had applied for 648 posts. Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlesh Arora, Rohtak (Haryana) Vs. Union of India Through General Man ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). 1. In this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought issuance of directions to the respondents to pay him an amount of Rs.28,444/- recovered from the commuted value of pension payable to her husband, late Mr.Mulakh Raj Arora. 2. Today when the Original Application came up for hearing, Mr. Lalta Prasad, learned counsel for applicant admitted that the amount has since been paid to the applicant but no interest on said amount has yet been released. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Tiwary, learned counsel for respondents submitted that there is no rule regarding payment of interest on the commuted value of pension. 4. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 5. There is sufficient merit in the argument put forth by learned counsel for respondents. Besides the commuted value of pension is an amount, which is paid in advance to an employee. In other words, the fraction of amount of pension...
Tag this Judgment!