Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 1 of about 371 results (0.019 seconds)Safina Vs. Rajeev Dutta
Court: Delhi
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 954/2013 SAFINA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Sanjeev Bajaj, Adv. versus RAJEEV DUTTA Through: Defendant ex-parte ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER % 31.07.2014 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.27,29,785/-. Plaintiff is carrying on the business of sale and supply of various kinds of corporate gift items. During the course of business transactions, the defendant approached the plaintiff from time to time for the supply of different type of gift items and accordingly the plaintiff supplied the defendant the requisite goods from time to time and raised bills/invoices against the same. On receipt of the goods and after due satisfaction, the defendant acknowledged those bills/invoices.2. The summons were issued to the defendant. Despite service defendant did not enter appearance. Defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 10.7.2014. Affidavit by way of evidence has been field.3. In this case,...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~R8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t July, 2014 + W.P.(C) 8659/2004 BABU RAM Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr. N.S. Dalal, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. Represented by: .....Respondents NEMO. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents directing them not to dispossess him from the land comprising in Khasra No.23 /25 (4-16), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village-Naya Bans, Delhi without following due process of law as provided under Delhi Land Reforms Act and Rules, 1954.2. Mr. N.S. Dalal, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was a landless person, therefore, respondent No.2 vide its resolution dated 15.11.1984 allotted the aforementioned land to him for cultivation.3. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited lease money of Rs.40/- for the same vide receipt LR Form-37, under Rule 174 of Delhi Land Ref...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Singh and anr. Vs. Santosh Devi and ors
Court: Delhi
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t July, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 554/2012 RAJINDER SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr. Y.P. Singh and Mr. Sandeep, Advs. versus SANTOSH DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Rajat Brar, Adv. for R4. Mr. H.S. Sachdeva and Mr. H.N. Jagdishwar, Advs. for R5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present appeal, appellants have assailed the award dated 24.02.2012, whereby, Ld. Tribunal while awarding the compensation of Rs.8,95,750/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization has granted recovery rights against the appellants.2. Mr. Y.P. Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that Ld. Tribunal has wrongly granted the recovery right against the appellants on the averments that the offending vehicle, i.e., the Tractor was having a Trailer, which was of commercial in nature at the time of acci...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Joshi Vs. M/S Modern Bakeries (India) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:31. 07.2014 W.P. (C) 780/2001 N.K. JOSHI ..... Petitioner versus M/S MODERN BAKERIES (INDIA) LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person. For the Respondents : Mr Sandeep Prabhakar with Mr Vikas Mehta. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning an award dated 19.01.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Delhi in I.D. No.239/98 [I.D. No.84/81 (old)]. (hereinafter referred to as the impugned award). By the impugned award, the Labour Court has set aside an order terminating the services of the petitioner and awarded a lump sum amount of `50,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned award, inasmuch as, though the enquiry held against the petitioner has been found to be vitiated and held to be illegal, yet the petitioner h...
Tag this Judgment!Sh Pradeep Kumar Vs. Sh Mukesh Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 467/2014 & C.M.Nos.8155-8156/2014 % JULY31 2014 SH PRADEEP KUMAR Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Pankaj Vivek with Ms.Anupriya Singh, Advocates. VERSUS SH MUKESH KUMAR JAIN Through: ...... Respondent Mr.Rahul Garg, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 22.1.2014 whereby the right of the petitioner/defendant to file the written statement was closed.2. Ordinarily, the courts are liberal in setting aside such orders, however, the facts as stated below will show that liberal attitude cannot be adopted in the present case.3. The subject suit is a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord for possession and mesne profits. In the city of Delhi, tenancies where rents are more than 3500/- per month, and the tenant is a month to month tenant, such a tenant has...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kailash Devi and anr. Vs. Shri Brij Pal Manocha and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RC. REV. 313/2013 31st July, 2014 SMT. KAILASH DEVI & ANR. Through: ......Petitioners Mr. Pradeep Dewan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Anupama Dhingra and Mr. Shashank Khurana, Advs. VERSUS SHRI BRIJ PAL MANOCHA & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. S.N.Gupta and Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is filed against the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 27.5.2013 which has decreed the eviction petition for bonafide necessity on account of the petitioner/tenant failing to file leave to defend application within the statutory period of 15 days inasmuch as delay cannot be condoned in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC15.2. Though counsel for the petitioner has sought ...
Tag this Judgment!Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Vikramaditya and anr.
Court: Delhi
12. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:31. 07.2014 % W.P.(C) 1881/2014 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate. versus VIKRAMADITYA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. D.R. Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) challenges the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) dated 31.01.2013 in O.A. No.2148/2012, whereby reimbursement of the treatment cost in respect of the Chemotherapy procedure undergone by the respondent/ applicant as per the approved rates, was directed.2. The brief facts are that the respondent/ applicant is a retired Principal. He had apparently undergone some emergent surgery on account of intestinal blockage in Thane during a visit there, sometime in 2009. Acting upon a certificate issued by the hospital which treated him and d...
Tag this Judgment!Kavneet Kaur Vs. Regional Passport Office Ministry of External Affa
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:31. 07.2014 W.P.(C) 3582/2014 KAVNEET KAUR ..... Petitioner versus REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr K. Venkatraman. For the Respondent : Ms Sapna Chauhan. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia praying for setting aside the decision of the Ministry of External Affairs, turning down the request of the Petitioner for including the name of Mr Tej Pal Singh (step-father of the Petitioner) as her in the passport, which was applied for by the petitioner. The letter dated 02.04.2014 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs, communicating the said decision reads as under:With reference to the objection raised by this office on your passport application No.DL4067598339214 pointing out the discrepancy/difference in th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Lahorian Di Hatti Vs. M/S. Shyam Lal Meher Chand JaIn Huf
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC REV No.242/2014 31st July, 2014 % M/S. LAHORIAN DI HATTI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manav Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Esha Dutta, Advocate. VERSUS M/S. SHYAM LAL MEHER CHAND JAIN HUF ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Garg, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.11867/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + RC. REV. No.242/2012 and C.M. Nos.11866/2014 (for stay) & 11868/2014 (for bringing on record additional evidence/document) 2. There are tenants in the city of Delhi who earn lacs and lacs of rupees from the tenanted premises, and obviously they are entitled to earn whatever amount they can from their business, but once the landlords need bonafidely the tenanted premises, tenants cannot create o...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Chaudhary Vs. State
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.597 of 2014 & CRL.M.(B). No.965 of 2014 SANDEEP CHAUDHARY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dinesh Garg, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP with SI Sandeep Yadav from Crime Branch. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER3107.2014 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11 th April 2014 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No.13/2011 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 186, 353 and 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and the order on sentence dated 16 th April 2014 whereby for the offence under Section 186 IPC the Appellant was awarded simple imprisonment (SI) for three months; for the offence under Section 353 IPC he was awarded rigorous imprisonment (RI) for two years; for the offence under Section 307 IPC he was awarded RI for three years and fine of Rs.5,000 and in default to undergo SI for three months; for the ...
Tag this Judgment!