Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 11 of about 371 results (0.019 seconds)ishwar Dayal Kansal Vs. A. K. Jain
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC Rev. No.47/2014 & C.M.Nos.1401-1402, 11248-11249/2014 28th July, 2014 % ISHWAR DAYAL KANSAL Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Arvind Kumar Gupta, Mr.Abhishek Goyal and Mr.Jasmeet Arora, Advocates. VERSUS A. K. JAIN Through: ...... Respondent Ms.Richa Kapoor with Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocates. 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 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is filed by the petitioner/tenant impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 18.8.2011 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner and decreed the eviction petition with respect to the tenanted premises being property no.4499-4500, 7/35, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-2 (shown in red colour in the site plan exhibit X).2. The case of the respondent/lan...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Smt. Asha Devi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC. REV. 245/2014 & CM Nos. 11899/2014 (stay), 11900/2014 (exemption) 28th July , 2014 % SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH BAWA ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Ms. Ruchira Arora, Advocates VERSUS SMT. ASHA DEVI Through: ...... Respondent Mr. S.K. Sharma, Mr. Mayank Bansal, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This revision petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 26.2.2014 which has decreed bona fide necessity eviction petition with respect to property bearing No.C-1(old property No.285) Basai Dara Pur, Sharda Puri, Ring Road, New Delhi 110015 comprising two rooms and one small room as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW-1/2. The eviction petition has been decreed after trial.2. Respondent/landlady claimed the tenanted pr...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mohan Singh
Court: Delhi
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 353/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State. versus MOHAN SINGH ..... Respondent Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER2807.2014 % Crl.M.A.No.8297/2014 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.L.P. 353/2014 1. By the present petition the State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated February 13, 2014 whereby the respondent though convicted of charge under Section 354 IPC has been acquitted of the charge for offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC.2. The State assails the judgment on the ground that even if the Prosecutrix in her statement in Court has not stated about the offence of rape being committed however, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has clearly alleged about the offence of rape.3. We are not able to subscribe to the contention of learned counsel for the State...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Vijay Singh Vs. Sh. S K Chaudhary and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC Rev. No.154/2013 27th July, 2014 % SH. VIJAY SINGH Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Abhishek Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS SH. S K CHAUDHARY & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Mr.S.C.Singhal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugning the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 19.1.2013 by which the Additional Rent Controller has granted leave to defend to the respondent no.2 in the eviction petition and who is the respondent no.2 in this petition also.2. The impugned order holds that the petitioner has made out a case of bona fide necessity, but leave to defend was granted on the ground that the petitioner/landlord has sued two respondents as joint-tenants, but the respondent no.1 has denied the tenancy and it is only the respondent no.2 who is claiming the tenancy and which crea...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Vs. State (Govt of Nct) Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : July 25 , 2014 + CRL.A. 766/2013 NAND KISHORE Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Jivesh Tiwari, Adv. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. An act of highest depravity, committing the rape of his own mother aged 72 years, Nand Kishore stands convicted for an offence under Section 376 IPC by the learned Trial Court and has been awarded a sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of ` 20,000/- and if recovered to be paid to the prosecutrix under Section 357 Cr.P.C. as compensation, in default of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. Nand Kishore seeks to assail the impugned judgment on the ground that the PCR call was with regard to quarrel and not rape. He says that earlier he had been tried for murder of his father and was acquitted whi...
Tag this Judgment!Gulshan Kumar Arora Vs. Ashwani Shukla
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:25. h July, 2014 + FAO(OS) 101/2014 & CM No.3351/2014 (for condonation of 125 days delay in filing the appeal) GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA .. Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth Dutta and Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Advocates. Versus ASHWANI SHUKLA Through: .. Respondent Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vibhor Bagga, Advocate. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The appeal impugns the order dated 9th September, 2013 (of the learned Single Judge of this Court exercising ordinary civil jurisdiction in CS(OS) No.508/2005 filed by the appellant) rejecting the request of the appellant/plaintiff for forthwith decreeing his suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property insofar as against the sole respondent to this appeal.2. Notice of this appeal was issued. The sole respondent appeared through counsel.3. On perusal of the appeal paper book, we found that b...
Tag this Judgment!Samarjit Chakravarty and anr. Vs. M/S Tej Properties Pvt. Ltd. and ors
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:25. h July, 2014 % + CS(OS) 1474/2008 SAMARJIT CHAKRAVARTY & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Advocate. Versus M/S TEJ PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Manoj Goel, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Ms. Sabika Ahmed and Mr. Aviral Dhirendra, Advocates for D-1&2. Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Sumit K. Sharam, Advocates for D-3&4. AND + CS(OS) 1523/2009 M/S TEJ PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manoj Goel, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Mr. Sabika Ahmed and Mr. Aviral Dhirendra, Advocates. Versus SAMARJIT CHAKRAVARTY & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Adv. for D-1&2 Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Sumit K. Sharam, Advocates for D-3&4. CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 On 15th April, 2014, the following order was passed in these suits:1. The files are taken up today as 14th April, 2014 was declared a holiday.2. The two suits, vide order dated 5th March, 2014, were ordered to b...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Krishan Gopal and ors. Vs. Mr. Ram Phal Yadav and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC REV No.324/2012 25th July, 2014 % MR. KRISHAN GOPAL & ORS. Through: ......Petitioners Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Advocate. VERSUS MR. RAM PHAL YADAV & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh, Advocate with Mr. Nagender Yadav, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) + RC. REV. No.324/2012, C.M. Nos. 12233/2012 & 18309/2012 1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed against the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 14.2.2012 by which the leave to defend applications filed by the petitioners/tenants have been dismissed.2. Originally, there were four respondents in the eviction petition. The original tenancy was jointly of late Sh. Barkat Ram and late Sh. Sohan Lal. Late Sh. Barkat Ram was sued as respondent no.1 in the eviction petition. He died during the pe...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Bhardwaj and ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:25. 07.2014 + W.P.(C) 561/2014 R.K. BHARDWAJ AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Sh. Sunny Chowdhary with Sh. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocates. Versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (NDMC) AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Shekhar Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate, for NDMC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, an order dated 09.10.2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter the tribunal), in T.A. No.28/2012, which rejected the petitioners claims for re-employment as Principal/ Vice-Principal, is impugned.2. The brief facts are that the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereafter GNCT) by notification (hereafter the scheme) dated 29.01.2007 permitted the automatic re-employment of all retiring teachers up to PGT level, subject to fitness and vigilan...
Tag this Judgment!Sujata Gupta Vs. Uma Gupta
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.453/2014 25th July, 2014 % SUJATA GUPTA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Ruchi Kohli, Mr. Yash Mishra, Mr. Nirmal Goenka and Ms.Chandni Goyal, Advocates. VERSUS UMA GUPTA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. There are some litigants who are persistent in abuse of the process of law. This petition is filed by one petitioner who is a defendant in the suit for possession and who insists on flaunting orders which have been passed by different learned Single Judges of this Court directing early disposal of the suit for possession by filing frivolous applications causing delay in the disposal of the suit.2. Firstly, I must state that one petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be filed against various orders dated 3.12.2013, 20.7.2013 and 3.4.2014 because in one petition separate orders cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!