Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 23 of about 371 results (0.019 seconds)Surender Kumar Vs. Gnct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:15. 07.2014 % W.P.(C) 628/2014 SURENDER KUMAR Through: versus ..... Petitioner Mr. Anil Kumar Singal, Advocate. GNCT OF DELHI & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) C.M. No.8571/2014 1. Issue notice. Mr. Amiet Andlay accepts notice.2. After hearing learned counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved in accepting the request for restoration. The application is, accordingly, allowed and the writ petition is restored. W.P.(C) 628/2014 3. The petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing his application. He was charged with misconduct, i.e. unauthorised absence for 265 days.4. The petitioner was a Constable at the relevant time when he absented from duty for a long period 265 days in two spells. This led to issuan...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3036/2014 JAGDISH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. K.B. Sachdeva, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State with SI Pratap Singh, PS Punjabi Bagh. Mr. Jagvir Bhadana, Advocate for R2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. 10528/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 3036/2014 and Crl. M.A. 10527/2014 (for stay) 1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Sh. Jagdish praying that FIR No.200/2007 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh and the proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.2. FIR No.200/2007 was registered on the complaint of Smt. Manju, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 to these proceedings, statin...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh @ Kalia Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: July 15, 2014 + CRL.A.285/1998 RAJESH @ KALIA Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Sandhya Goswami and Mr.M.P.S.Tomar, Advocates. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Inspector Arvind Paul, PS Pandav Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present appeal the appellant challenges the judgement dated April 28, 1998 convicting him for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated April 29, 1998 directing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5,000/-.2. Two more were convicted with the appellant however, during the pendency of their appeal they took the plea of juvenility and on the basis thereof, Crl.A.No.286/1998 filed by them stands disposed of.3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the presence of PW-1 at the time of alleged incident is doubtful. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nafeesa and ors. Vs. Smt. Rajwati
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % R.C.Rev. No.453/2013 15th July , 2014 SMT. NAFEESA & ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. RAJWATI ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.11152/2014 (for preponement of date of hearing) Application for preponement is allowed. CM stands disposed of. RC.Rev. 453/2013 1. This petition under Section 25(B)(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6.8.2013 by which the eviction petition for bonafide necessity has been decreed by dismissing the application for leave to defend.2. The only ground urged before this Court on behalf of the petitioner/tenant is that the need for which the bonafide necessity petition was filed was for the business of the son of the respondent/landlord, but since the son is already involved in various criminal case...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Aggarwal Vs. Gitanshi Polychem Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~16 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 554/2013 SANJAY AGGARWAL Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Sandeep Jindal, Advocate. versus GITANSHI POLYCHEM PVT LTD Through ..... Respondent Mr. Kunal Madan and Meenu Bakshi, Advocates. Ms. CORA M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA % ORDER1507.2014 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present winding up petition against the respondent company.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had over a period of time given Rs.97,50,000/- as loan to the respondent company. It is contended that respondent company failed to pay interest of sum of Rs.5,75,164/ to the petitioner as was mentioned in the TDS Certificate issued to the petitioner. ================================================ CO. PET. 554/2013 1 3. It is stated that for the year ending 31 st March, 2011, there was a credit balance of Rs. 1,03,25,164/ - in the Books of Accounts of the respondent company.4. It is contended that the petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Saumya Dsm Infratech Limited Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:15. h July, 2014 % + LPA No.332/2014 & CM No.7276/2014 (for stay) M/S SAUMYA DSM INFRATECH LIMITED .. Appellant Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Pandey, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .. Respondents Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Prashant Bez Boruah with Mr. Rakesh Dewan, Advs. for R-2. Counsel for R-3. Mr. Ajit Pudussery with Ms. Shruti Sarma Hazarika, Advs. For R-4. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 6 th March, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.2809/2013 preferred by the appellant owing to availability of alternative effective remedy before the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) constituted under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 and giving liberty to the appellant to approach the PNGRB. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order has recorded th...
Tag this Judgment!Leelawati Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: July 15 , 2014 + CRL.A. 654/2014 LEELAWATI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for State with Insp.S.K.Rana, PS Anand Parbat. CRL.A. 82/2014 MANOJ Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for State with Insp.S.K.Rana, PS Anand Parbat. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. The two appeals are directed against the judgment dated August 03, 2013 convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated October 11, 2013 awarding them imprisonment for life and fine.2. The appeals raise an issue as to the intention attributable to a blind couple.3. The prosecution does not dispute that appellant Leelawati, who is the wife of appellant Manoj, is 100% blind. The...
Tag this Judgment!Bhushan International Limited and anr Vs. ....
Court: Delhi
$~25 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET.216 /2014 IN THE MATTER OF BHUSHAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Rajeev K Goel and Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. Atma Sah, Assistant Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director, Mr. Rajiv Behl, Advocate for the official Liquidator. CORA M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA % ORDER1507.2014 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. This second motion joint Petition filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as ACT) by Bhushan International Ltd (Transferor Company ) with Arihant Techno Pack Pvt Ltd (Transferee Company) (Collectively referred as Petitioner Companies ) seeking sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation (Scheme ). A copy of the scheme has been enclosed with the petition. ================================================== CO.PET. 216 /2014 1 2. The registered offices of Transferor Company and the Transferee Company are situated within the Nati...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: July 15 , 2014 + CRL.A. 654/2014 LEELAWATI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for State with Insp.S.K.Rana, PS Anand Parbat. CRL.A. 82/2014 MANOJ Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for State with Insp.S.K.Rana, PS Anand Parbat. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. The two appeals are directed against the judgment dated August 03, 2013 convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated October 11, 2013 awarding them imprisonment for life and fine.2. The appeals raise an issue as to the intention attributable to a blind couple.3. The prosecution does not dispute that appellant Leelawati, who is the wife of appellant Manoj, is 100% blind. The...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Dharam Pal Vs. Smt. Hira Jhari Mishra and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EFA No.4/2010 15th July , 2014 % SH. DHARAM PAL Through: ......Appellant Mr. Soayib Qureshi, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. HIRA JHARI MISHRA & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Judgment debtors invariably use all tactics in the book, and not in the book, to keep on objecting to the execution of the decree. This Execution First Appeal is one such totally frivolous case.2. The challenge by the present appeal is to the impugned order of the executing court dated 2.2.2010 by which the objections which have been filed by the defendant/judgment debtor have been dismissed. Objections have been dismissed on various grounds. First ground is that the objections are barred by limitation. The second ground is that the earlier objections were filed to the sale certificate proceedings, and which objections were dismissed by the order dated 25.1.2008. It is...
Tag this Judgment!