Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 3 of about 371 results (0.020 seconds)Abdul Hamid Vs. Qureshia Begam
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC REV. No.572/2012 31st July, 2014 % ABDUL HAMID Through ..... Petitioner Mr.R.L.Kohli with Mr.Varun Yadav, Advocates. versus QURESHIA BEGAM Through ..... Respondent Ms.Deepika V.Marwaha with Mr.Umesh Kumar Yadav, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the petitioner/tenant (respondent before the Additional Rent Controller) challenging the judgment dated 28.8.2012 by which the Additional Rent Controller has rejected the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the eviction petition with respect to the two tenanted premises one tenanted premises being one shop and the other tenanted premises being one room, both on the ground floor of the property bearing no.2192, Gali Nai Wali, Pahari Bojla, Baza...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Satish Builders Vs. the Chairman, Airport Authority
Court: Delhi
$~23 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP No.183/2014 Judgement Reserved on:15. h July, 2014 Judgement pronounced on:31. t July, 2014 % M/S SATISH BUILDERS Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Rajesh Pandey, Adv. versus THE CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sunil Ahuja, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT1 Vide this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 27th November, 2012 on several grounds.2. The brief facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are mentioned herein.3. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner who is a registered partnership firm had entered into a contract for execution of work of construction of RCC Box Culverts across New Taxi Tracks at Jaipur Airport, Jaipur. The stipulated time for completion of the work was six months starting from 16th May, 2007 to 15th November, 2007. The petitioner, however, could not complete the work within the stipulated tim...
Tag this Judgment!Sourabh Taparia Vs. Lalit Kumar
Court: Delhi
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 581/2013 SOURABH TAPARIA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Gyan Mitra, Adv. versus LALIT KUMAR ..... Defendant Through: Mr.S.N. Gupta and Mr.Sahil Dhawan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER3107.2014 % IA No.8325/2014 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is based on an agreement to sell dated 10.7.2012 with respect to sale of property bearing No.535/5 (Old) and new No.IX/6184, measuring area 50 sq. yds., out of Khasra No.823/611-612/64/2/1, situated in Abadi Gali No.2, Jain Mandir Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Village Sellampur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi. Defendant being the absolute owner, had agreed to sell the said property with all rights, title and interest, etc. upto second floor for a total consideration of Rs. 2,70,00,000/-.2. As per the plaint, Rs.30,00,000/- was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendant. After receiving the earnes...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Shambhu
Court: Delhi
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 274/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Adv. versus SHAMBHU Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER % 31.07.2014 Crl.M.A. 6067/2014 (delay) 1. An affidavit has been filed by the DCP explaining the delay of 81 days in filing the present petition. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, the delay in filing the petition is condoned.2. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 274/2014 1. The Petitioner impugnes the judgment dated October 22, 2013 acquitting the respondent for the charge of offences under Sections 363/376/377 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short the POCSO Act).2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in view of statement of prosecutrix in the Court the acquittal was unjustified and a perverse order has been passed by the lear...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Rahul and ors
Court: Delhi
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 383/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with SI Chetan Nandia, PS Sagar Pur. versus RAHUL & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER3107.2014 % Crl.M.A.Nos.9148/2014 (delay in filing) and 9149/2014 (delay in refiling) 1. For the reasons stated in the applications the delay in filing and refiling is condoned.2. Applications are disposed of. CRL.L.P. 383/2014 1. The State impugns the judgment dated May 31, 2013 whereby the Respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 366A/368A/372/376/34 IPC. The learned Trial Court had granted the benefit of doubt to the Respondents in view of the inconsistent testimonies of the witnesses contradicting each other and the prosecution having not proved that the Prosecutrix was a minor.2. The facts in brief are that the Prosecutrix went missing on February...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Chartered Bank Vs. India Glycols Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:22. 05.2014 Pronounced on :30. 07.2014 + W.P.(C) 8592/2011 AND C.M. No.5378/2014 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ..... Petitioner Through: Sh. Sumit Bansal, Sh. Ateev Mathur, Ms. Richa Oberoi and Sh. Devmani Bansal, Advocates. Versus INDIA GLYCOLS LTD. ..... Respondents Through: Sh. Rajeev Virmani, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Vikas Mehta, Sh. Rajat Sehgal and Sh. Anindita Mitra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. This is a writ petition challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dated 22.9.2011 which upholds an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which found Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to be applicable to the DRT proceedings, on account of an earlier proceeding being instituted before the High Court, invoking its original civil jurisdiction.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner bank and the respondent c...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: July 23, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: July 30, 2014 % + CRL.A. 147/2000 LAXMI & ANR. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.Harpreet Singh Popli, Advocate with Mr.Atul Bhuchar and Ms.Avantika Yadav, Advocates versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Laxmi and Sheela have been held guilty for having burnt Rajbala with the common intention of killing her at 1:45 PM on September 20, 1995 at House No.RZ-228, Double Storey, Harijan Colony, Tilak Vihar, Delhi. The verdict of guilt is as per the judgment dated February 28, 2000. Both have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as per the order dated February 29, 2000. The learned Additional Session Judge has accepted the statement Ex.PW-15/B made by Rajbala to ASI Om Prakash PW-15, as her dying declaration. The testimony of Ms.Sunita PW-2 and Kumari...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ashiq Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: July 23, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: July 30, 2014 % + CRL.A. 275/2013 MOHD. ASHIQ Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Manoj Ohri, APP for State with Inspector Saket Kumar, PS Ashok Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Mohd.Ashiq, not being true to his name, has been held guilty of murdering his wife Aasmin @ Baby by manual strangulation. He has also been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. For the offence of murder he has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of `3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default to undergo further two...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Vinay Kumar
Court: Delhi
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + DECIDED ON:30. 07.2014 W.P.(C) 2357/2014 and C.M. No.4963/2014 (stay) UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioners versus VINAY KUMAR ..... Respondent Appearance: Mr Ankur Chhibber, Advocate for Petitioners-Union of India Mr D.R. Gupta, Advocate for Respondents with Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) The petitioner-Union of India seems to be aggrieved by the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 29th September, 2013, whereby respondents/applicant before the CAT, was directed to be given the benefit of promotion to Scientist-D to Scientist-E under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) from the date he became eligible for it. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-applicant was appointed as Scientific Officer on 24th April, 1992, and was later given the benefit of Flexible Complementing as Scientist C with effect from 0...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Rahul and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~28 TO37* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :30. 07.2014 + + + + + + + W.P.(C) 6539/2013 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus NEHA KADAM W.P.(C) 6571/2013 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus SIDHARTH GUPTA W.P.(C) 6585/2013 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus BHAGWAN SAHAI MEENA W.P.(C) 6789/2013 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus AJAY KUMAR AND ORS. W.P.(C) 6792/2013 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus RAHUL AND ANR. W.P.(C) 339/2014, C.M. No.666/2014 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus RUBY AND ANR W.P.(C) 355/2014, C.M. NO.708/2014 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus W.P.(C) 6505/2013 and connected cases ..Petitioners Respondent ..Petitioners Respondent ..Petitioners Respondent ..Petitioners Respondents ..Petitioners Respondents ..Petitioners Respondents ..Petitioners Page 1 ANJALI + + + Respondent W.P.(C) 762/2014, C.M. NO.1528/2014 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus SHRUTI W.P.(C) 5106/2013 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus SONIA W.P.(C) 5192/2013 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus VARSHA ..Petitioners Respo...
Tag this Judgment!