Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vishwas Bhamburkar Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t July, 2014 % + W.P.(Crl.) No.1147/2014 VISHWAS BHAMBURKAR .. Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. Versus UOI & ORS. Through: .. Respondents Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary with Mr. Saqib, Mr. Akshay Chandra & Mr. Ravjyot Singh, Advs. for UOI. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed as a public interest litigation seeks a direction for registration of a FIR under Sections 109, 110, 111, 119, 120, 120(b), 121, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167, 193, 397, 403, 406, 408, 409, 417, 478, 420 of the IPC and investigation thereof by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).2. The petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005, had sought authenticated photocopies of the project report regarding Development of Ayurvedic Health Resort and Herbal Garden at Vagamon as well as the notings on the Ministry o...
Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t July, 2014 % + W.P.(C) No.3572/2014 .. Petitioner Mr. Aseem Mehrota, Adv. RAJ KUMAR SHARMA Through: Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: .. Respondents Mr. A.K. Gautam, Adv. for R-1&2. Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Adv. for R-3. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for AICTE. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks: (a) the issuance of a writ of quo-warranto removing the respondent no.5 Prof. S.S. Mantha from the position of Chairman, the respondent no.6 Dr. M.K. Hada, from the position of Adviser (Approval) and the respondent no.7 Dr. S.G. Bhirud, from the position of Adviser-I & CVO of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE); (b) a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 Union of India (UOI) to re-constitute the Se...
S. Harvinder Singh Chadha Vs. S. Ujagar Singh Chadha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t July, 2014. % + FAO(OS) 416/2013, CMs. No.14405-06/2013 & 14408/2013 HARVINDER SINGH CHADHA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sachin Chopra and Mr. Kamal Bansal, Advocates. Versus SARAN KAUR CHADHA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Vikram, Mr. Chetan Lokur, Mr. Vikram Pradeep and Mr. Mayank Mukherjee, Advocates for R-1 to 3. Mr. Virender Mehta, Advocate for R-4. AND + FAO(OS) 252/2014 HARVINDER SINGH CHADHA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sachin Chopra and Mr. Kamal Bansal, Advocates. Versus SARAN KAUR CHADHA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Vikram, Mr. Chetan Lokur, Mr. Vikram Pradeep and Mr. Mayank Mukherjee, Advocates for R-1 to 3. Mr. Virender Mehta, Advocate for R-4. AND + CS(OS) 1333/2002, IAs No.2052/2004 & 16382/2013 S. HARVINDER SINGH CHADHA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sachin Chopra and Mr. Kamal Bansal, Advocates. Versus S. UJAGAR SINGH CHADHA & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Abhishek Vikra...
Samanit Enterprises and anr Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t July, 2014 % + CS(OS) 1441/2004 & I.A.7527/2013 (of defendant u/O7R-11 CPC) SAMANIT ENTERPRISES & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. AND + CS(OS) 1442/2004 & I.A.7528/2013 (of defendant u/O7R-11 CPC) ULTIMATE SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. AND + CS(OS) 818/2006 & I.A.7526/2013 (of defendant u/O7R-11 CPC) SH. HARI RAM AND ORS. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. D.V. Khatri, Adv. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. AND + CS(OS) 1128/2008 & I.A. No.21037/2011 (for correction in the crossexamination of PW-1) JASBIR SINGH Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Rashi Verma and Ms. Swati Gupta, Advocates. Versus DDA AND ORS T...
T. Murlidhar Vs. P.V.R. Murthy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:28. th March, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on:01. st July, 2014 CS(OS) 1397/2009 T. MURLIDHAR ..... PLAINTIFF Through: Mr. Rajan Advocate. Khosla, versus P.V.R. MURTHY ..... DEFENDANT Through: Mr. Ankit Advocate. Jain, CORA M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell. On 29.08.2013, issues were framed and issue No.1 i.e. Whether the plaint in the present Suit discloses any cause of action?. (OPD) was treated as a preliminary issue.2. The Plaintiff has contended that the Defendant is the owner of a flat bearing No.7430, Sector B-10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and that he agreed to sell the said flat ========================================================= CS(OS) 1397/2009 Page 1 of 11 to the Plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,00,000/-. The Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.50,000/in cash to the Defendant as advanc...
Maj.Genl.S.B.Akali Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : May 23, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : July 01, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.6148/2004 MAJ.GENL.S.B.AKALI Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.K.K.Rohtagi, Advocate with petitioner in person versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.S.K.Dubey, Advocate with Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate for R-1 and R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The controversy in the present case relates to the Defence Research and Development Organization (hereinafter referred to as the DRDO).2. For carrying on scientific and technological research and development work on projects of vital importance to the defence forces DRDO was established in the year 1958 by amalgamating the Defence Science Organization and some of the technical development establishments. The head of DRDO is a civilian, namely, the Scientific Advisor to the Ministry of Defence. The personnel of DRDO consist la...
United Telecoms Ltd. Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:17. th April, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on:01. st July, 2014 O.M.P. 144/2014 UNITED T ELECOMS L TD . .....PETITIONER Through: Mr. D. K. Malhotra with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Malhotra, Advocates versus IDBI B ANK L TD & ANR Through ..... RESPONDENTS Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yaman Kumar, Ms. Sudipa Dasgupta, Advocates for the Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. The Petitioner has filed the present Section 9 petition seeking a restraint against Respondent No.2 from invoking/encashing the bank guarantee issued by Respondent No.1.2. The case of the Petitioner is that Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 01.08.2012 was issued for supply of Dense Wave Division Multiplex (DWDM) equipment with a capacity of 40 channels. Along with the Letter of Acceptance, a Bill of Material (BOM) was annexed specifying the quantity with costs of items to be supplied as part of the equipment. It is...
Satish Kumar Chojar Vs. Subhashni Chopra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t July, 2014. % + CS(OS) 2190/2011 & IA.No.7476/2013 (of plaintiff to lead additional evidence SATISH KUMAR CHOJAR ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Anupama Kaul and Mr. Jeevan Sharma, Adv. Versus SUBHASHNI CHOPRA & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. G.D. Chopra, Adv. for D-1 & 3. Mr. Manuj Aggarwal, Adv. for D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The plaintiff has instituted this suit, for partition of property bearing No.29/19, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi (suit property), and for permanent and mandatory injunctions with respect to the property, pleading:I) that late Sh. Shanti Sarup Chojar (father of the plaintiff and the three defendants) was granted leasehold rights in the suit property vide registered perpetual lease deed dated 23.01.1981 executed in his favour by the President of India through the Land & Development Office; II) that late Sh. Shanti Sarup Chojar executed a registered Will da...
Raj Pal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 432/2006 Judgment Pronounced on :1. t July, 2014 % RAJ PAL Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal, Mr.Gautam Khazanchi & Mr.Vaibhav Sethi, Adv. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.05.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi and the order on sentence dated 22.05.2006 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Under Section 7 the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Under Section 13(2), the appellant has been sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.8,000/- and in default of payment of fine...
State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. P.S.Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on May 07, 2014 Judgment Delivered on July 01, 2014 + W.P.(C) 907/2013 STATE FARMS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.G.Joshi, Advocate versus P.S. GUPTA Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.A.K.Jain, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated July 13, 2012 of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act in short) whereby the Controlling Authority has allowed the claim of the respondent herein for a enhanced gratuity of Rs.6,50,000/along with simple interest @ 10% p.a from the date it became due to the respondent and the order dated December 13, 2012 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act whereby the appeal was dismissed.2. The brief facts are, the respondent was working in the petitioner organization. He retired from the service of the petitioner as Manager (Finance) on December 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »