Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 7 of about 371 results (0.040 seconds)P.D. Aggarwal Vs. Azad Singh
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: July 30, 2014 + CS(OS) No.29/2008 P.D.AGGARWAL Through .....Plaintiff Mr.J.P. Verma, Advocate versus AZAD SINGH Through ..Defendant Defendant ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) 1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 3rd September, 1997 entered between the parties for execution of sale deed and registration.2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication are that an agreement to sell dated 3rd September, 1997 was entered between the parties whereby the defendant contracted to sell to the plaintiff certain agricultural land owned by him bearing Khasra Nos. 75(416), 76(4-16), 77(4-16), 78(4-16), 155(4-16), 227(4-16), 228(4-16), 230(1-12), 231(1-8), 232 (4-13), 233(4-12), 336(3-9), 339(4-10), 340(2-3) situated in the area of village Mohamadpur Ramjan Pur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) for the sum of Rs.100,00,000/-...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Aneja Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3306/2014 ..... Petitioner SANJAY ANEJA Through Mr. Nikhil Mlahotra, Advocate. versus STATE & ANR Through ..... Respondents Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A.No.11434/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.3306/2014 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.501/2014, dated 07.07.2014 registered under Sections 341/333/34 IPC at Police Station Vikas Puri, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the matter has since been compromised between the parties. It is stated that the petitioners, as well as all the complainants, who are arrayed as respondents 2 to 6 in the petition, reside in the vicinity of each other; and that the incident arose because of quarrel amongst their children which ult...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwal Vaderaa Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:30. 07.2014 W.P.(C) 1897/2014 ASHWAL VADERAA ... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr V.P. Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms Anju Bhattacharya, Mr Elgin Matt John and Mr Ashwal Vadera with petitioner in person For the Respondents : Mr Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate with Mr Ajay Verma for DDA Mr Yeeshu Jain and Mr Jyoti Tyagi for L&B and LAC Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak for GNCTD CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari essentially declaring the acquisition proceedings which had been initiated by virtue of a notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 19.09.1967 as having lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlem...
Tag this Judgment!Shri M.M.Malhotra Vs. Shri Dharam Chand Handa
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % 1. C.R.P.Nos. 222/2013 & 223/2013 30th July, 2014 C.R.P. 222/2013 & CM No.19803/2013 SHRI M.M.MALHOTRA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Vasudev Lalwani & Mr. Kapil Lalwani, Advs. VERSUS SHRI DHARAM CHAND HANDA Through:2. ...... Respondent Mr. Raghu Tandon, Adv. C.R.P. 223/2013 & CM No.19817/2013 SHRI S.K.KAPOOR Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Vasudev Lalwani & Mr. Kapil Lalwani, Advs. VERSUS SHRI DHARAM CHAND HANDA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Raghu Tandon, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The law with respect to orders in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is now well settled by thousands and thousands of judgments of Supreme Court. In an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the defence of merits is not to be seen and the contents of the plaint are deemed to be correct.2. The subject suit is suit for recovery of arrears of rent. Merely because the d...
Tag this Judgment!Economy Sales Vs. Delhi Automobiles Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % C.R.P.No.108/2014 30th July, 2014 ECONOMY SALES Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Karan Bharihoke, Advocate VERSUS DELHI AUTOMOBILES LTD. Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is filed against the impugned judgment dated 3.2.2014 of the trial court dismissing the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.2. Petitioner/plaintiff claimed to be in settled possession of certain front portion of the property no.1, Skindera Road, New Delhi alongwith the room measuring 10x10in the main building. The settled possession was stated to be for the last 20 years. The subject suit was filed in July, 2004 alleging dispossession of the petitioner/plaintiff on 25.6.2004.3. A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is not based on title. It is only based on prior possession. The suit under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmohan Singh Bagga Vs. Mr. Shiam NaraIn Sharma
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.456/2014 30th July, 2014 JAGMOHAN SINGH BAGGA .... Petitioner Through: VERSUS Mr. Sadaf, Advocate MR. SHIAM NARAIN SHARMA ....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM(M) 456/2014 & CM78872014(stay) 1. There are some cases which defy even the expression gross abuse of the process of law. This petition is one such petition. Challenge by this petition is to the order of the First Appellate Court dated 22.02.2014 by which the first appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of the orders passed by the Court at the time of issuing of notice in the appeal for depositing the arrears of rent payable. The facts of this case are very stark and all of them have been stated in the impugned order, but some of the said facts, I am stating herein below.2. The first appellate court at the time of issuing of notice in the appeal by an order dated 23.05...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Sahay Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 803/2013 GANGA SAHAY Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Abhishek Vikram, Adv. for Mr.Chetan Lokur, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Manoj Ohri, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER3007.2014 % 1. Ganga Sahay unlike his name showing no moral values has been held guilty for offences under Section 376(2)(f) IPC for committing rape of his minor daughter on the strength her statement coupled with the report of a medical examination and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.2. Ganga Sahay questions the verdict of guilt that there are material contradictions in the depositions of star witnesses, discrepancies in the statement of witnesses as to the place of arrest, his medical examination having not been carried out properly thus not depic...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Pulkit Choudhary and ors
Court: Delhi
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 121/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State. versus PULKIT CHOUDHARY & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondent None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA % Crl.M.A. 2353/2014 1. ORDER3007.2014 An affidavit has been filed by the DCP explaining the delay in filing the petition. For the reasons stated in the affidavit the delay of 90 days in filing the petition is condoned.2. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 121/2014 1. The State impugnes the judgment dated July 29, 2013 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge for offences under Section 363/368/376(2)(G)/419/34 IPC and Section 6 & 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short the POCSO Act).2. Learned counsel for the State submits that the offences alleged against the respondents are serious. The learned Trial Court ought to have looked CRL.L.P. 121/2014 page 1 of 3 into ...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Shwetamber Kalyanaktirth Nayas Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3241/2012 JAIN SHWETAMBER KALYANAKTIRTH NAYAS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. U.N. Bachawat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anup Jain and Mr. Abhishek Baid, Advocates versus UOI AND ORS Through ..... Respondents Mr. Subhash C. Sharma, Advocate for R-1 to 3. Mr. Jayesh Gaurav with Mr. Gopal Prasad, Advocates for R-4 and 5. Reserved on : Date of Decision : % 15th May, 2014. 28th July, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 24th March, 2009 passed by respondents and for issuing 'formal approval' for diversion of 0.8093 ha (2.00 acres) of land on Kolhua Hill, Bhaddilpur, Thana No.339, Khata No.01, Khesara No.17, in the Chatra District, Jharkhand.2. Petitioner organization is stated to be a registered religious and charitable trust, inter-alia dedicated to the cause of restoration of - at present - extinct Jain Tirthas and in restoration of cultural an...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Arora and anr Vs. Mohan Lal Arora
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. 07.2014 + CM(M) 662/2012 & CM Nos.10036/2012 SANTOSH ARORA & ANR Through: versus MOHAN LAL ARORA Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Saahila Lamba, Adv. ..... Respondent Mr. Satish Sahai, Adv. with Mr. Ankur Aggarwal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 The petitioners have impugned an order dated 5 th May, 2012 which dismissed their application under section 151 Code of Civil Procedure seeking restoration of the pucca wall, as it existed on 11.3.2002, from points P to Q of the rear periphery of the suit premises, as shown in the site plan in the suit documents. Facts:2. The facts are that suit bearing No.172/11/2002 was filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent (defendant) apropos property bearing No.128, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi. In the plaintiffs application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of t...
Tag this Judgment!