Delhi Court July 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 9 of about 371 results (0.026 seconds)Vinay Sharma and ors. Vs. Indraprastha Gas Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on July 09, 2014 Judgment Delivered on July 28, 2014 + W.P.(C) 6657/2012 VINAY SHARMA AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Arjun Krishnan, Advocate Versus INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD. AND ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.K.K.Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Anil Bhat, Ms. Raavi Birbal, Mr. S.K.Pandey, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated December 20, 2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No.99/2003 whereby the Industrial Tribunal has answered the reference by holding that the petitioners-workmen are not the employees of the management M/s. Indraprastha Gas Limited (respondent No.1 herein) and denied the relief of regularization to them.2. It may be noted here that the Industrial Dispute was espoused by a Union called Vyapar Thatha Udyog Karamchari Sangh with respect to 216 claimants/workmen. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:16. 05.2014 Judgment delivered on:28. 07.2014 W.P.(C) 7610/2013 SARVESH SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Suresh Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms Zubeda Begum, Advocate with Ms Sana Ansari, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (herein referred as petitioner) seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Government of NCT of Delhi (herein referred to as respondent No.1) and Medical Superintendent, Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital (herein referred as respondent No.2) to award the tender for security services to the petitioner company on the basis of the rate submitted by the petitioner instead of the rate which has been ...
Tag this Judgment!VipIn @ Kake Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: July 23, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: July 28, 2014 % + CRL.A. 207/2012 VIPIN @ KAKE Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.H.R.Dhamija, Mr.N.S.Verma, Mr.N.S.Verma, Advs. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Vinod Diwakar, APP for State with Insp.Naresh Kumar PS Badarpur. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Vipin @ Kake has been held guilty of murder of Humayun. The finding of guilt has been returned on the basis of ocular testimony of Ram Avtar @ Bobby PW-15, the recovery of country made pistol with empty cartridge case at the instance of Vipin, FSL report and the mobile phone showing the presence of the appellant at the spot. All this happening on a sudden quarrel between Vipin and Humayun and could have been averted if Ram Avtar had reached in time with the ice-cream to cool their heated minds. The learned Trial Court after holding Vipin guilty for offenc...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h July, 2014 + CRL.A. 178/2012 MADAN LAL Through: ..... Appellant Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 28.09.2010 and order on sentence dated 29.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rohini in Sessions Case No.18/1 in case FIR No.65/2009, P.S. Model Town u/s 498A/304B IPC whereby the appellant was convicted for offence u/s 498A/304B IPC and was sentenced to undergo seven years simple imprisonment for offence u/s 304B IPC and sentenced to three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence u/s 498A IPC; in default of payment of fine to undergo further 9 months simple imprisonment.2. Prosecution case in nut-shell is that appellant Madanlal got married to Rakhi(since deceased) in February...
Tag this Judgment!Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Applied Electronics Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order reserved on:29. 01.2014 Order delivered on:28. 07.2014 FAO (OS) 138/2013 MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED ..... Appellant versus APPLIED ELECTRONICS LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Ravi Sikri and Mr Vaibhav Kalra, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr Arun Kumar Verma, Ms Mansi Wadhera and Mr Joydeep Bhattacharya, Advocates for R-1 Mr Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.CM No.15530/2013 1. The present is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order 41 Rule 22 (1) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code by M/s. Applied Electronics Limited (hereinafter referred to as applicant) seeking condonation of delay in filing the cross-objections in the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: + 28th July, 2014 CRL.A. 427/2014 MUKESH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Rajan Kashyap, Advocates versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. M.N.Dudeja, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State % CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 18th November, 2013 and order on sentence dated 25th November, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.84/2011 arising out of FIR No.119/2009 u/s 397/392/307/34 IPC registered with PS Chhawla, New Delhi whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, SI for a period of three months for the offence u/s 392/34 IPC. The accused was also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to under...
Tag this Judgment!Star India Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Haneeth Ujwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: July 28, 2014 + CS(OS) 2243/2014 STAR INDIA PVT LTD & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sidharth Chopra, Ms.Sneha Jain, Mr.Prateek Chadha and Ms.Savni Dutt, Advs. versus HANEETH UJWAL & ORS Through ..... Defendants None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) I.A. No.13873/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 13 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing the originals of the documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to originals being produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents. The application is disposed of. I.A. No.13874/2014 This is an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking exemption from filing the certified copies, clear copies, translations of documents and the left side margin. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to just...
Tag this Judgment!indra Prakash Vs. K.R.Rastogi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.246/2014 28th July , 2014 % INDRA PRAKASH Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Adv. VERSUS K.R.Rastogi Through: ...... Respondent Respondent in person CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Respondent appears in person and seeks adjournment. Adjournment cannot be granted without any reasonable cause, and simply because his advocate chooses not to appear this case has to be adjourned, more so because there is a very limited issue of the first appeal before the first appellate court having been dismissed as barred by delay of 138 days and which order dismissing the appeal as time barred is challenged in this petition.2. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR1998SC3222that once condonation of delay is sought, impliedly there is some sort of negligence, however, the same is not enough to d...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Devidayal Stainless Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Prakash De ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 706/2014 & CM No.11901/2014 % 28th July , 2014 M/S DEVIDAYAL STAINLESS STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ......Petitioner Through: Ms. Anupama Kaul, Adv. for Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv. VERSUS SMT. PRAKASH DEVI ANAND Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 30.1.2014 by which the trial court has allowed the application of the respondent/landlord for recalling of the witness Sh. Atam Aggarwal for cross-examination. The main petition is a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction on the ground of subletting.2. The first date which was fixed for cross-examination of the witness of the petitioner (respondent in the eviction petition) was 9.10.2012 when witness appeared and tendered his evidence but the counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Mudgal Vs. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:28. h July, 2014. % + WP(C) No.6041/2001 MANOJ KUMAR MUDGAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi for Mr. A.K. De, Advocate. Versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates. AND WP(C) No.6042/2001 RAJEEV TOKAS Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi for Mr. A.K. De, Advocate. Versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates. CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 Both petitions impugn the separate but identical Office Memorandums, both dated 10th July, 2001 of the respondent IIT, Delhi discontinuing the services of each of the petitioners as Swimming Coachcum -Life Guard in the respondent IIT with immediate effect. The petitions also seek the relief of reinstatement of each of the petitioners with all consequential benefits and regularization of the services of the pet...
Tag this Judgment!