Delhi Court August 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 16 of about 306 results (0.009 seconds)Shanti Devi Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO4182013 Decided on 12th August, 2014 SHANTI DEVI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Bhavook Chauhan, Adv. versus STATE & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Vishal Bakshi, Adv. for R-2. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Appellant has challenged the order dated 19th September, 2013 passed by the Administrative Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on a petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act filed by the respondent no.2 for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities of Late Shri Sant Singh and Late Smt. Karmo Bai, parents of respondent no.2. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are sisters of appellant. Respondent no.2 had taken a plea before the trial court that appellant was not entitled to succeed the estate of Late Shri Sant Singh and Late Smt. Karmo Bai since she was adopted by her unlce, that is, Justice Gopal Singh. Trial court has granted successi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Ai-nafees Frozen Food Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Principal Sercrtary (Re ...
Court: Delhi
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12. h August, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 4555/2014 M/S AI-NAFEES FROZEN FOOD EXPORTS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Mohan Lal Saggar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jatinder Kumar and Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advs. versus PRINCIPAL SERCRTARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. V.K. Tandon and Mr. Yogesh Jain, Advs. with Mr. Ramesh Kumar, SDM, Rajouri Garden, Mr. Jitender Kumar, Inspector, District-Line, West and Sub-Inspector Ravi Shankar, New Delhi District. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition the petitioner is seeking directions to quash order dated 29.03.2014 passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Ramesh Kumar, SDM, Rajouri Garden, Government of NCT of Delhi whereby he directed the SHO, Tilak Nagar to demolish the unauthorised wall raised by the petitioner at Khasra No.15/17, village Titarpur near Pacific Mall, Delhi.2. By the e...
Tag this Judgment!Rukma Singh Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :07.08.2014 Judgment delivered on :12.08.2014 + CRL.REV.P. 208/2011 & Crl .M.A.No.5206/2011 RUKMA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Satender Sharma and Mr.Yudhvir Sharma, Advs. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP for the State/R-1 along with Mr.Rajiv Ranjan, DCP and SI Vijay. Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Manu Sharma, Advocate for R-2. + W.P.(CRL) 25/2013 & Crl .M.A.No.117/2013 SUHAIB ILYASI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manu Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP for the State/R-1 along with Mr.Rajiv Ranjan, DCP and SI Vijay Mr.Satender Sharma and Mr. Yudhvir Sharma, Advs. for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. Criminal Revision Petition 208/2011 is directed against the impugned order dated 19.02.2011 wherein the application filed by the petitioner/complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Gupta and ors. Vs. Chief Postmaster and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12th August, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 4087/2014 PREM CHAND GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Adv. versus CHIEF POSTMASTER & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. A.K. Gautam and Mr. M.P. Singh, Advs. for R1 and R2. Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for R3 with Mr. Parveen Kumar, O/O SDM, Kotwali. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.04.2014, whereby they were directed to deposit Rs.70,64,623/- by 15.05.2014 failing which action for the realization of the dues will be taken as per Section 67 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.2. On receipt of the aforesaid communication, the petitioners applied under RTI whether the recovery certificate has been issued by the respondent No.1. In response thereto, respondent no.1 replied as under: (i) No such certificate has been issued. (ii) No correspondence has been made for recovery certificate ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalip Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:12th August, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.2965/2014 DALIP SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Suraj Singh, Advocate. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Surya Nath Pandey, Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter No.F.32(47)/25/89L&B/ALT13534dated 27.11.2013 issued by the respondent rejecting the case of the petitioner.2. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 12.05.2014, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent on advance notice and sought time to verify the records for making his submissions on the issue whether the petitioners predecessor, i.e., Shri Hanumant, recorded owner had applied during his lifetime for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land.3. On instructions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Punjab Tractor and or ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on August 12, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5045/2014 PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Karan Khanna, Advocate with Mr.A.Kumar, Advocate versus M/S. PUNJAB TRACTOR & ORS. Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(Oral) 1. There are several reasons why we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).2. The first reason is that the order-in-original was passed by the DRAT on 07.11.2012. The said order disposed of the original application filed by the Central Bank of India. The petitioner herein by way of the Assignment Deed dated 22.03.2013 stepped into and acquired rights from Central Bank of India. Subsequently, they filed an appeal before the DRAT on 03.07.2013. The said appeal was belated and delayed by 192 days and has been dismissed by the DRAT for the said reason, vide order...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Yadav and anr Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3460/2014 MANOJ KUMAR YADAV & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Maroof Ahmed, Mr. B. U. Barqi, Advocates. versus STATE & ANR Through ..... Respondents Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor. ASI Gurcharan Singh, New Ashok Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. Nos.11958/2014 & 11959/2014 Exemptions, as prayed for, are allowed, subject to all just exceptions. These application are disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.3460/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that FIR No.177/2011 dated 15.06.2011 registered under Section 363 IPC at police station New Ashok Nagar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed since the parties have entered into a compromise.2. Issue notice.3. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, accepts notice.4. Second respondent, who is the complainant, is also present in person.5. The Investigating Officer, A...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Khosla Vs. Honble Company Law Board and ors
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:19. th May, 2014 Judgment pronounced on:12. th August, 2014 % + Cont. Cas(C) 959/2013 DEEPAK KHOSLA .....PETITIONER Through: In person Versus HON BLE COMPANY L AW B OARD & ORS .RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advocate CORA M: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. The Petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition alleging contempt of order dated 08.10.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.7651 of 2009 titled Deepak Khosla & another Versus Union of India & others.2. It is contended that by order dated 8.10.2009 had directed the Registry of this Court, the Court s ======================================================================= subordinate to this Court and the Tribunals and Foras in Delhi that proper scrutiny of vakalatnama filed should be effected and vakalatnama which are not properly executed be not take...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh JaIn and anr. Vs. Ndmc and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.746/2014 & CM No.13070/2014 (stay) 12th August , 2014 % RAMESH JAIN & ANR. Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Adv. VERSUS NDMC & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Kapil Dutta, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, standing counsel for R-2/DDA. 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 concurrent order and judgment passed by the courts below ; of the trial court dated 4.6.2013 and the first appellate court dated 28.4.2014 respectively; by which the injunction application of the petitioners/plaintiffs has been dismissed. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs was that they had purchased the suit property being No.HR-12C, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi admeasuring 170 sq. yds from one Smt. Meera Kanwaria through usual documentation of Agreement to sell, General Power of At...
Tag this Judgment!Dayal Kishan Phadiyal Vs. Sukhmal Jain
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC Rev. No.268/2014 & C.M.Nos.13093-94/2014 12th August, 2014 % DAYAL KISHAN PHADIYAL Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate. versus SUKHMAL JAIN Through ..... Respondent counsel for the respondent (appearance not given) CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. On the first call, the matter was passed over on the request of the petitioner that the counsel is led by a senior counsel and which senior counsel is arguing in another court. It was stated that the matter be passed over as the senior counsel will be free in a short time. The matter was hence passed over, but, even on the second call after one hour of the pass over, only one another counsel appears for the petitioner and again prays for a pass over on the ground that the senior counsel is held up yet in another case. For this reason that the case cannot be kept on hold at convenience, counsel for the respon...
Tag this Judgment!