Delhi Court August 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.
Dayal Kishan Phadiyal Vs. Sukhmal Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
* 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...
Synthes Medical P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. ............
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
$~3 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 274/2014 IN THE MATTER OF: SYNTHES MEDICAL P. LTD. & ANR. ..... PETITIONER Through: Mr. D. Bhattacharya and Ms. Deeti Ojha, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Atma Sah, and Assistant Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director. Mr. Rajiv Behl Advocate Official Liquidator. for the CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER1208.2014 % SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. This second motion petition has been filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) seeking sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation (Scheme) of Synthes Medical Private Limited Company) (hereinafter with referred Johnson & to as Johnson Transferor Limited ================================================== CO.PET. 274 /2014 1 (hereinafter referred (Transferor Company to as Transferee hereinafter Company) referred to as Petitioner Company) and their respective shareholders. A copy of the Scheme has been enclosed with the petition.2. The registered of...
Sh. Saurabh a Prakash Vs. the Projects and Equipments Corporation of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EX.F.A.No.26/2013 % AUGUST12 2014 SH. SAURABH A PRAKASH Through: ......Appellant Appellant in person. VERSUS THE PROJECTS & EQUIPMENTS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. ...... Respondent Through: Mr.Sajneev Narula, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This execution first appeal impugns the order of the executing court dated 23.7.2013 which has accepted the objections filed by the respondent//judgment debtor and made certain observations as to how the money decree in favour of the petitioner/decree holder will stand satisfied.2. the It is not an issue that the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by petitioner/plaintiff/decree holder against the respondent/defendant/judgment debtor was decreed in terms of the judgment dated 09.5.2005. So far as the money decree for mesne profits is concerned, the operative portion is contained in para 16 of the judgment of the ...
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl. Rev. No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 Date of Decision:12. h August, 2014 DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE ..Petitioner Through : Mr. V. Madhukar, Mr. Paritosh Anil, Mr. Jayendra, Mr. V. Bhatt, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. appointed as Amicus Curiae VERSUS UOI & ANR. Through: ....Respondents Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State. Mr. Amit Chadha, Adv. for applicant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL GITA MITTAL, J It is highly deplorable and heart-rending to note that many poverty stricken children and girls in the prime of youth are taken to 'flesh market' and forcibly pushed into the 'flesh trade' which is being carried on in utter violation of all cannons of morality, decency and dignity of humankind. There cannot be two opinionsindeed there is nonethat this obnoxious and abominable crime Crl Rev.No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 1 committed with all kinds of unthinkable vulgarity should be eradicated at all levels by dras...
Mohd. Umar and anr. Vs. Mohd. Islam and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC REV. No.101/2013 12th August, 2014 % MOHD. UMAR & ANR. Through versus MOHD. ISLAM & ORS. Through ..... Petitioners Ms.Kumkum Jain, Advocate. ..... Respondents Mr.Vijay Tandon, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugning the judgment dated 05.9.2012 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioners/tenants and has decreed the eviction petition for bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the tenanted premises comprising of one room dalan on the ground floor along with a tin shed and one tin shed in the first floor of property no.2648, Mohalla Niarian, Behind G.B.Road, Delhi as shown in red and yellow colour in the site plan annexed...
Beetashok Chatterjee Vs. Lovely Chanda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order delivered on: August 12, 2014 I.A. No.3125/2013 in CS(OS) No.914/2012 BEETASHOK CHATTERJEE .....Plaintiff Through Mr.Anil Kumar, Adv. along with plaintiff in person. versus LOVELY CHANDA & ANR Through ..Defendants Mr.Vikas Dhawan, Adv. with Mr.S.P.Das & Mr.S.Panda, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the application being I.A. No.3125/2013 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by defendant No.1 seeking for rejection of the plaint.2. The plaintiff has filed the above said suit for recovery of damages for a sum of Rs.20,10,000/- against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell dated 31st August, 2007 in respect of the entire first floor with one servant quarter having common toilet/bath (temporary structure) for use only on the top terrace, with full structure sta...
State Vs. Nirale Miyan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 446/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Inspector K.P.Sah, PS Madhu Vihar. versus NIRALE MIYAN & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER1208.2014 % Crl.M.A.No.11052/2014 (delay in filing) and 11054/2014 (delay in refiling) 1. For the reasons stated in the applications the delay of 72 days in filing and delay of 50 days in refiling the leave to appeal petition is condoned.2. Applications are disposed of. CRL.L.P. 446/2014 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated November 16, 2013 acquitting the respondents for the charge of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC the State has filed the present petition seeking leave to appeal.2. Learned counsel for the State contends that since the prosecutrix lodged the complaint belatedly due to fear of the respondents, the same cannot be a ground to disbeli...
Smt. Chintamani Devi Vs. Vijay Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.117/2013 11th August , 2014 % SMT. CHINTAMANI DEVI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Nalin Tripathi, Advocate. versus VIJAY KUMAR Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 29.11.2012 by which the trial Court has directed the petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit for possession in terms of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and which Section deals with the suit for possession. Admittedly, the subject suit is a suit for declaration, injunction and possession.2. Counsel for the petitioner argues that relief of possession is consequential to the relief of declaration and therefore court fee need not be paid on the relief of possession under...
Krishna Vs. Tehsildar (Ali Pur) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:11. h August, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5050/2014 KRISHNA Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Rambir Chauhan, Advocate. Versus TEHSILDAR (ALI PUR) & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Jayendra, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents for conducting demarcation of Khasra No.55/16/2, admeasuring (1-0), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Bakhtawar Pur, Delhi.2. Mr.Rambir Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after the approval from the Tehsildar, the petitioner deposited the requisite fee on 04.07.2014 and his application seeking demarcation was registered on 07.07.2014.3. He further submits that owner of the adjoining property is an encroacher and raising construction, therefore, immediate demarcation is required.4. Notice issued.5. Mr.Jayendra, learned counsel ...
Sh.Gurdeep Singh Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 740/2014 & C.M.No.12917-12918/2014 % AUGUST11 2014 SH.GURDEEP SINGH Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Baljeet Singh, Advocate. VERSUS BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order of the First Appellate Court dated 06.6.2014 by which the First Appellate Court directed that if the petitioner/plaintiff wants an electricity connection, then besides paying the bill towards normal arrears, the petitioner shall also pay 50% charges of the assessment bill dated 21.5.2014 raised for direct theft of electricity of Rs.1,55,855/-.2. Surely, electricity companies cannot be directed to give electricity connections once pending arrears/amounts/dues on of account direct theft are alleged to exist, inasmuch as, if connections are granted inspite of c...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »