Delhi Court August 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 23 of about 306 results (0.019 seconds)State Vs. Lalit Kumar
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 415/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State. versus LALIT KUMAR ..... Respondent Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER0808.2014 % 1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the order dated April 30, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent of the charge for offence punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on August 14, 2010 at 11.59 PM an information was received from PCR at PS Narela that a dead body of a woman was lying at the Pump House near DDA flats which was recorded by DD No.84/B. SI Devender Singh on reaching the spot noticed the dead body of a woman of 26-27 years. She had injury mark on her left parietal region and blood stained sky blue plastic katta was lying near the body. Blood was scattered all over the ground and was flowing due to...
Tag this Judgment!Anuradha Shastri Vs. Religare Securities Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CM(M) No.1480/2011 7th August , 2014 ANURADHA SHASTRI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. L.K.Bhushan and Mr. Anirudh Arunkumar, Advocates. VERSUS RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD. Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Gulshan Sharma, 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 court below dated 13.10.2011 by which the trial court reviewed its earlier judgment dated 20.4.2011, by which the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of the petitioner/defendant was allowed. Therefore, the effect of the impugned order is that the Section 8 application stands dismissed.2. The judgment dated 20.4.2011 shows that the Member-Client- Agreement which was entered into between the parties is admitted and Page 1 of 8 CMM14802011 Clauses 14 and 18 of t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Service Bureau of India Vs. Smt Aarti Phull
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1029/2013 & C.M.No.15405/2013 (for stay) % AUGUST07 2014 M/S SERVICE BUREAU OF INDIA ......Petitioner Through: Mr.Parveen Mehdiratta, Advocate. VERSUS SMT AARTI PHULL Through: ...... Respondent Mr.Dhruv Mohan, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 01.8.2013 which has allowed the amendment application filed by the landlord/respondent (petitioner in the eviction petition) to amend his eviction petition to correct the typographical mistake of the date of the legal notice from 07.8.2009 to 10.8.2009.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ...
Tag this Judgment!S.Shankar and anr. Vs. M/S.Rama Panels Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: August 05, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: August 07, 2014 FAO(OS) 461/2013 S. SHANKAR & ANR. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.N.Srinivasan, Attorney versus M/S. RAMA PANELS PVT. LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.D.K.Malhotra, Advocate with Mr.Rajesh Kumar Malhotra, Advocate FAO(OS) 47/2014 M/S. RAMA PANEL PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.D.K.Malhotra, Advocate with Mr.Rajesh Kumar Malhotra, Advocate versus S. SHANKAR & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.N.Srinivasan, Attorney CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. S.Shankar and his wife Rajalakshmi are the owners of a flat at the rear of the first floor of property bearing Municipal No.M-78, Greater Kailash, part II, New Delhi. Sh.N.Srinivasan is the father of S.Shankar and holds a power of attorney in his favour executed by his son and his daughter-in-law and under s...
Tag this Judgment!Harita Pandey Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:7. h August, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 7009/2013 HARITA PANDEY ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. L.M. Asthana and Mr. Siddhant Asthana, Advs. versus GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Sanjeev Goyal and Ms. Sneh Thakur, Advs. for R1, R2 and R4. Mr. N.S. Dalal, Adv. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) CM. No.4653/2014 1. Vide the instant application, applicant is seeking the following prayers:1. That the petitioner be allowed to amend the petition in Paragraph No.1, 2 and 3(a) to the effect that the property description therein be taken as 1 Bigha 17 Biswas bearing Mustatil No.119 in Khasra No.8 min situated in revenue estate of village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.2. That the description of the property in the order dated 21/11/2013 be read as 1 Bigha 17 Biswas bearing Mustatil No.119 in Khsra No.8 min situated in revenue estate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Pandurang Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: July 31, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: August 07 , 2014 % + CRL.A. 725/2014 GANESH PANDURANG Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Inderjeet Sindhu, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: .... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP Insp.Ravinder Kumar, PS Darya Ganj SI Yogendra Kumar, PS Tughlak Road. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Ganesh Pandurang a Constable of CRPF, 73 Battalion is convicted of the murder of his colleague while being posted as Guard at 6, Akbar Road, New Delhi vide impugned judgment dated August 12, 2010 on the strength of witnesses in and outside the place of incident and the bullets being fired from his service rifle. Vide the impugned order dated August 18, 2010, he has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.2. Ganesh Pandurang assails t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Tandon and ors. Vs. M/S. Magiq Intershoppe Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~15. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1291/2012 % Judgment dated 07.08.2014 RAJESH TANDON AND ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.A.K. Singhla, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Deepak R. Dahiya, Advs. versus M/S MAGIQ INTERSHOPPE PVT LTD & ORS Through : None. ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of possession of the first floor and the second floor of the property bearing no.G-3, South Extension, Part I, New Delhi. A decree for mesne profits, interest and costs is also prayed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.2. As per the plaint, plaintiffs no.1 to 4 are the owners of a two and a half storeyed built up commercial immovable property raised on Plot no.3, Block G, admeasuring 250 sq. yards, situated at South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Further, as per the plaint, on 28.11.1979, plaintiff no.5 entered into a Franchise Agreement with defen...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyani Alstom Power Limited and ors. Vs. ..............
Court: Delhi
$~21 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 226 /2014 IN THE MATTER OF SAROJ IMPEX LIMITED & A NR PRIVATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Mittal, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Atma Sah, Assistant Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director. Mr. Rajiv Bhel Advocate for the official Liquidator. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER % 06.08.2014 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. This second motion joint Petition has been filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) seeking sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation Limited (Scheme) of Saroj Impex Private (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company) with Elina Electrotech Private Limited ================================================ CO.PET. 226 /2014 1 (hereinafter referred to as Transferee Company) (Collectively referred as the Petitioner Companies). A copy of the Scheme has been enclose d with the petition.2. The registered offices of the Petitioner Companies are situated at ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Aggarwal Vs. M/S Amitex Polymers Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:7. h August, 2014 % CO.PET. 53/2012 ASHOK AGGARWAL .... PETITIONER Through Mr. Pankaj Advocate. Bhagat, versus M/S AMITEX POLYMERS PVT LTD .... RESPONDENT Through Mr. Amit Jagga, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed in Court today an e-mail dated 02.05.2011. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the e-mail does not support the case of the Petitioner and he has no objection to the same being taken on record. The said document is, accordingly, taken on record. Registry is directed to scan and upload the said document.2. The Petitioner has filed the present petition for winding up of the Respondent Company under Section 433(e). The contention of the Petitioner is ======================================================== Co. Pet.53/2012 Page 1 of 7 that the Respondent through its Director approached the Petitioner in February 2011 for...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Sharma Vs. Laxmi Narayan and anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 1163/2013 & CM No.17104/2013 % AUGUST07 2014 DINESH SHARMA Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate. VERSUS LAXMI NARAYAN & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents Mr.Sanjay Singh with Mr.Vijay Kumar Raki, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 24.8.2013 which has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being added as a defendant in a suit for possession filed by the respondent no.1 herein against the respondent no.2 herein.2. A reference to the written statement filed by respondent no.2 in the suit shows that respondent no.2 in preliminary objection no.3 has stated that he was not the tenant in the suit shop; the suit shop was in the tenancy of one Dinesh Kumar Sharma; and Dine...
Tag this Judgment!