Delhi Court August 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 25 of about 306 results (0.020 seconds)Prabhakar Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:07. 08.2014 % W.P.(C) 11995/2009 PRABHAKAR SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Manoj Prasad, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh and Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Amita Singh, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) C.M. No.7969/2014 For the reasons stated in the application, the application for early hearing is allowed. The writ petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties. W.P.(C) 11995/2009 1. The writ petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) dated 20.08.2009 passed in O.A. No.1071/2002. The impugned order rejected his claim for seniority over the fourth respondent (hereafter Dr. Sanjay Singh) in the cadre of Deputy Legislative Counsel (DLC).2. Briefly, the...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sudhir Sabharwal Vs. Shri Rajesh Pruthi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve:23. 01.2014 Date of Decision:07. 08.2014 + CM(M) 1087/2013 & CM No.16069/2013 SHRI SUDHIR SABHARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Rashmi Verma, Advs. versus SHRI RAJESH PRUTHI Through: ..... Respondent Mr. B.M.Bharti, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 This petition impugns an order dated 10.9.2013 whereby the petitioner/plaintiffs application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The petitioner had filed a suit seeking decree of possession in their favour against the respondent in respect of the premises in dispute. The application sought made decree on the basis of admissions by the respondent/defendant in his written statement. The petitioner/plaintiff is a landlord of property No.G-27/4, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Its ground floor comprising two bed rooms with attached bathroom, kitchen, drawing room and portion of the f...
Tag this Judgment!Guddu Ram Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:07. h August, 2014 + CRL.A. 387/2013 & Crl.M.A.10658/2014 GUDDU RAM Through: ..... Appellant Mr. K.Singhal, Adv. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for the State. % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA : SUNITA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 24.08.2012 and order on sentence dated 27.08.2012 in Session Case No.51/12 arising out of FIR No.17/11, P.S. Palam village, vide which the appellant was convicted for offences u/s 363/366 IPC and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for offence punishable u/s 363 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for offence u/s 366 IPC. Both the sentences were to r...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Garg Vs. Neeta Singhal
Court: Delhi
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:7. h August, 2014 + I.A.No.4821/2014 (Order VI Rule 17 CPC) in CS (OS) 347/2010 ARVIND GARG ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Lalit Gupta, Mr.Jatin Kumar and Ms.Garima Goel, Advocates. versus NEETA SINGHAL Through: ..... Defendant Mr. Shoeb Shakeel, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL G.P. MITTAL J.(ORAL) 1. This is the third application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC preferred by the Plaintiff. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. According to the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, since explanations about income, financial status and acquisition of the properties were to be given, a second application for amendment of the plaint was moved which came to be dismissed on merits by this court by an order dated 06.12.2013.2. During hearing of the earlier said second application, it was urged by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff that by virtue of the amendments, the P...
Tag this Judgment!National Investor Forum Regd. Vs. Golden Forests India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:06. 08.2014 + W.P.(C) 1399/2010 NATIONAL INVESTOR FORUM REGD. ..... Petitioner versus GOLDEN FORESTS INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anip Sachthey & Ms. Shagun Matta, Advocates for GFI Society. Mr. Prashant Mehta, Mr. Ishan Arora & Mr. Himanshu Kapoor, Advocates for Nikhil Syar. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Manmeet Arora, Mr.Mohit Paul & Mr. Rishabh Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Radhey Sham Middha. Sh. Sukumar Patjoshi, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Prashant Katara, Advocate, for the successful bidder. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % C.M. No.8058/2014 1. This application is for confirmation of sale of 244 Kanals and 13 Marlas in Village Dangdehri, Tehsil & District, Ambala, which W.P.(C) 1399/2010 Page 1 was advertised by the Committee for Golden Forest on 10.05.2014 in several national newspapers. The last date fixed for receipt ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Bhatia and ors Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3450/2014 SUNIL BHATIA & ORS Through ..... Petitioners Mr. B. B. Sharma, Advocate. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Through Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor. Mr. A. K. Goel, Advocate for complainant. SI Inderpal Singh, P.S. Vivek Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.11929/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.3450/2014 1. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.504/2006, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC dated 01.012.2006 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, on the ground that the parties have settled the matter. It is stated that after filing of the chargesheet, the matter is pending before the trial court.2. Issue notice.3. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. A.K. Goel, counsel for the complainant, ...
Tag this Judgment!Abbu Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: August 06, 2014 + CRL.A. 814/2011 ABBU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL) 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we note with regret that the learned Trial Judge has overlooked two very critical aspects of concerning the instant case. The first concerns evidence and the second concerns the law.2. Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code stipulates that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The exception has been totally overlooked by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Judge has overlooked e...
Tag this Judgment!Pfizer Products, Inc Vs. Mittal Nathalal Patel and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~22. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : August 06, 2014 + CS(OS) 3271/2012 PFIZER PRODUCTS, INC Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr.Julian George, Adv. versus MITTAL NATHALAL PATEL & ORS. ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Rajeshwar H., Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Trademark VIAGRA, passing off, rendition of accounts, delivery up and damages against the defendants.2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application were issued on 16.11.2012. Defendants entered appearance on 17.12.2012 and sought time to file the written statement. As the Defendants did not file the written statement, on 1.4.2013, costs of Rs 10,000 was imposed on Defendants and their application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was allowed. On 24.9.2013 it was submitted by counsel for the Defendants that Defendants have discontinued manufacturing and marketing the products under...
Tag this Judgment!Narender Singh Chaudhary and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3375/2014 NARENDER SINGH CHAUDHARY & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Ms. Karuna Chhatwal, Advocate. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through Mr. P. K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. ASI D. Kumar. Mr. Pramod Ahuja and Mr. Umesh Tyagi, Advocates for complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A. No.11699/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off. Crl.M.C. No.3375/2014 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.870/2006 dated 14.10.2006 under Section 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Dwarka on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.2. Issue notice.3. Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Advocate for the complainant, accept notice.4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Cnb Finwiz Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:6. h August, 2014 + ITA12412011 CIT Through Counsel. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, ..... Appellant Jr. Standing versus CNB FINWIZ LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) This appeal by the Revenue, which pertains to assessment year 2005-06, in the case of CNB Finwiz Ltd., raises the following substantial question of law:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income from sale of shares should not be assessed as business income but as short-term capital gains?.3. The respondent-assessee, had for the assessment year 2005-06, filed original return on 30th October, 2005, declaring income of Rs.1,46,09,330/-. The assessment order records that the respondent- assessee was a share broker registered with the National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange and engaged in business of sale and pu...
Tag this Judgment!