Delhi Court August 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 30 of about 306 results (0.010 seconds)Uoi and ors. Vs. Sh. Ramesh Chander Pal
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:04. 08.2014 + W.P.(C) 13849/2009 UOI AND ORS. Through : None. ..... Petitioners Versus SH. RAMESH CHANDER PAL ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Arpit Maheshwari, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The Union of India (UOI), by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 21.05.2009 in O.A. No.685/2008. The CAT had directed the grant of second financial upgradation under the prevailing Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) to the respondent. Apparently, such benefit had been granted to the respondent (hereafter referred to as the employee) but subsequently withdrawn. His unsuccessful representations impelled him to approach the CAT.2. The brief facts are that the employee was first appointed to the service of the petitioner in the year 1974 as Mazdoor in the pay...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~R-2A * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :24. 7.2014 Judgment delivered on :04. 8.2014 CRL.818/2001 SANDEEP KUMAR Through ..... Appellant Mr.R.N.Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 23.10.2001 and 31.10.2001 wherein the appellant Sandeep along with co-accused Sunny had been convicted under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC and each of them had been directed to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for six months. 2 The co-accused Sunny was declared a juvenile and his matter was remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board. 3 Record shows that on the statement of A (PW-1) the present FIR has been registered under Sections 366/376/34 of the IPC. Besides the present petitioner and co-accused Sunny there wer...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Bhim SaIn Shastri (Now Deceased) Through His L Vs. Sh. Sharat Chan ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC REV No.257/2014 4th August, 2014 % SH. BHIM SAIN SHASTRI (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS ......Petitioners Through: Mr. P.L. Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS SH. SHARAT CHAND & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) Caveat No.640/2014 1. Counsel appears for the caveators and thus the caveat stands discharged. + RC. REV. No.257/2014 and C.M. No.12334/2014 (stay) 2. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is filed impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 28.4.2014 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application and has passed an eviction order in the petition for bonafide necessity with respect to the tenanted premises being shop bearing private no.2, property no.230, Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Pal Vs. Land and Building Department
Court: Delhi
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:4. hAugust, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 7123/2013 SUNDER PAL ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. N.S. Dalal and Mr. Amit Rana, Advs. Versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Despite repeated opportunities, counter-affidavit filed by the respondent is not on record. Therefore, respondents right to file counteraffidavit is forfeited.2. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to quash the order dated 16.08.2013 vide which the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquisition of the land of the petitioner was ordered to be rejected on the ground of limitation.3. Vide impugned order dated 16.08.2013, respondent passed order as under:With reference to the above-mentioned subject, it is to inform you that your case for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acqu...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Hari Chand
Court: Delhi
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 387/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp. Sanjeev Kumar PS S.B.Dairy. versus HARI CHAND ..... Respondent Represented by: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA % Crl.M.A. 9718/2014 ORDER0408.2014 For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 66 days in filing the petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 387/2014 1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated December 11, 2013 passed by the learned ASJ acquitting the respondent of the offence of murder of his wife Kusum.2. The FIR was registered on the complaint of PW-1 Sewa Ram, the father of the deceased who stated that he had married the deceased with Hari Chand about 8-10 years ago. Initially, for 3-4 years Hari Chand behaved well with his daughter, however thereafter he started taking intoxicants and used to frequently quarrel with her. CRL.L.P. 387/2014 On ...
Tag this Judgment!Smithkline and French Laboratories Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mohd. Mateen and ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :4. h August, 2014 % + CS(OS) 797/2006 SMITHKLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES LTD. AND ANR. ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr.Maanav Kumar, Advocate. versus MOHD. MATEEN AND ANR. Through : ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, damages and delivery up. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are selling counterfeit product of plaintiff i.e. IODEX.2. Summons were issued in the suit on 10.05.2006. While issuing summons in the suit an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Defendant No.1 entered appearance on 08.09.2006, while fresh summons were issued to defendant No.2 on the same date. Defendant No.2 entered appearance on 17.10.2006. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement on 17.10.2006 and de...
Tag this Judgment!Harjinder Pal Singh Vs. R Karthikeyan
Court: Delhi
$~17. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1077/2013 % Judgment dated 04.08.2014 HARJINDER PAL SINGH Through : ..... Plaintiff Mr.Rajat Aneja and Ms.Aarohi Holani, Advs. versus R KARTHIKEYAN Through : ..... Defendant Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Ms.Soniya Budholia, Mr.Harpreet Singh and Ms.Swati Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) I.A.NOS.12762/2013 & 3928/2014 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.57,40,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18%, per annum. Present suit is based on dishonour of four cheques in the sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs, each. Plaintiff also seeks a decree on admissions.2. Reliance is placed by the plaintiff on a copy of the application drafted and signed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC wherein the defendant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.62.00 lakhs in full and final settlement to the plaintiff.3. I.A.No...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Anoop Singh
Court: Delhi
$~ 31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 342/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Lovekesh Sawhney, APP for the State. versus ANOOP SINGH ..... Respondent Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER0408.2014 % Crl.M.A.No.7961/2014 (Delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application 32 days delay in filing the petition is condoned.2. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 342/2014 1. By the present petition the State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated November 25, 2013 whereby the respondent Anoop Singh has been acquitted for offence under Section 302 IPC while the learned Trial Court convicted the co-accused Prem Singh for offence under Section 302 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Trial Court ignored vital pieces of evidence which emerged during trial and failed to appreciate that Anoop Singh was in conspiracy with Prem Singh. The CDRs of the mobil...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Jagtar and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:1. t August, 2014 + DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE No.5/2010 STATE Through ..... Petitioner Ms.Swati Goswami, Adv. for Mr.Dayan Krishnan, ASC with Inspector Rajveer Singh, PS S.P. Badli Versus JAGTAR & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal, Adv. with Adit S. Pujari, Adv. & Mr.Rahul Kumar, Adv. Crl.A. No.979/2008 AMAR BHADUR THAPAS S/O GYAN BHADUR THAPA .... Petitioner Through Mr.Sumer K. Sethi, Adv. Versus STATE Through ..... Respondents Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP S.I. Amit Rathee, PS Model Town. WITH Death Sentence Ref.No.5/2010, Crl.A.Nos.979/2008, 1087/2010 & 1301/2010 1 + Crl.A. No.1087/2010 RAVINDER ..... Petitioner Mr.Sumer K. Sethi, Adv. Through Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP AND + Crl.A. No.1301/2010 NOOR JAHAN ALIAS HASEENA & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Vivek Sood & Mr.Vishwanath Pratap Singh, Advs. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through ...
Tag this Judgment!Parminder Kaur Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h May, 2014 Pronounced on: August 01, 2014 + CRL. A. 544/2011 PARMINDER KAUR Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Avninder Singh with Ms. Sumi Anand, Advocates Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through + Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP CRL. A. 209/2012 MANDEEP SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Manish Kaushik with Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocates Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G.P. MITTAL, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 23.03.2011 and order on sentence dated 31.03.2011 arising out of FIR No.594/ 2007, P.S. Defence Colony (Sessions Case No.03/2010/2008) whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) read with Section 34 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment f...
Tag this Judgment!