Delhi Court August 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 9 of about 306 results (0.018 seconds)Surya Pratap Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.760 of 2010 Reserved on:30. h July 2014 Decision on:21. t August 2014 SHAKUN GROVER Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Mr. Pranav Proothi, Mr. Sarim Naved, Ms. Ria Singh Sawhney, Ms. Soumya Jha and Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, Advocates versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate. WITH CRL.A. No.767 of 2010 CHANDERKANT VERMA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Burman, Mr. Aditya Swarup Agarwal, Mr. Harsit Khurana, and Mr. Amritesh Raj, Advocates. versus STATE THR. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate. AND CRL.A. No.819 of 2010 SURYA PRATAP SINGH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Saket Singh, Advocate. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel for CBI. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2108.2014 Introduction 1. These three...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Chand Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2066/2013 and Crl.M (Bail) No.829/2014 POORAN CHAND SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen Malhotra and Mr. Nitendra Kumar, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: % ..... Respondents Mr. Pavan Narang, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms.Vasundhara Chauhan and Mr. Lohitaksha Shukla, Advocates. Date of Decision : August 20, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.(Oral) 1. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling upon the Respondents to forthwith set the Petitioner at liberty after quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 02.06.2010 bearing No.673/08/10-Cus.VIII passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA Act).2. The facts s...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:20th August, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.596/2013 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna and Mr. Vijay Kajaria, Advocates. Versus OM PRAKASH Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr. K. Venkataraman, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.W.P.(C) No.596/2013 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner Delhi Transport Corporation (for short DTC) has assailed the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court and the subsequent award dated 27.08.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, against the respondent workman (for short POLC).2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner DTC since 1982. On 05.06.1992, he was on Bus No.9206 plying on route No.838. When the bus was checked by the checking team at Uttam Nagar at 10.53 AM, said team found that th...
Tag this Judgment!Air India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. 08.2014 W.P.(C) 5255/2014 & CM No.10432/2014 AIR INDIA LTD. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Mukesh Kumar. For the Respondents : Mr Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for R-1 & 2. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. Issue notice.2. The learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 accepts notice.3. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 03.06.2014 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by respondent no.1. By the impugned order, the appeal preferred under Section 4 of the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) cum Civil Authority, Amritsar respondent no.2, was dismissed by the respondent no.1.4. By the said order dated 25.11.2013, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Vijay Kumar Kakkar Vs. Sh. Shiv Narayan Yadav
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CRP No.116/2014 20th August, 2014 SH. VIJAY KUMAR KAKKAR Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Ahlawat, Advocate. VERSUS SH. SHIV NARAYAN YADAV Through: ...... Respondent 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 10.7.2014 by which the trial court has struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant/tenant for non-compliance of the order for deposit of pendente lite rent which was passed on 25.3.2014.2. The only ground which was urged by the petitioner/defendant/tenant for non-compliance was that the order dated 25.3.2014 was not known by the counsel for the petitioner. Trial court has rejected this argument by observing that it is not conceivable that after passing a detailed order on a date when the counsel for the parties are present...
Tag this Judgment!Mithlesh Rai Vs. Amarnath Rai
Court: Delhi
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA4702013 Decided on 20th August, 2014 MITHLESH RAI ..... Appellant Through :Mr. Atul T. N. And Mr. Harsh Raghuvanshi, Advs. versus AMARNATH RAI Through ..... Respondent :Mr. Kedar Yadav and Mr. G.S. Upadhyaya, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Respondent filed a suit against the appellant for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 29th December, 2007 and in the alternative money decree for `4,00,000/-, that is, double the amount of earnest money of `2,00,000/-. Vide judgment and decree impugned in the appeal trial court has passed a decree in the sum of `2,00,000/- in favour of the respondent with interest @ 6% p.a. Relief of specific performance has been declined.2. Agreement to Sell Ex. PW1/1 was not disputed, inasmuch as was duly proved on record. A total sale consideration, as per the Agreement, was fixed at `6,00,000/-. It was admitted by the appellant that `2,00,000/was paid by the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Aarti Sharma Vs. Billu
Court: Delhi
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 473/2014 & C.M.Nos.8329-8330/2014 20th AUGUST, 2014 AARTI SHARMA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Munish Tyagi, Advocate. versus BILLU ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition impugns the order of the court below dated 02.4.2014 which has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed because as per the petitioner/defendant, the suit was not properly valued and the appropriate court fee was not paid. The subject suit is a suit for declaration and injunction.2. Trial court has held that since the respondent/plaintiff is not a party to the subject document which is sought to be voided, hence the plaintiff/respondent did not have to seek cancellation of the same and a suit for declaration that the document/sale deed was void was sufficient. T...
Tag this Judgment!Rajokri New Green Farms Association (Regd.) Vs. M/S. Leaflet Plantatio ...
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:20. h August, 2014 % + CS(OS) 1293/2010 RAJOKRI NEW GREEN FARMS ASSOCIATION(REGD)..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Bhuvan Gugnani & Mr.Anshul Garg, Advs. versus M/S LEAFLET PLANTATIONS PVT LTD & OTHERS..... Defendants Through: Mr.Sanjay Manchanda, Adv. for D-1 & D-2. Mr.Ashwani, Adv. for D-3 & D-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.Sistani, J.(Oral) IA No.13560/2014 1. This is an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC which has been filed by the defendants No.1 and 2. Kuldeep Sharma, the Executive Director of the plaintiff who is present in Court submits that he has entered into an amicable settlement with the defendants No.1 and 2. He further submits that he has perused IA No.13560/2014 and he is agreeable that the present suit may be decreed in terms of the application and the sale deeds in his favour may be declared null and void. He submits that he has also signed the compromise/MOU dated 30.05.2013 executed betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Santosh Kumar Jha Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 211 of 2008 Reserved on: July 25, 2014 Decision on: August 20, 2014 DR. SANTOSH KUMAR JHA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Umesh Sinha, Mr. Anil Singh, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Ms. Priyanka and Ms. Awasthi, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Spl. P.P. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2008.2014 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 13th February 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi in Criminal Complaint No.101 of 2006 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 18th February 2008 whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one year. Proceedings leading to the launch o...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunil Yadav
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. 08.2014 W.P.(C) 3396/2010 & CM68232010, 6824/2010 & 11333/2013 BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..... Petitioner versus SUNIL YADAV ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Ms Pratima N. Chauhan. For the Respondent : Ms Sana Ansari and Ms Ina Javed. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner is an insurance company and has filed the present petition impugning the award dated 21.05.2009 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order). By the impugned order, the claim made in respect of life insurance policy issued by the petitioner to Mamchand Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the policy holder) has been allowed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the respondent - Lt. Sh. Mamchand Yadav approached the petitioner for issuance of an insurance policy under the Dream Plan Policy, on 10.08.2007, for an a...
Tag this Judgment!