Delhi Court February 2015 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.
Rahul Kumar and Anr. Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
$~106 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 23, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 685/2015 & Crl.M.As. 2611-12/15 & 2653/15 RAHUL KUMAR & ANR Through: .....Petitioners Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with SI Vijya Kumar Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.78/2015 under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered at police station Pandav Nagar, Delhi is sought on the ground that petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife are living together happily for the last 3-4 months. Notice. Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by SI Vijay Kumar on the basis of...
Subhash Chander Vs. Siddharth Singhal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on 23rd February, 2015 % + I.A.Nos.19196/2013 & 19197/2013 in CS (OS) No.1410/2013 SUBHASH CHANDER Through ..... Plaintiff Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Narender Goyal, Adv. versus SIDDHARTH SINGHAL Through ....Defendant Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order I shall propose to decide the two following applications in the matter, the details of the same are given as under:(a) I. A.No.19196/2013 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of plaint. (b) I.A.No.19197/2013 under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff seeking impleadment of Mr. Ashok Kumar and the partnership firm M/s Sadhu Ram Manish Ram as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the array of parties.2. As per the original plaint the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII Rule 1 CPC for a sum of Rs.88,00,755/- again...
Union of India and Ors Vs. Devender Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of hearing and order: February 23, 2014. + W.P.(C) 4826/2014 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Through: versus DEVENDER KUMAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Anuj Aggarwal Advocate ..... Respondent Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA ORDER % 23.02.2015 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(Oral) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 21.02.2014 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No.179/2011 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application preferred by the respondent.2. Assailing the order dated 21.02.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent was engaged as part time casual labourer and therefore he had no vested right to occupy this post. He further submits that ...
Paramjeet Singh Khurana Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No.7022/2014 23rd February, 2015 PARAMJEET SINGH KHURANA Through: versus ..... Petitioner Mr.G.S.Chaturvedi, Advocate. PUNJAB & SIND BANK ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rajinder Wali, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. There are heights of dishonesty with certain litigants such as the petitioner resort to, and which besides causing gross wastage of judicial time also causes unnecessary expenditure to a respondent and which in this case is Punjab and Sind Bank. This I am saying so in view of the present facts of the case which are detailed below for dismissing this writ petition.2. The petitioner by this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the relief of direction against the respondent/Bank to quash the order dated 20.4.2012 by which the amounts due to the petitioner towards terminal dues were adjusted towards vari...
Priyaneet Kaur and Ors. Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
$~27 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:23. 02.2015 W.P.(C) 7803/2014 & CM183302014 PRIYANEET KAUR & ORS. ... Petitioners versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.1 For the Respondent No.2 For the Respondent/DDA : Mr Ms Smita Mann with Mr Vishal Maan :Mr Yeeshu Jain, Adv with Ms Jyoti Tyagi : Mr Siddharth Panda : Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr Himanshu Gupta. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the201. Act) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinaf...
Rajbeer Garg and Ors. Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 23, 2015 + CRL.M.C.No.680/2015 RAJBEER GARG & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Ms. Jyoti Gupta, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: .... Respondents Mr.Praveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with SI Hukum Chand PS Mansarover Park Respondent No.2-in-person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.54/2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Mansarover Park, Delhi is sought in this petition on the ground that parties have settled their dispute and terms thereof are reflected in the statement of respondent No.2-wife made before the Family Court on 4th September, 2014. Notice. Mr. Praveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2-Anju, present in the Crl.M.C.No.680/2015 Page 1 Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to b...
Smt. Chanchal Chopra and Ors Vs. Shri Sunil Chopra and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
$~A-6. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:23.02.2015 + CS(OS) 1241/2008 SMT. CHANCHAL CHOPRA & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr. A.K.Thakur and Mr.R.K. Mishra, Advocates versus SHRI SUNIL CHOPRA & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Mohinder Madan, Ms.Rashmi B.Singh and Ms.Kalpana Thakur, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of partition by metes and bounds in respect of two tenements in double storey building bearing No.1/5 and 1/5A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. Other connected reliefs including mesne profits are also sought.2. As per the plaint the plaintiffs and defendants are related to each other. The property in question belonged to Mrs. Lajwanti. A lease/conveyance deed in favour of Smt. Lajwanti, in respect of the said property was executed before the Sub Registrar on 28/30.7.1965. Smt. Lajwanti left behind three sons and one daughter. The daughter Ms.Raj Chopra was unmarri...
Bhagwati Prasad Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 23, 2015 + BHAGWATI PRASAD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate with Petitioner-in-person versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) &ANR. .... Respondents Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Vineet PS Sangam Vihar, Delhi Respondent No.2-in-person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Crl.M.A.No.2548/2015 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.C.No.667/2015 Quashing of FIR No.138/2013 under Sections 498-A/307 of IPC registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, Delhi is sought on the ground that petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife are living together happily since 22nd October, 2013. Notice. Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State Crl.M.C.No.667/2015 Page 1 accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2-Manju, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and sh...
Nooruddin and Anr. Vs. The State and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:23. d February, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 3338/2014 NOORUDDIN & ANR Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Ravindra Narayan with Mohd. Zafar, Advocates. versus THE STATE & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Pankaj Gulliya. Respondents No.2&3-in-person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % ORDER (O R A L) Quashing of FIR No.761/2012, under Sections 323/341/308/34 of IPC registered at police station New Friends Colony, Delhi is sought on the basis of Compromise Deed of 9th July, 2014 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties. Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, present in court are identified to be complainant party of FIR in question and they have been identified to be so by SI Pankaj Gulliya on the basis of identity C...
Sanjeev Arora Vs. Ajay Kumar Babbar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
$~A-12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + IA No.24703/2014 in CS(OS) 1704/2013 Date of Decision :23. d February, 2015. SANJEEV ARORA Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Y.S.Chauhan, Advocate with the plaintiff-in-person. versus AJAY KUMAR BABBAR Through ..... Defendant Mr.A.K.Sharma, Advocate with the defendant-in-person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) IA No.24704/2014 (for condonation of delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 120 days in re-filing the application for leave to defend is condoned. The application is disposed of. IA No.24703/2014 [u/O37R3(5) CPC].1. This is an application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC for grant of leave to defend.2. The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit for recovery of Rs.47lacs under Order 37 CPC. The plaint states that the parties entered into an agreement to sell dated 06.04.2013 whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property bearing No.1 in Block D/2 Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. On ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »