Delhi Court March 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.
Smt. Meena Sharma Vs. Shri Dharam Pal and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. h February, 2015 Decided on:3. d March, 2015 % + CM(M) 796/2014 SMT. MEENA SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. N.N.Anand, Advocate. versus SHRI RAJIV KUMAR Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Dudeja and Mr. Aman Bhalla, Advocates. CM(M) 797/2014 SMT. MEENA SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. N.N.Anand, Advocate. versus SHRI DHARAM PAL & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Dudeja and Mr. Aman Bhalla, Advocates. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. The petitioner filed a petition against Rajiv Kumar and another petition against Dharam Pal and Bharat Bhushan for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) for eviction of the tenants for non-payment of rent along with an application under Section 15(1) DRC Act.2. Rajiv Kumar is the son of Dharam Pal. Tenanted premises comprise of two roo...
Smt. Meena Sharma Vs. Shri Rajiv Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. h February, 2015 Decided on:3. d March, 2015 % + CM(M) 796/2014 SMT. MEENA SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. N.N.Anand, Advocate. versus SHRI RAJIV KUMAR Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Dudeja and Mr. Aman Bhalla, Advocates. CM(M) 797/2014 SMT. MEENA SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. N.N.Anand, Advocate. versus SHRI DHARAM PAL & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Dudeja and Mr. Aman Bhalla, Advocates. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. The petitioner filed a petition against Rajiv Kumar and another petition against Dharam Pal and Bharat Bhushan for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) for eviction of the tenants for non-payment of rent along with an application under Section 15(1) DRC Act.2. Rajiv Kumar is the son of Dharam Pal. Tenanted premises comprise of two roo...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved On : February 24, 2015 Judgment Delivered On : March 03, 2015 + FAO (OS) 355/2008 JAGDISH PRASAD Represented by: .....Appellant Mr.Rajesh Rai, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: .....Respondent Ms.Rama Arora, Advocate for Land and Building Department Mr.Surendra Bharti, Advocate for Registrar of Societies CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Having successfully proved ownership of the testatrix (Late Mata Shantanand) through Ex.PW-1/3 in respect of property No.204, Block-7, Jheel Khureji, Geeta Coloney, Delhi and the death of the testatrix on November 13, 1984, the appellant has failed to obtain a probate of the Will Ex.PW-1/2, statedly executed by Late Mata Shantanand. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge is premised on a co-joint reading of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and three d...
Sh.Shiv Raj Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 03, 2015 + W.P.(C) 2659/2013 SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Siddarth Joshi, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.J.K.Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Challenge is to the order dated May 28, 2009 inflicting penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner against which appeal filed was turned down on July 24, 2009 and the Revisional Authority refused to interfere with the penalty vide order dated November 05, 2009.2. The admitted fact is that the petitioner, a Constable with the Railway Protection Force, was deployed for duty at the Dehradun Railway Station in the night shift on August 05, 2008. The duty had to commence at 20:00 hours on August 05, 2008 and had to last till 08:00 hours the next morning. The petitioner reported for duty. He was seen staggerin...
Badarpur Thermal Power Station Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1078/2003 Judgment reserved on:11. 02.2015 Judgment pronounced on:03. 03.2015 BADARPUR THERMAL POWER STATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.K. Taneja, Sr.Advocate alongwith Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Mr.Sheel Vardhan and Ms.Kopal Shrivastava, Advocates. versus CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT1 Vide this writ petition the petitioner had challenged the award dated 30.10.2002.2. The workman was served of this writ petition by way of publication yet no one for the workman has attended the court proceedings at any stage. Despite the fact that this court restrained itself from passing any adverse order against the respondents in his absence and continued waiting for him to put up his appearance, none on behalf of the respondent no.1, the workman had put up any appearance before this court. Finally the court had heard the arguments on behalf of t...
Hans Kumar Jain Vs. Renu Gandotra @ Poonam
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
$~27. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Date of Decision:03. 03.2015 CRL.L.P. 117/2015 HANS KUMAR JAIN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. V.K. Khurana and Mr. Munish Chokkar, Advocates. versus RENU GANDOTRA @ POONAM ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) Crl. M.A. No.3204/2015 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 117/2015 and Crl.M.A. Nos.3203/2015 3. This petition has been preferred to seek special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the judgment dated 17.12.2014 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Karkardooma, New Delhi in CC No.26/11/13 pertaining to Police Station Krishna Nagar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).4. By the impugned judgment, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner/ complainant claims to be dealing in ...
Manoj Kumar Vs. Director of Revenue Intelligence (Through Vikram S
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
$ 4. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Date of Decision:03. 03.2015 BAIL APPLN. 257/2015 MANOJ KUMAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. S.S. Das and Mr. Sharshwat Panda, Advocates versus DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE ( THROUGH VIKRAM SINGH) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. This bail application has been preferred under Section 439 Cr PC by the petitioner being the second such application. The first application preferred by the petitioner was permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the trial court. Upon moving the trial court, the application for bail was rejected by the trial court on 26.11.2014.2. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner along with the co- accused Rakesh Arora were apprehended red handed while making delivery of the pseudoephedrine which admittedly is a controlled substance, to the other co-accused, an African national called Anthon...
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Government Vs. Dsc Ventures Pv ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.A. 15/2015 & I.A. No.4386 of 2015 MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanu Priya, Ms. Meenakshi Sood and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates. versus DSC VENTURES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akhil Sibal, Mr. Deepak Khurana and Mr. Jatin Mongia, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER0303.2015 1. This appeal under Section 37 (2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) is directed against the impugned order dated 25 th February 2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) restraining the Appellant Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) from taking any coercive steps to prevent in any manner the operation of the project facility by the claimant after 1st March 2015 and further directing the MoRTH to issue a revised fee notification in terms of the concession agreement before 2nd March 2015...
Commissioner of Income Tax-Viii Vs. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-Operat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on 3rd March, 2015 + ITA5422012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, sr. standing counsel versus INDIAN FARMER FERTILIZER CO-OPERATIVE..... Respondent Through Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. Admit.2. The following question of law has been urged:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to any amount for the delayed payment of interest under Section 244A on the principal refund amount claimed by it. 3. The assessees returns for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 were processed under Section 143(1). It is the admitted case of the parties that the requisite advance tax payments were completed within the time specified i.e. 1.4.1997 and 1.7.1998. The assessments were thereafter framed under Section 143(1) and adjustment of the tax was m...
Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:3. d March, 2015 % + Crl. M.C. No.574/2015 MOHINDER PAL SINGH Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Rajeev Singh Chauhan, Adv. with Mr.Abhishek Sethi, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.Crl. M.A. No.2209/2015 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. Crl. M.C. No.574/2015 & Crl. M.A. No.2208/2015 1. The abovementioned petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting-aside the impugned order dated 20th December, 2014 passed by the ASJ, Patiala House, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No.51/2014 as well as the order dated 18th March, 2014 passed by the MM.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint case against respondents No.2 to 9 under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 120B, 323, 341, 342, 352, 325 and 506...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »