Delhi Court May 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.
Apex Public School Vs. Central Board of Trustees, Epf Organisation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. h March, 2015 Date of Decision:08. h May,2015 % + W.P.(C) 2313/2011 APEX PUBLIC SCHOOL Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPF ORGANISATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Keshav Mohan with Ms. Amrita Narayan, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH JUDGMENT1 By the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the EPFAT), New Delhi in Appeal No.589(4)2008 whereby the appeal of the petitioner under Section 7-D read with Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the EPF Act) was dismissed by the EPAT. The petitioner also impugns the order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the respondent whereby damages to the tune of...
Dwarika Projects Ltd. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:08. 05.2015 + WP(C) 3547/2014 DWARIKA PROJECTS LTD. ..... Petitioner Versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyabrata Panda and Mr. Shashwat Panda, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 The central issue raised in the writ petition is: whether or not the decision of the respondent to repudiate the petitioners claim for loss under the contractors all risk insurance policy (hereafter referred to as policy), on the sole ground, that there had been a failure on its part to intimate by way of a written communication, the factum of occurrence of the calamity within the period of 14 days, as stipulated in clause 5 of the General Conditions (GC), was valid?.2. The issue has arisen in the background of the following circumstances :2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a co...
Rishi Kapoor and Ors. Vs. State of Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2015
I- 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 08, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 1935/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.6906/2015 RISHI KAPOOR & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Abhinav Dang, Advocate (proxy) with petitioners in person versus STATE OF DELHI & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with ASI Kusum Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.581/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Bindapur, Delhi is sought in this petition. 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 her counsel as well as by ASI Kusum on the basis of identity proof produced by her. Crl. M.C.No.1935/2015 Page 1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Stat...
Sumit Singh and Ors. Vs. The State Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2015
I- 39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 08, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 1942/2015 SUMIT SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Abhinav Dang, Advocate (Proxy) with petitioners in person versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with ASI Jagmohan Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.280/2006, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at Crime Against Women Cell, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 29th March, 2014reached between the parties. 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 her counsel as well as by ASI Jagmohan Crl.M.C.No.1942/2015 Page 1 on the basis of identity pro...
Manish Pahuja and Ors. Vs. The State Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2015
I-28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 08, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 1911/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.6855/2015 MANISH PAHUJA & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Abhinav Dang, Advocate (proxy) with petitioners in person versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. . Respondents Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Naresh Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.81/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Karol Bagh, New Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding/ Compromise Deed of 22nd July, 2014 reached between the parties. Notice. Ms. Nishi Jain, 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 Naresh on the basis of identity proof Crl. M.C.N...
Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs. The State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2015
I- 25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 08, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 1902/2015 ANIL KUMAR & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Abhinav Dang, Advocate (proxy) with petitioners in person versus THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with ASI Onkar Pal Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.149/2013, under Section 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at police station Dwarka South, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 8th April, 2015 (Annexure A-9) reached between the parties. Notice. Mr. Vinod Diwakar, 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 ASI Onkar Pal on the basis of identity Crl.M.C.No.1902/2015 ...
Bhupinder Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:8. h May, 2015 + CRL.A. 342/2011 BHUPINDER KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Ms.Arundhati Katju with Mr.Ali Choudhary and Mr.Himanshu Suman, Advocates versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Ms.Fizani Hussain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State alongwith SI Bimla Devi from Police Station Khyala. Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 07.12.2010 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) months in Sessions Case No.64/2010 arising out of FIR No.158/2009 Police Station Khayala under Section 376 IPC.2. The prosecutrix X was living with her sister Anita in N 162, Raghbir Nagar, New Delhi. On 06.07.2009 h...
Alok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2015
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:8. h May, 2015 + CRL.REV.P. 447/2009 ALOK KUMAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ajay Burman, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP along with SI Paramjit Singh, PS Connaught Place CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order on charge dated 06.08.2009 and charge framed on the same date by the learned Additional Sessions Judge u/s 376/420 IPC in case FIR No.63/08 registered with Police Station Connaught Place.2. Prosecution case in nut shell is that the complainant is a divorcee who got divorce in the year 2004 and is having a 12 years old child. She met the petitioner in the year 2002 and they started meeting quite often in Delhi. In the month of March, 2003, the complainant went to Germany where the petitione...
Rajendra Babu Pathak Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on : April 09, 2015 Judgment Delivered on : May 07, 2015 W.P.(C) 8012/2013 S.A.KHAN & ANR. Represented by: .....Petitioners Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Mr.Vikram Jetly, Advocate with Mr.Piyush Bhardwaj, Advocate for UOI Mr.Rajiv Kapur, Advocate with Ms.Anjali Bhandari, Advocate for R-5 and R-6 W.P.(C) 8056/2013 RAJENDRA BABU PATHAK .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: .....Respondents Mr.Sanjeev Narula, Advocate with Mr.Ajay Kalra, Advocate for UOI Mr.Rajiv Kapur, Advocate with Ms.Anjali Bhandari, Advocate for R-5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. We are disposing of the above-captioned writ petitions by a common decision for the reason the petitioners challenge the letter dated October 03, 2008 issued by the Government of Indi...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Rajinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A No.233 of 2013 Date of Decision:7. h May, 2015 % DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through: . ... Appellant Mr.Ajay Verma, Adv. versus RAJINDER KUMAR Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.05.2005 passed in RCA No.29/05 along with an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Vide the impugned order the first appeal of the appellant was dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation.2. Briefly stated the facts are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/DDA claiming ownership of the suit property,. It was alleged in the plaint that the DDA had threatened to demolish the suit property illegally and without any show cause notice. It was prayed that DDA be restrained from demolishing the suit property being proper...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »