Delhi Court September 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 10 of about 94 results (0.030 seconds)Satish Kumar Khurana Vs. Hs Bajaj
Court: Delhi
Jayant Nath, J. 1. By the present Revision Petition the petitioner seeks to impugn the order/judgment dated 2.3.2012 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner was dismissed and an eviction order was passed under Section 14(1)(e)of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 2. The petitioner filed an Eviction Petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the premises being one shop on the ground floor of property bearing No.4/55, double storey, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. The premises is said to have been let out on 10.3.1982. It was the contention of the respondent/landlord that the respondent is the owner/landlord in respect of the said shop which has been let out for commercial purpose at a monthly rent of Rs.300/- vide lease deed dated 10.3.1982. 3. The respondent in the eviction petition contended that he is a practicing advocate practicing in the field of income tax/sales tax. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Jagwati Vs. Gajender Kumar
Court: Delhi
Pratibha Rani, J. (Oral) MAT.APP.(F.C.) 143/2015 1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the judgment dated August 21, 2016 whereby a decree has been passed in favour of the respondent/husband dissolving their marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion by her. 2. In brief, the admitted facts are that the appellant/wife got married to the respondent/husband on May 15, 1998. No issue was born out of this wedlock. The appellant/wife was the only child of her parents. She not only used to visit her parents very frequently but also stay there for about 15-20 days every month. On her visit to her parental home on the death of her father on April 16, 2000, she lived there for about eleven-twelve months. 3. Since the appellant/wife was not performing the matrimonial obligation by staying away from her matrimonial home and often living at her parental home for years together, a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed in the year 2003 by the respondent/husband seeking r...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
P.S. TEJI, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Vijay Kumar and Sh. Mangat Ram for quashing of FIR No.250/2014 dated 18.04.2014, under Sections 498- A/307/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar on the basis of the Mediation Report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi executed between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Mamta on 24.01.2015. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 on 08.05.1998 according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, two female children were born. It is the case of the complainant that the accused persons used to harass and beat her. The accused p...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Const. Krishan Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the Judgment of the First Appellant Court dated 10.5.2014 by which the first appellate court allowed the first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC by the respondents herein against the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 8.5.2012. The First Appellate Court by its Judgment dated 10.5.2014 has set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 8.5.2012 which had decreed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff questioning his dismissal from services on the basis of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. The effect of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court is that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff, and which was decreed by the trial court by the Judgment dated 8.5.2012, was dismissed. The first appellate court dismissed the suit by holding that the Order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!