Delhi Court January 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 26 of about 755 results (0.019 seconds)Pardeep Rana @ Kala @ Khau vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + BAIL APPLN. 5/2019 Judgment delivered on:23. 01.2019 PARDEEP RANA @ KALA @ KHAU ........ Petitioner STATE versus ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjay Rana with Mr. Anil Dagar, Advocates. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent: CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State. SI Ravi Rana, PS Bawana. JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.117/2019 under Sections 302/5IPC and Sections Arms Act, Police Station Bawana.2. The petitioner was arrested on 30.06.2009. On 03.06.2011, the petitioner was granted regular bail.3. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the trial, however, he stopped appearing before the Trial Court and, accordingly, by order dated 27.08.2016, he was declared a proclaimed offender. On 27.10.2017, the petitioner was once again taken in judicial custody BAIL APPLN.5/2019 Page 1 of 3 and is in custody since then e...
Tag this Judgment!Gayatri Gupta vs.ruby Sharma & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.58/2019 + % GAYATRI GUPTA23d January, 2019 ..... Appellant Through: Dr. Jose P. Varghese and Mr. versus RUBY SHARMA & ORS. Through: Dhruv Jose, Advocates. (9871295411) ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.3419/2019 (condonation of delay in re-filing) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned, subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. RFA No.58/2019 & CM No.3418/2019 (stay) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 13.09.2018 by which RFA No.58/2019 Page 1 of 12 the trial court has dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the Agreement to Sell dated 04.06.2007 for the property bearing No.250 Ground Floor, Pocket-1, Secto...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurav Tyagi vs.the State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 23, 2019 BAIL APPLN. 170/2019 & CRL.M.A. 1505/2019 GAURAV TYAGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C. Buttan, Advocate versus THE STATE(GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Sunil Kumar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR63917, under Sections 147/148/149/307/325/341/427/4of IPC, registered at police station Burari, North Delhi while claiming that petitioner and his father were grievously injured by the complainant and other co-accused who were armed with rods and dandas. It is submitted by petitioners counsel that instant FIR is a counter blast to FIR No.610/2017, which was registered at the instance of petitioners father and in the said FIR, offence under Section 307 IPC has been added because of the grievous injuries caused to petitioner. Upon notice, Mr. M.P. Singh, learned Addition...
Tag this Judgment!North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs.niranjan & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~R-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of decision:23. 01.2019 W.P.(C) No.12175/2015 NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Ms.Biji Rajesh, Adv. versus Through: Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1. ........ RESPONDENTS NIRANJAN & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner/North Delhi Municipal Corporation impugns a recovery certificate dated 02.12.2015 issued by the respondent no.2/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for a sum of Rs.4,39,662/-, which amount was found to be payable to the respondent no.1 in pursuance to the award dated 07.03.2002 passed in ID No.204/1988. As per the aforesaid Award, the respondents retirement at the age of 53 years was held to be illegal and the petitioner was directed to pay the respondent no.1 75% arrears of pay and arrears of revised pension, as if he had actually worked till he attained the actual age of superannuation, i.e., 60 yea...
Tag this Judgment!Rattan Pal vs.ravinder Singh
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 23, 2019 CRL.REV.P. 92/2019 & CRL.M.As. 1551-52/2019 & CRL.M.B. 137/2019 RATTAN PAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Wadhwa and Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Advocates versus RAVINDER SINGH Through: Nemo .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, appellate court vide impugned order of 3rd January, 2019 has issued notice to respondent and has admitted petitioner on bail, subject to petitioner depositing 50% of the cheque amount. Notice of this petition to opposite side is dispensed with as when the impugned order was passed, respondent was not served. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is poor person and has no means to deposit 50% of the cheque amount and that petitioner has a good case on merits. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the pre-requisite to deposit 50% of the cheque amount is waived ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Choudhary @ Rejeev Kumar vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~19 & 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 Judgment delivered on:23. 01.2019 YASHVIR SINGH TYAGI STATE versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent + CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018 RAJEEV CHOUDHARY @ REJEEV KUMAR........ Petitioner STATE versus ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Mr. Iftekhar Ahmed and Mr. Vimal Rathi, Advocates for the petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 Mr. R.M. Tufail with Ms. Astha, Mr. Farooq Chaudhary and Mr. Naahid Naasir, Advocates for the petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.1068/2018 For the Respondent : Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State. SI Mukesh Yada, PS Jagatpuri. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Crl.M.A.48381/2018 (stay) & CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018 Page 1 of 19 CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018 1.... Petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet.1052/2018, i.e., Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal vs.gnct of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~6. * + % W.P.(C) 9759/2018 MOHAN LAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:23.01.2019 ........ Petitioner Through: petitioner in person. versus G.N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Sangita Rai with Ms. Kumud Ray, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition to assail the order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (the Tribunal) in O.A. No.755/2017. The Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application of the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal primarily to assail the order No.6240 dated 28.12.2016 passed by the respondent GNCTD, whereby the seven advance increments granted to the petitioner were withdrawn and his pay was re- fixed with effect from 15.06.1994. W.P.(C.) No.9759/2018 Page 1 of 8 2. It appears that in the year 1999, the petitioner claimed additional ...
Tag this Judgment!Saida Begum & Ors. Vs.the State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 23, 2019 CRL.M.C. 360/2019 & CRL.M.A. 1543-44/2019 SAIDA BEGUM & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mashhod-Ul-Haq and Mr. Irfan Ghayal, Advocates versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with SI Amit Kumar Mr. Lovekesh Kumar, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.1011/2015, under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC, registered at police station Kalyan Puri, Delhi is sought on the basis of mediated Settlement of 15th September, 2018 (Annexure P-2) reached between the parties through Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submits that is the complainant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by SI Amit Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by her. respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Rajat Malhotra vs.m/s Weld Metals India Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~CP-7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CO.A(SB) 1/2015 MR. RAJAT MALHOTRA Date of decision:23. 01.2019 ..... Appellant Through Mr.Mukul Gupta,Sr.Adv. with Dr.Rakesh Gosain and Mr.Nipun Bhardwaj, Advs. Versus M/S WELD METALS INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Saurabh Kalia and Mr.Harshit Agarwal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) CA No.23/2015 1. This application is filed under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal beyond the period of 60 days as provided under section 10F of the Companies Act 1956.2. The case of the appellant is that the copy of the order dated 12.8.2014 was received by them on 25.8.2014. The appeal has been filed on 24.12.2014. There is delay of 60 days beyond the period of 60 days to file the present appeal.3. In the application it is pleaded that settlement talks were going on between the parties and an attempt was made to resolve the matter. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Kumar vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 15, 2019 CRL.M.C. 174/2019 VINAY KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddhartha Nanwal, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajinder Pal Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) of 1299/2015 under Quashing F.I.R. No.Sections 354(A)/354/5of IPC, registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, District North-West, Delhi, is sought on the basis of settlement reached between the parties. The allegations levelled against petitioner are of outraging the modesty of a woman. The incident in question has not been explained. Trial Courts order of 9th February, 2018 simply records that settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Such crude settlements are not acceptable, as it will send a wrong signal to the society. This court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to quash the F.I.R. in question on the basis of such crude se...
Tag this Judgment!