Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-18-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on: November 18, 2014 W.P.(C) 7779/2013& CM No.16548/2013 (for stay) M/S NATIONAL HEART INSTITUTE & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Satyakam, Advocate with Mr. S.K. Shailly, General Manager ( F & L) of the Petitioners. Versus GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI (LOBOUR) AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Dheeraj Kaushik for Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.W.P.(C) No.7779/2013 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 06.09.2013, whereby the Learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 CPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 01.04.2010 services of the respondent No.2/workman was terminated after holding a departmental enquiry. Vide order dated 11.11.2009, Under Secretary (Labour) referred the following question to the Labour Court for adjudica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h November, 2014 % + LPA No.867/2013 ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATION .. Appellant Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Mr. Amandeep Joshi and Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advs. Versus ADJUTANT GENERALS BRANCH & ORS. .. Respondents Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Mr. Nishant Gautam & Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Prashant Bhushan & Mr. Ramesh K. Mishra, Advs. for R-3. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 4th September, 2013 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.5567/2013 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the order dated 23rd July, 2013 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) holding the appellant to be a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and directing the appellant to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2014
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h November, 2014 % + LPA No.867/2013 ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATION .. Appellant Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Mr. Amandeep Joshi and Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advs. Versus ADJUTANT GENERALS BRANCH & ORS. .. Respondents Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Mr. Nishant Gautam & Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Prashant Bhushan & Mr. Ramesh K. Mishra, Advs. for R-3. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 4th September, 2013 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.5567/2013 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the order dated 23rd July, 2013 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) holding the appellant to be a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and directing the appellant to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 19, 2014 + CRL.A. 50/2014 SINGH RAJ Represented by: STATE & ORS Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Dinkar Verma, Advocate versus ..... Respondents Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP Insp.Raman, SHO/PS Mehraulli SI Bijender Singh Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for R2 and R-3 Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A.No.50/2014 For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. Crl.A.No.50/2014 1. Complainant is the appellant and his grievance is that respondents 2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC. He desires that the respondents should be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the impugned order dated January 21, 2013 would show that the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-19-2014
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 19, 2014 + CRL.A. 50/2014 SINGH RAJ Represented by: STATE & ORS Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Dinkar Verma, Advocate versus ..... Respondents Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP Insp.Raman, SHO/PS Mehraulli SI Bijender Singh Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for R2 and R-3 Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A.No.50/2014 For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. Crl.A.No.50/2014 1. Complainant is the appellant and his grievance is that respondents 2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC. He desires that the respondents should be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the impugned order dated January 21, 2013 would show that the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-27-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.344 of 2014 Reserved on: November 18, 2014 Delivered on: November 27, 2014 FIROZ KHAN Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Arundhati Katju and Mr. Himanshu Suman, Advocates versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI Govind Singh, PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi WITH CRL.A. No.798 of 2014 NEWAL KUMAR PANDEY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Padora, Advocate versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI Govind Singh, PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi AND CRL.A. No.637 of 2014 SHAHZAD HUSSAIN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. D.B. Yadav, Advocate versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI Govind Singh, PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2711.2014 1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 7th November 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.378/1/10 convicting the three Appellants for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-27-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.344 of 2014 Reserved on: November 18, 2014 Delivered on: November 27, 2014 FIROZ KHAN Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Arundhati Katju and Mr. Himanshu Suman, Advocates versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI Govind Singh, PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi WITH CRL.A. No.798 of 2014 NEWAL KUMAR PANDEY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Padora, Advocate versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI Govind Singh, PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi AND CRL.A. No.637 of 2014 SHAHZAD HUSSAIN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. D.B. Yadav, Advocate versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI Govind Singh, PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2711.2014 1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 7th November 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.378/1/10 convicting the three Appellants for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-27-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.344 of 2014 Reserved on: November 18, 2014 Delivered on: November 27, 2014 FIROZ KHAN Through: ..... Appellant Ms. Arundhati Katju and Mr. Himanshu Suman, Advocates versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI Govind Singh, PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi WITH CRL.A. No.798 of 2014 NEWAL KUMAR PANDEY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Padora, Advocate versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI Govind Singh, PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi AND CRL.A. No.637 of 2014 SHAHZAD HUSSAIN Through: ..... Appellant Mr. D.B. Yadav, Advocate versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP SI Govind Singh, PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2711.2014 1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 7th November 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.378/1/10 convicting the three Appellants for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2014
$~R-101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA5692005 Reserved on 21st November, 2014 Delivered on 1st December, 2014 INDIAN AIRLINES Through ..... Appellant : Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Adv. Versus ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR..... Through : None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (the Act, for short), thus, suit for recovery of `6,46,800/- filed by the respondent No.1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.2. By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR (Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways 1991 RLR443 trial court, in the context of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-2014
$~R-101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA5692005 Reserved on 21st November, 2014 Delivered on 1st December, 2014 INDIAN AIRLINES Through ..... Appellant : Mr. Amit K. Pateria, Adv. Versus ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR..... Through : None ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (the Act, for short), thus, suit for recovery of `6,46,800/- filed by the respondent No.1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.2. By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR (Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways 1991 RLR443 trial court, in the context of...
Tag this Judgment!