Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Delhi Page:3 Sorted by:recent

Aug 25 2014

Kaushalya Devi (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and Ors.

  • Decided on : 25-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) No.770/2014 25th August, 2014 % KAUSHALYA DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. Through: None. ......Petitioners VERSUS SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.13599/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + C.M. (M) No.770/2014 and C.M.No.13598/2014 (stay) 2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 7.7.2014, by which during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners herein (appellants before the first appellate court in an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) have been directed to pay interim user charges in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC705 3. Since the impugned order is a short order, I reproduce the same as under:Heard on the application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC. Appellant has assailed eviction order dated 26.10.2013 passed by the Id. ARC in respect of a premises comprising of one hall. One small room with common use of hand pump and latrine on the ground floor of the property No.3408 (part of property No.3408-3409) ward no.3, chowk Ramayyan, Ganda Nala, Mori gate, Delhi-06. Appellant seeks stay of the operation of the impugned eviction order. Principles laid down in Atma Ram Properties case, are the key to the prayer ...

Aug 20 2014

Pooran Chand Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2066/2013 and Crl.M (Bail) No.829/2014 POORAN CHAND SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen Malhotra and Mr. Nitendra Kumar, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: % ..... Respondents Mr. Pavan Narang, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms.Vasundhara Chauhan and Mr. Lohitaksha Shukla, Advocates. Date of Decision : August 20, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.(Oral) 1. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling upon the Respondents to forthwith set the Petitioner at liberty after quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 02.06.2010 bearing No.673/08/10-Cus.VIII passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA Act?).2. The facts succinctly stated are that information was received by the Delhi Zonal Office of the Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi that an organized Syndicate headed by one Naresh Kumar Jain was actively involved in illegal foreign exchange transactions through a wide hawala network and that the said Shri Naresh Kumar Jain had been a person resident outside India, who had stayed in Dubai from 1995 till May, 2009, and was currently in India without any valid documents. In Dubai, he was engaged in the ...

Aug 20 2014

Dr. Santosh Kumar Jha Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 211 of 2008 Reserved on: July 25, 2014 Decision on: August 20, 2014 DR. SANTOSH KUMAR JHA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Umesh Sinha, Mr. Anil Singh, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Ms. Priyanka and Ms. Awasthi, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Spl. P.P. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2008.2014 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 13th February 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi in Criminal Complaint No.101 of 2006 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act?) and the order on sentence dated 18th February 2008 whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI?) for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI?) for one year. Proceedings leading to the launch of the prosecution 2. The case of the prosecution was that a written complaint dated 9 th March 2002 was received by the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB?), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI?) from Mr. Jagir Singh Sran, (PW-17) Commandant, Border Security Force (BSF?) Academy, Tekanpur stating that an inquiry had been ordered by the Director, BSF Academy, Tekanpur against the Appellant who was a Medical Officer (MO?), Composite Hospital, BSF Academy Tekanpur. It was stated that during the said ...

Aug 20 2014

United Distributors Incorporation Vs. Union of India &Anr.

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. 08.2014 W.P.(C) 3708/ 2014 & CM No.7515/2014 UNITED DISTRIBUTORS INCORPORATION .... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA &ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Virag Gupta. For the Respondents : Mr Vijay Chandra Jha with Ms Sonia Sharma, for R-2 (Custom ICD) Mr Mehmood Pracha, for FSSAI/R-3 CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 Belgium is known for its chocolates amongst other things. And, Guylian is a renowned brand of Belgium chocolates, which are sold in several countries. As coveted as these chocolates may be, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the FSSAI) has found these chocolates to be non-compliant with the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Regulations made thereunder. The petitioner being aggrieved on account of non-clearance of these chocolates, has filed the present petition inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to clear and deliver the consignments imported by the petitioner.2. The petitioner had imported assorted chocolates manufactured by Chocolatier Guylian N.Y. weighing approximately 4000 kgs. These chocolates were essentially of 20 different types. Whereas, four types of the said chocolates were cleared, FSSAI had, by its letter dated 05.05.2014, refused to grant a no-objection certificate to the remaining 16 types of chocolates. ...

Aug 20 2014

Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunil Yadav

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:20. 08.2014 W.P.(C) 3396/2010 & CM68232010, 6824/2010 & 11333/2013 BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..... Petitioner versus SUNIL YADAV ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Ms Pratima N. Chauhan. For the Respondent : Ms Sana Ansari and Ms Ina Javed. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner is an insurance company and has filed the present petition impugning the award dated 21.05.2009 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order). By the impugned order, the claim made in respect of life insurance policy issued by the petitioner to Mamchand Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the policy holder) has been allowed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the respondent - Lt. Sh. Mamchand Yadav approached the petitioner for issuance of an insurance policy under the Dream Plan Policy, on 10.08.2007, for an assured sum of `10,93,834 vide application/proposal form bearing No.A7069913. After a medical examination of the policy holder, the application was accepted by the petitioner and, on 05.09.2007, a policy being No.0001157621 was issued to the policy holder. The Policy holder met with an unfortunate motor vehicle accident on 17.10.2007 and was admitted in hospital with a head injury and a leg injury. The policy holder succumbed to his injuries on 20.10.2007. After the demise of the policy holder, ...

Aug 20 2014

Gatx India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Limited & Anr.

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:22. 05.2014 % + Judgment delivered on:20. 08.2014 O.M.P. 1132/2013 GATX INDIA PVT LD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pragya Ohri, Mr.Samar, Mr. Navin, Mr. Ranjit Prakash & Ms. Shubhi Sharma, Advocates. versus ARSHIYA RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with M/s Kirat Nagra, Pranav Vyas, Shankey Agrawal, Ritesh Kumar & Mayank Bamniyal, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. This petition has been preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) by the petitioner to seek the following interim reliefs:(a) direct respondent No.1 to forthwith return the first rake to the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the Master Wagon Lease Agreement; 2. (b) direct respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 to pay the outstanding rents for the first rake being due and payable to the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,95,79,589/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Five Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Nine only) along with such amounts of lease rentals that may become due and payable till such time as the first rake is actually returned to the petitioner or direct the respondents to deposit the same with the Registrar of this Court to be maintained in a fixed deposit pending Arbitration and Award; (c) direct the ...

Aug 20 2014

Smt. Sangeeta Ashok Vs. Union of India Thr. Commissioner Kendriya Vid ...

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. 07.2014 Pronounced on:20. 08.2014 + W.P.(C) 3488/2012 SMT. SANGEETA ASHOK ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA THR. COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ..... Respondent Through : Sh. S. Rajappa, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The petitioner questions the legality of an order dated 31-01- 2011 of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing her application (OA No.3462/2009). She had approached the CAT against an order of dismissal issued by her employer, the respondent Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereafter "KVS").2. The petitioner was working, at the relevant time, as Lower Division Clerk ("LDC") in one of the KVS schools. A memorandum dated 22/23.12.87 leveling allegations of misconduct was issued to her. Three charges specifying the relevant facts were made; the first W.P.(C) 3488/2012 Page 1 pertained to her wrongful appropriation of the Group Insurance amount of ?10,117/-, which were proceeds payable to Late Sh. P.S. Pathania, Lab. Attendants dependents, by retaining it with her from October, 1984 to August, 1985. The second charge was that whilst working as ad-hoc UDC, she tampered with her service book and third, that she made an unauthorized visit to the Army Officers swimming pool at Kaluchak on 25.7.1987 and made false entries, representing ...

Aug 20 2014

State Vs. Deep Chand

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : August 20, 2014 + CRL.A. 695/2014 STATE Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Insp.Rakesh Kumar and ASI Pradeep Kumar, PS Aman Vihar versus DEEP CHAND Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Anu Narula, Advocate with Respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Deep Chand (the respondent) and Arvind (a juvenile) were accused in FIR No.233/2010 PS Aman Vihar for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.2. We are not concerned with Arvind who was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial.3. Vide decision dated October 03, 2012 Deep Chand has been acquitted.4. The State has been granted leave to appeal on May 28, 2014.5. It is urged by learned counsel for the State that the testimony of Sonu PW-1 and Anju Devi PW-2 would establish that the deceased Pandit Ji @ Pappu was seen in the company of Deep Chand and juvenile co-accused Arvind at around 7:30 PM when the three had purchased two quarters of liquor from the wife of Sonu on July 23, 2010. Deepak PW-3 has proved that around 6:00 PM the three were seen by Deepak at 6:00 PM at the house of the deceased.6. Learned counsel urges that last seen being proved through the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and the time being around 7:30 PM, it assumes importance that a tile was got recovered by Deep Chand pursuant to his disclosure statement on which blood was ...

Aug 20 2014

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Om Prakash

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:20th August, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.596/2013 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna and Mr. Vijay Kajaria, Advocates. Versus OM PRAKASH Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr. K. Venkataraman, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.W.P.(C) No.596/2013 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner Delhi Transport Corporation (for short DTC?) has assailed the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court and the subsequent award dated 27.08.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court-XVII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, against the respondent workman (for short POLC?).2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner DTC since 1982. On 05.06.1992, he was on Bus No.9206 plying on route No.838. When the bus was checked by the checking team at Uttam Nagar at 10.53 AM, said team found that the respondent workman had accepted fare of Rs.2/-each from two passengers, who had boarded the Bus from Hari Nagar-Ghantaghar for Uttam Nagar, without issuing any ticket to the said passengers.3. Mr.Sumit Pushkarna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner DTC submitted that the respondent workman was confronted, who accepted his fault and surrendered two un-punched tickets of Rs.2/each to the checking staff. Thereafter, the checking team also checked the cash available with the ...

Aug 20 2014

M.K. Gupta & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:20. h August, 2014 + W.P.(C) 7531/2013 M.K. GUPTA & ANR. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.Sumit Sharma for Mr. M.K. Gupta, Advocate. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for DDA. Mr.Pramod Ahuja and Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking mandamus directing the respondent DDA to demolish unauthorized and illegal construction which is being built on the east side of the house of the petitioners.2. Admittedly, demolition for the property forming part of Khasra No.48/7 is being sought in the present petition.3. Mr.Sumit Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in para 19 of the judgment bearing RSA No.28/2001, titled as Smt. Subhadra & Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority, decided on 11.11.2010, this Court observed as19. The plaintiffs had alleged that the suit land falls in Khasra No.48/7; the onus was upon him to prove it. They had failed to discharge this onus. This Court is not a third fact finding Court. 4. The issue regarding Khasra No.48/7 in the Revenue Estate of Village Humayunpur, New Delhi, came up before this Court in the case bearing W.P.(C) No.824/2012, titled as Subhadra & Anr. Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors., wherein held as under:11. Be that as it may, this issue is still not ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //