Skip to content

Filter by :

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

Jul 15 2014

Smt. Vidya Devi Vs. Sh. Deep Chand and Ors.

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.28/2010 15th July , 2014 % SMT. VIDYA DEVI Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Manu Nayar, Advocate. VERSUS SH. DEEP CHAND AND ORS. Through: ...... Respondents None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition impugns the order of the trial Court dated 28.10.2009 declining the prayer of the petitioner, who is plaintiff in one suit and defendant in a connected suit, for passing of a consent decree in view of the alleged agreed settlement before the Mediation Centre of the district court on 21.3.2007.2. No doubt, there was an agreed settlement on 21.3.2007, but, the impugned order shows that there was passed a subsequent order by the learned Mediator dated 10.4.2007 by which the matter was referred to the Court for judicial adjudication inasmuch as there was a factual mistake in the settlement agreement dated 21.3.2007 with respect to width of the passage which was in dispute between the parties. Therefore, the settlement agreement dated 21.3.2007 was superseded by the joint stand of the parties as recorded by the learned Mediator in the subsequent order dated 10.4.2007 for referring the disputes to the court for adjudication.3. I asked the counsel for the petitioner to show me the order dated 10.4.2007, and which is the most important document for deciding the issue of whether or not finality was achieved to the settlement agreement dated 21.3.2007, ...

Jul 15 2014

Rajesh @ Kalia Vs. State

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: July 15, 2014 + CRL.A.285/1998 RAJESH @ KALIA Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Sandhya Goswami and Mr.M.P.S.Tomar, Advocates. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Inspector Arvind Paul, PS Pandav Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present appeal the appellant challenges the judgement dated April 28, 1998 convicting him for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated April 29, 1998 directing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5,000/-.2. Two more were convicted with the appellant however, during the pendency of their appeal they took the plea of juvenility and on the basis thereof, Crl.A.No.286/1998 filed by them stands disposed of.3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the presence of PW-1 at the time of alleged incident is doubtful. There are contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 in regard to injury and other aspects. PW-2 is a relation and hence cannot be believed. No blood stained clothes of PW- 2 have been seized to prove that he witnessed the incident. PW-2 gave the statement to the police only at the hospital when he came to the mortuary after hearing the death of his nephew, as he had accompanied PW-4, the father of the deceased. The alleged recovery of weapon of offence was from a public place and hence ...

Jul 15 2014

M/s Aristocrat Realcon Private Limited and Ors. Vs. ..........

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

$~22 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET.98 /2014 IN THE MATTER OF M/S ARISTOCRAT REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. ......Petitioners Through: Mr. Dilip Singh Advocate for Petitioner companies, Mr. Atma Sah, Assistant Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director, Mr. Rajiv Behl, Advocate for the official Liquidator. CORA M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER1507.2014 % SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. This second motion joint petition filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act?) seeking sanction of the Scheme of A malgamation (Scheme?) of M/s Aristocrat Realcon Private Limited (Transferor Company No 1), M/s Astonish Construction Private Limited (Transferor Company No 2), M/s Crimson Promoters Private Limited (Transferor Company No 3), M/s Flame Developers Private Limited (Transferor Company No 4), M/s Goverdhan Impex Private ================================================== CO.PET. 98 /2014 1 Limited (Transferor Company No5) and Honeydew (Transferor Promoters Private Limited M/s (hereinafter referred to as the Company No6) Transferor Companies) with M/s The Best Move Developers Private Limited (Transferee Company) (Collectively referred as Petitioner Companies ). A copy of the scheme has been enclosed with the petition.2. The registered offices of Trans feror Company and the Transferee Company are situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and are within the jurisdiction of this Court.3. Details with regard to the date ...

Jul 15 2014

Surender Kumar Vs. Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:15. 07.2014 % W.P.(C) 628/2014 SURENDER KUMAR Through: versus ..... Petitioner Mr. Anil Kumar Singal, Advocate. GNCT OF DELHI & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) C.M. No.8571/2014 1. Issue notice. Mr. Amiet Andlay accepts notice.2. After hearing learned counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved in accepting the request for restoration. The application is, accordingly, allowed and the writ petition is restored. W.P.(C) 628/2014 3. The petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing his application. He was charged with misconduct, i.e. unauthorised absence for 265 days.4. The petitioner was a Constable at the relevant time when he absented from duty for a long period 265 days in two spells. This led to issuance of the chargesheet. In the departmental inquiry, the plea urged by the petitioner was of serious illness, i.e. Jaundice. In support of this plea, he relied upon a large number of medical certificates. The Inquiry Officer held that the charge was proved; the disciplinary authority, accordingly, directed the petitioners dismissal from service. His appeal to the designated appellate authority met with no success. He, therefore, approached the CAT which made the impugned order.5. It is urged by ...

Jul 15 2014

Bhushan International Limited & Anr Vs. ....

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

$~25 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET.216 /2014 IN THE MATTER OF BHUSHAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Rajeev K Goel and Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. Atma Sah, Assistant Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director, Mr. Rajiv Behl, Advocate for the official Liquidator. CORA M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA % ORDER1507.2014 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. This second motion joint Petition filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as ACT) by Bhushan International Ltd (Transferor Company ) with Arihant Techno Pack Pvt Ltd (Transferee Company) (Collectively referred as Petitioner Companies ) seeking sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation (Scheme ). A copy of the scheme has been enclosed with the petition. ================================================== CO.PET. 216 /2014 1 2. The registered offices of Transferor Company and the Transferee Company are situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and are within the jurisdiction of this Court.3. Details with regard to the date of incorporation of the Transferor and Transferee Company, their authorized, issued, subscribed and paid up capital have been set out in the Petition.4. Copies of the Memorandum and Articles of Association as well as the latest audited Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 st March, 2011 as well as year ended 31 st March 2012 of the Petitioner Companies have also been enclosed with ...

Jul 15 2014

Jagdish Vs. State & Anr

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3036/2014 JAGDISH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. K.B. Sachdeva, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus STATE & ANR Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State with SI Pratap Singh, PS Punjabi Bagh. Mr. Jagvir Bhadana, Advocate for R2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. 10528/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 3036/2014 and Crl. M.A. 10527/2014 (for stay) 1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Sh. Jagdish praying that FIR No.200/2007 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh and the proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.2. FIR No.200/2007 was registered on the complaint of Smt. Manju, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 to these proceedings, stating that she was married to the petitioner, Shri Jagdish, and further raising allegations attracting the provisions of Section 498A/406/34 IPC.3. The charge sheet in the matter is stated to have been filed and the matter is now fixed for the complainants evidence.4. Further a perusal of the order dated 22nd February, 2012 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate shows that charge under Section 498A IPC was framed against the petitioner alone. All the other accused persons, namely, Munni Devi, ...

Jul 15 2014

M/s Saumya Dsm Infratech Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:15. h July, 2014 % + LPA No.332/2014 & CM No.7276/2014 (for stay) M/S SAUMYA DSM INFRATECH LIMITED .. Appellant Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Pandey, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .. Respondents Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Prashant Bez Boruah with Mr. Rakesh Dewan, Advs. for R-2. Counsel for R-3. Mr. Ajit Pudussery with Ms. Shruti Sarma Hazarika, Advs. For R-4. CORAM :HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 6 th March, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.2809/2013 preferred by the appellant owing to availability of alternative effective remedy before the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) constituted under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 and giving liberty to the appellant to approach the PNGRB. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order has recorded that it was the contention of the appellant / writ petitioner itself that the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute subject matter of the filing of the writ petition was with PNGRB but the appellant / writ petitioner was unable to approach the PNGRB due to the Member (Legal) of the PNGRB having superannuated and no appointment of a new Member (Legal) having been made. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has further noticed that since the filing of the writ petition, Member (Legal) of ...

Jul 15 2014

Sanjay Aggarwal Vs. Gitanshi Polychem Pvt Ltd

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

$~16 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 554/2013 SANJAY AGGARWAL Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Sandeep Jindal, Advocate. versus GITANSHI POLYCHEM PVT LTD Through ..... Respondent Mr. Kunal Madan and Meenu Bakshi, Advocates. Ms. CORA M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA % ORDER1507.2014 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present winding up petition against the respondent company.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had over a period of time given Rs.97,50,000/- as loan to the respondent company. It is contended that respondent company failed to pay interest of sum of Rs.5,75,164/ to the petitioner as was mentioned in the TDS Certificate issued to the petitioner. ================================================ CO. PET. 554/2013 1 3. It is stated that for the year ending 31 st March, 2011, there was a credit balance of Rs. 1,03,25,164/ - in the Books of Accounts of the respondent company.4. It is contended that the petitioner was thus admitted as a creditor of the respondent company and the respondent failed to pay the amount alongwith interest thereon. In the above premise, the present petition seeking winding up of the respondent company has been filed.5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that there is no debt due and payable to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner had invested money in the respondent company and the amount paid was towards share application money. It is ...

Jul 15 2014

Smt. Nafeesa & Ors. Vs. Smt. Rajwati

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % R.C.Rev. No.453/2013 15th July , 2014 SMT. NAFEESA & ORS. Through: ......Appellants Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate. VERSUS SMT. RAJWATI ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.11152/2014 (for preponement of date of hearing) Application for preponement is allowed. CM stands disposed of. RC.Rev. 453/2013 1. This petition under Section 25(B)(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6.8.2013 by which the eviction petition for bonafide necessity has been decreed by dismissing the application for leave to defend.2. The only ground urged before this Court on behalf of the petitioner/tenant is that the need for which the bonafide necessity petition was filed was for the business of the son of the respondent/landlord, but since the son is already involved in various criminal cases, there would be no immediate need of the suit premises. It is prayed that therefore the leave to defend ought to be granted.3. When the counsel for the petitioner was put a query whether this ground was taken in that application for leave to defend, the counsel had no option but to concede that no such ground was urged in the leave to defend application filed. Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC15has held that the period of 15 days for ...

Jul 15 2014

Manoj Vs. State

  • Decided on : 15-Jul-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: July 15 , 2014 + CRL.A. 654/2014 LEELAWATI Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for State with Insp.S.K.Rana, PS Anand Parbat. CRL.A. 82/2014 MANOJ Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Saahila Lamba, Adv. versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for State with Insp.S.K.Rana, PS Anand Parbat. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. The two appeals are directed against the judgment dated August 03, 2013 convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated October 11, 2013 awarding them imprisonment for life and fine.2. The appeals raise an issue as to the intention attributable to a blind couple.3. The prosecution does not dispute that appellant Leelawati, who is the wife of appellant Manoj, is 100% blind. The prosecution disputes the percentage of visual disability of appellant Manoj. Whereas appellant Manoj claims to be 100% blind, the prosecution disputes said facts conceding that he is 100% blind in one eye and has a visual disability in the other as well. The prosecution has led no expert evidence on the visual impairment of Manoj. But Manoj has led defence evidence by examining DW-1, Dr.Rajesh Hans, who has proved the disability certificate Ex.DW1/A issued by Dr.M.C.Aggarwal, Consultant and ...

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