Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1588 (2.14 seconds)
Documents citing Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 89, 100 & 101. Mr. Uday Bedi, ... on 16 March, 2023

Shiv Kumar Sharma vs Ramesh Chander And Ors on 30 January, 2026

5. It is further averred that although the original sale deed dated 20.10.2014 records that vacant physical possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendant nos. 1 & 2 at the time of execution of the said deed, no actual delivery of possession, in fact, took place. It is further averred that due to non-realization of payment of sale consideration mentioned in the original sale deed dated 20.10.2014, the purported sale of the suit property was cancelled and the physical possession of the same was not handed over to the defendant nos. 1 & 2. Although, the title of the suit property is with the plaintiff, the vacant physical possession of the same had not been handed over to the plaintiff by the housing society till date due to non-payment of outstanding demand. Thus, since the vacant physical possession of the suit property was never with the plaintiff in the first place, the same could not have been handed over to the defendant nos. 1 & 2 and subsequently the defendant nos. 3 & 4 have trespassed into the suit property by breaking common wall with adjoining property through taking advantage of the fact SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2026.01.30 CS DJ ADJ 250/17 Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Ramesh Chander & Ors. Page No. 7 of 48 17:00:15 +0530 that the suit property and the adjoining property i.e. Flat no. C-601 (allegedly owned by the defendant no. 3 and 4) share a common entrance.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yogesh Gupta vs Poonam Sharma on 11 March, 2026

6. Defence evidence was led by accused/respondent and examined CA No.239/2025 PS C R Park Yogesh Gupta Vs. Promod Sharma Page No.4 of 36 himself as DW1 deposed that " I am engineer by profession and I was doing job in private company. Complainant is my friend and I used to provide him work/business in my company and he used to give me commission for that work. I have no liability towards the complainant, I have given blank signed cheque to complainant as a security for loss work given by me. Complainant never told me about any loss to me so I have no liability towards the complainant. The complainant got transferred about Rs.2 lakhs in my account as commission from account of his son. Complainant never had not transferred any money in my account directly. When I have stopped giving him business then he misused my security cheque by filling them without any liability." and the same was closed on 11.12.2023 and thereafter final arguments were heard on 04.01.2023 thereafter vide impugned judgment the accused was acquitted.
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kumar vs Sunder Singh Yadav on 21 April, 2026

E. Future Attendant Charges: The testimony of PW-6 Dr. Shashwat Mishra clearly establishes that due to the effects of traumatic brain injury, the injured has suffered impairment in his mental faculties and requires assistance for his daily routine activities. The doctor has further clarified that the injured may need such assistance for the rest of his life and chances of significant improvement are minimal. Thus, the requirement of future attendant stands duly proved on record. At the same time, it has also come in the cross-examination that the injured is able MACT No.: 311/2023 Anil Kumar Vs. Sunder Singh Yadav & Ors. Page No. 19 of 43 to sit and sleep on his own, which indicates that he is not completely bedridden and may not require round-the-clock professional assistance at all times. It is a matter of common experience that in such cases, part of the assistance is often provided by family members and the requirement of a full-time paid attendant may not exist throughout the day.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Savinder Kaur vs Rajesh Kumar on 13 January, 2025

4. It has been been further averred, that the husband of the petitioner No.1 and the father of the petitioners No. 2 & 3 namely Shri Amrik Singh was having no permanent business and he purchased the said property for the purpose of establishing himself along with his two sons, who are married and unemployed. It has been been further averred, that after the death of Shri Amrik Singh (husband of the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.2 of 34 petitioner no. 1 and father of the petitioners no. 2 and 3), the petitioners became the owners/landlords in respect of the said property and they require the premises in possession of the respondent for their bonafide need as they have got no other reasonable, suitable commercial premises to run the business and as such, the present shop as well as the other adjoining shops are in the possession of the other tenants and the same are required by the petitioners. It has been further averred, that the petitioners decided to demolish the existing structure which is very old and is in dilapidated condition and after demolishing the existing structure of the present shop as well as the other shops which are in possession of the other tenants, the petitioners would construct a banquet hall and after constructing a banquet hall, the petitioners would run a banquet hall at the said premises for the purposes of arranging marriages and other functions etc.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manjeet Singh (I) )(Fir351/2023/Civil ... vs Avneesh Kumar (New India Ins Co. ) on 25 September, 2025

45. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he was 37 years of age and was self employed and was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. The medical records placed on record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained simple injuries. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was unable to resume his vocation MACT No. 992/23 Harcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. Avneesh Kumar & Ors. Page No. 39/67 MACT No. 993/23 Manjeet Singh Grover Vs. Avneseh Kumar & Ors. Digitally signed PANKAJby PANKAJ MACT No. 994/23 Harminder Singh Vs. Avneesh Kumar & Ors. SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.25 MACT No. 995/23 Pushpa Vs. Avneseh Kumar & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Har Charan Lrs Of Deceased Anamdeep Kaur ... vs Avneesh Kumar (New India Ins Co. ) on 25 September, 2025

45. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he was 37 years of age and was self employed and was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. The medical records placed on record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained simple injuries. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was unable to resume his vocation MACT No. 992/23 Harcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. Avneesh Kumar & Ors. Page No. 39/67 MACT No. 993/23 Manjeet Singh Grover Vs. Avneseh Kumar & Ors. Digitally signed PANKAJby PANKAJ MACT No. 994/23 Harminder Singh Vs. Avneesh Kumar & Ors. SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.25 MACT No. 995/23 Pushpa Vs. Avneseh Kumar & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harminder Singh (I) ... vs Arjun Singh S/O, Sansar Singh on 25 September, 2025

45. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he was 37 years of age and was self employed and was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. The medical records placed on record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained simple injuries. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was unable to resume his vocation MACT No. 992/23 Harcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. Avneesh Kumar & Ors. Page No. 39/67 MACT No. 993/23 Manjeet Singh Grover Vs. Avneseh Kumar & Ors. Digitally signed PANKAJby PANKAJ MACT No. 994/23 Harminder Singh Vs. Avneesh Kumar & Ors. SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.25 MACT No. 995/23 Pushpa Vs. Avneseh Kumar & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pushpa (I) )(Fir351/2023/Civil Lines) vs Arjun Singh S/O, Sansar Singh on 25 September, 2025

45. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he was 37 years of age and was self employed and was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. The medical records placed on record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained simple injuries. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was unable to resume his vocation MACT No. 992/23 Harcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. Avneesh Kumar & Ors. Page No. 39/67 MACT No. 993/23 Manjeet Singh Grover Vs. Avneseh Kumar & Ors. Digitally signed PANKAJby PANKAJ MACT No. 994/23 Harminder Singh Vs. Avneesh Kumar & Ors. SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.25 MACT No. 995/23 Pushpa Vs. Avneseh Kumar & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Nidhi Jain vs Jeevan Anmol Hospital & Anr. on 26 November, 2024

"The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that the father of the complainant expired on 19/12/2009 leaving behind two legal heirs namely Smt Nidhi Jam, the complainant herein, and Shri Abhishek Jain, the brother of the present complainant. At the time of death, Sh. Adishwar Jain, the father of the complainant was in service of Central Warehousing Corporation and was earning about Rs.55,000/-p.m. On 19/12/2009 at about 04:00AM Sh. Adishwar Jain came to the Respondent No.I hospital with complaint of chest pain associated with ghabrahat and sweat and was admitted to the hospital under the observation of Respondent No.II. After preliminary investigations and ECG, he was diagnosed Acute Anterior Wall Myocardial Infraction It is alleged that from 04:30AM till 11:45AM he was not given proper treatment. It is alleged that the hospital had no infrastructure, special ward and requisite facilities to treat patients suffering from myocardial infraction due to which neither the father of the complainant was treated with angioplasty nor any diagnostic tests were done. He was not referred to another hospital. At about 11:45AM the patient became breathless and frothing from mouth. He was diagnosed to have Cardio-respiratory arrest without conducting any necessary diagnosis He was declared Dead at 12:45 PM. The complainant has alleged negligence and PAGE 5 OF 34 FA- 199/15 FA-139/15 DR.ANANT KUMAR SINHA V. NIDHI JAIN & ORS D.O.D.: 26.11.2024 FA-102/15 deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Nos.I & II. She has prayed for a compensation of Rs 12,00,000/- towards pecuniary damages for loss of earning and Rs 5,00,000/- towards pain and suffering along with interest #15% p.m. from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next