Delhi Court November 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hori Lal Vs. the State (Govt of Nct0 of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2012
$~6 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1508/2011 Decided on 16th November, 2012 ..... Appellant HORI LAL Through: Mr. A.J.Bhambhani and Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, Advs. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT0 OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK % A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) For order see Criminal Appeal No. 1089/2010. A.K. PATHAK, J.NOVEMBER 16 2012 ga...
Charanjeet Singh Vs. Japjeet Kaur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Crl. M.C. No. 1017/2011 + Date of Decision:16. h November, 2012 # ! CHARANJEET SINGH ....Petitioner Through: Mr. K.K. Manan, Mr. Mustafa Ali & Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocates Versus $ * JAPJEET KAUR & ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhay Mani Tripathi, Advocate for R-1 & R-2 Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State with Inspector Narender Khatri PS Punjabi Bagh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN ORDER P.K.BHASIN, J: The petitioner is the husband of the respondent no. 1 herein. Due to certain matrimonial disputes between them the respondent no. 1 got a criminal case registered against the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest the petitioner-husband sought anticipatory bail from this Court and his bail application (being Bail Application no. 1078/2009) was allowed vide order dated 5th October, 2009 in view of some settlement having been arrived at between the husband and wife. That order dated 5th October, 2009 is reproduced below:As an interim me...
Parvati Devi Vs. Baldev Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:16. h November, 2012 + MAC. APP. 488/2005 PARVATI DEVI Through ..... Appellant Mr.O.P.Mannie, Advocate versus BALDEV SINGH & ORS. Through Mr.Pankaj Seth, Insurance Company ..... Respondents Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 07.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Claim Petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was dismissed solely on the ground that the Claim Petition was not maintainable as the deceaseds income was claimed to be more than ` 40,000/- per annum.2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that before the Claims Tribunal the income of the deceased as a driver was claimed at ` 3,000/per month. No proof of the deceaseds income was filed by the Appellant. The Appellant Parvati Devi, as her own witness testified that her son was earning ` 5...
Sports Station (India) Private Limited Vs. Ssipl Lifestayle Private Li ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2012
15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:16.11.2012 COMPANY PETITION NO. 332/2012 IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 39 TO 39.AND SECTION 10 TO 10.OF THE COMPANIES Act, 1956 AND IN THE MATTER OF SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN SPORTS STATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED .Transferor/petitioner Company-I. AND SSIPL LIFESTAYLE PRIVATE LIMITED .Transferee/petitioner Company-II Through: Mr.N.P.S.Chawla and Ms.Simaran Sethi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.B.Gautam, Official Liquidator. Mr.K.S.Pradhan, Deputy ROC on behalf of Regional Director (North) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This joint petition has been filed under Sections 391 to 394 and Sections 100 to 103 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Transferor Company/Petitioner Company-I and Transferee Company/Petitioner Company-II seeking sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement between Sports Station (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company) with SSIPL Lifestyle ...
Shiju Jacob Varghese and anr. Vs. Tower Visiion Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Delivered on 16.11.2012 + CS(OS) 150/2012 SHIJU JACOB VARGHESE & ANR. .... Plaintiffs Through Mr. Anil Airi with Mr. Naveen Kumar Versus TOWER VISION LTD. & ORS. .... Defendants Through Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Adv. For Defendant nos. 1,2,4,5,6 and Mr. Parag P. Tripathi , Senior Adv. For Defendant no. 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR IA No. 4784/2012 (Order 39 Rule 4 CPC), IA No. 4785/2012 (under Sections 16 to 19 CPC) and IA No. 4786/2012 (Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) in CS(OS) 150/2012 1. This order shall dispose of IA No. 4784/2012 under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC, IA No. 4785/2012 under Sections 16 to 19, CPC and IA No. 4786/2012 under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC filed by the defendants.2. Before I proceed to decide these applications, a brief narration of the facts of the case as set out by the plaintiffs and germane to the controversy are that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction, declaration and...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jai Veer Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2012
$~ 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:16. h November, 2012 + MAC. APP. 164/2012 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Rajat Brar, Advocate versus JAI VEER SINGH & ORS. Through ..... Respondents None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. takes exception to a judgment dated 01.08.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby while holding that the deceased who was driving the two-wheeler not DL-13-SD-7241 himself, had stepped into the shoes of the owner, that is, Respondent No.1, made the Appellant Insurance Company liable to pay a compensation of `1,00,000/- meant towards personal accident cover of the owner-driver.2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that a sum of `50/- was charged towards personal accident cover for owner-cum-driver. The owner-driver for the purpose of in...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sunit Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:16. h November, 2012 + MAC. APP. 312/2010 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr.Rajat Brar, Advocate versus SUNIT DEVI & ORS. Through ..... Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 8,34,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondents No.1 and 2 for the death of Keshav Kumar Jha, who died in a motor accident, which occurred on 04.08.2008.2. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company, thus, the same has attained finality.3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased Keshav Kumar Jha was a matriculate and was engaged in teaching.4. In the absence of any proof with regard to the deceaseds employment, or his income, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of a matriculate; added 50% tow...
Tribal Co-operative Marketing Develoment Federatio Vs. M/S Kishan Indu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CS(OS) 435/2000 16th November, 2012 TRIBAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING DEVELOMENT FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. ......Plaintiff Through: Mr. Alakh Kumar, Advocate. VERSUS M/S KISHAN INDUSTRIES Through: ...... Defendant CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff/Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. for recovery of `92,08,489.80 on account of breach of contract committed by the defendant in failing to lift the Mahua seeds, and because of which, the plaintiff had to process the seeds into oil at a loss. The amount claimed is the difference between the amount at which oil was sold for a loss sustained by the plaintiff and the amount which was contracted to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff for the Mahua Seeds.2. Before proceeding further I must note that the defendant has been proceeded ex parte in this case. The d...
Mr. Nitet Alva and ors. Vs. Turner Asia Pacific Ventures Inc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI PRONOUNCED ON:16.11.2012 LPA No.748//2012 & CM Nos.19171-19174/2012 + MR. NITET ALVA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through : Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Jalan, Mr.S. Sanatanam Swaminadhan and Ms. Kartika Sharma, Advocates Versus TURNER ASIA PACIFIC VENTURES INC. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishi Agarwala, ms. Malavika Lal, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The appellants challenge an order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.09.2012 in a contempt proceeding, i.e. CCP 230/2012; the order directed them to deposit US$ 1.5 million in Indian Rupee equivalent, at the prevailing rate when the scheme for amalgamation was approved by a learned Company Judge of this Court, within six weeks. LPA 748/2012 Pag2. The brief facts are that the third appellant (hereafter called RLB) is...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Rashmi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2012
$~ 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:16. h November, 2012 + MAC. APP. 691/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate proxy counsel for Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate versus RASHMI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. takes exception to a judgment dated 18.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby while holding that the Appellant Insurance Company was liable to cover the risk in respect of only a third party awarded a compensation of `1,00,000/- towards personal accident cover.2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that a sum of ` 50/- was charged towards the personal accident cover which was meant only for the registered owner if he himself was driving the two-wheeler at the time of the accident. It is stated that the Claim...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »