Delhi Court December 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.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Amarjit Singh @ Neetu
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:14. h December, 2012 + MAC.APP. 653/2012 U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION...... Appellant Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv. versus AMARJIT SINGH @ NEETU. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.K.Vashisth, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. This Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 16.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of `9,90,700/- was awarded in favour of the Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 24.08.2009 resulting in 50% disability in respect of his right leg.2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of bus not UP-11T2704 by its driver.3. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `9,90,700/- which is tabulated hereunder:Compensation under various heads Sl.No.1. MAC. APP. 653/201...
Manali Malik and ors Vs. Rekha Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.608/2010 and CM No.14861/2010 Date of decision :14. h December, 2012 % MANALI MALIK & ORS. Through : ..... Appellants Mr. Sonal Sinha, Adv. versus REKHA KHANNA Through : ..... Respondent Mr. Alok Sharma, Adv. CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT 1 The appellants have challenged the decree for `5,00,000/- passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the respondent and against the appellants.2. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks before the learned Trial Court.3. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of `5,37,500/- against the appellants/defendants before the District Judge. The case of the plaintiff is as under:(i) The plaintiff advanced a loan of `5,00,000/- by means of two cheques bearing Nos.689706 and 689707 for `3,00,000/- and `2,00,000/- resp...
Wireless Broadband Business Services ( Haryana) Pv Vs. ............... ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:14. h December, 2012 % + CO.APPL.(M) 137/2012 WIRELESS BRAODBAND BUSINESS SERVICES (HARYANA ) PVT LTD ..... Transferor Company No. 3 Applicant AND WIRELESS BRAODBAND BUSINESS SERVICES (DELHI ) PVT LTD ..... Transferor Company No. 1 AND WIRELESS BRAODBAND BUSINESS SERVICES (KERALA ) PVT LTD ..... Transferor Company No. 2 WITH WIRELESS BRAODBAND BUSINESS SERVICES LTD Through ..... Transferee Company Mr. N. Ganpathy, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This is a first motion application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 filed by Wireless Broadband Business Services (Haryana) Private Limited (Transferor Company No. 3 or Applicant Company) in respect of a Scheme of Amalgamation between Wireless Broadband Business Services (Delhi) Private Limited (Transferor Company No. 1); Wireless Broadband Business Services (Kerala) Private Limited (Transferor Company No.2) and the Applican...
Wireless Broadband Business Services (Kerla) Pvt. Vs. ................ ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:14. h December, 2012 % + CO.APPL.(M) 136/2012 WIRELESS BRAODBAND BUSINESS SERVICES (KERALA ) PVT LTD ..... Transferor Company No. 2/ Applicant AND WIRELESS BRAODBAND BUSINESS SERVICES (DELHI ) PVT LTD ..... Transferor Company No. 1 AND WIRELESS BRAODBAND BUSINESS SERVICES (HARYANA ) PVT LTD ..... Transferor Company No. 3 WITH WIRELESS BRAODBAND BUSINESS SERVICES LTD Through ..... Transferee Company Mr. N. Ganpathy, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This is a first motion application under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 filed by Wireless Broadband Business Services (Kerala) Private Limited (Transferor Company No. 2 or Applicant Company) in respect of a Scheme of Amalgamation between Wireless Broadband Business Services (Delhi) Private Limited (Transferor Company No. 1); the Applicant Company; and Wireless Broadband Business Services (Haryana) Private Limited (Transferor Co...
Harmeet Gahi and anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:14. h December, 2012 + CO.PET. 391/2012 MR.HARMEET GAHI AND ANR. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Mukesh Sukhija, Advocate. versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES Through: ..... Respondent Mr.K.S.Pradhan, Dy. ROC. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This is a petition under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of M/s UG Leasing & Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) in the Register of Companies with the Registrar of Companies (ROC). The company was incorporated with the ROC.2. The company was holding the substantial shareholding as promoters of M/s UG Hotels & Resorts Limited, a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies act. The said UG Hotels had obtained loans/financial facilities from M/s ICICI, IFCI and TFCI and the share held by the promoters of UG Hotels were pledged with the said financial institut...
Panacea Biotech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:03. 12.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:14. 12.2012 + WP (C) No. 4717/2011 & CM No.9555/2011 PANACEA BIOTECH LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Shri Rajesh Mahna with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocates Versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Sh. Vineet Bhatia, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The writ petitioner is a public limited company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pharmaceutical products registered with the Department of Trade and Taxes. It has been purchasing goods based on the strength of the Registration certificate. It impugns the determination of the respondent authorities that the consideration it received for the sale of its cars, should be included in its total turnover for the relevant assessment year. WP(C) No. 4717/2011 Pag2. The Sales Tax Officer (Assessing Authority, the third Respondent), for...
Delhi Public School Society Vs. D.P.S. Trust
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:3. 12.2012 Judgment pronounced on:14. 12.2012 CS(OS) 1519/2008 DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY Through: .. Plaintiff Mr. Ankur Aggarwal, Adv. versus .. Defendant D.P.S. TRUST Through: None CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.1. The plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and was established with objects inter alia to establish schools or other educational institutions and to impart education to boys and girls. A logo was created by the plaintiff society to distinguish its institutions. The logo comprises inter alia a distinctive design with words Delhi Public School (in stylized form) on the bottom, words service before self (in stylized form) on the top and a hand holding a mashaal in the centre. The plaintiff society has established various schools under the name Delhi Public School and thus the name Delhi Public School as also the logo created by the plaintiff society are ...
Maya Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.C.REV. 584/2012 Date of Decision:14. 12.2012 MAYA DEVI Through: Petitioner Mr. Arun Sukhija, Advocate. Versus Respondent ASHOK KUMAR Through: Nemo. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.(Oral) CM 20761/2012 (Early hearing) This is an application for early hearing for the matter. Heard. In view of the submissions made therein, the application is allowed and the matter is being taken up today itself for hearing. CM stands disposed of. R.C.Rev. 584/2012 1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act) is directed against the order dated 23.12.2011 of Administrative Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), North East, whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, was allowed, as also the order dated 25.09.2012 whereby the applications seeking review of the order of 23.12.2011 and for condonation of delay & stay of the execution order, were...
B.R.Foods Ltd. Vs. .......................
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
$~A6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:14th December, 2012 % + CO.PET. 163/1995 IN THE MATTER OF BR FOODS LTD. Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. for the Official Liquidator. Mr.K.N.Jayshanker, Advocate for Kailash Apartments Pvt. Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) Co. Appl. 2398/2012 1. This application has been filed under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking dissolution of the Company M/s B.R. Foods Limited. The Company was wound up on 27.10.1998.2. The registered office of the Company located at 9935/11, New Rohtak Raod, New Sarai Rohilla Railway Station was sealed on 16.04.1999; it was a rented premises and as per the order of this Court dated 02.09.2009, the Official Liquidator was directed to return the premises to the owner provided that he would provide Indemnity Bond & undertaking for the same; the premises were returned back to the owner. All the records were shifted to the office of the...
Ram Devi Vs. Raj Rani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.C.REV. 381/2012 Date of Decision:14. 12.2012 RAM DEVI Through: Petitioner Mr. Vijay Tandon, Advocate. Versus Respondent RAJ RANI & ANR. Through: Nemo. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.(Oral) 1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act) is directed against the order dated 2.5.2012 of Addl. Rent Controller (North), whereby the leave to defend application filed by the respondents, was allowed.2. The respondents are the tenants under the petitioner in respect of two rooms with covered verandah etc. on the ground floor of property No. 4325, Basti Data Ram, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. Their eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the petitioner for herself and for her family members. The respondents filed application for leave to defend, which was allowed by the learned ARC vide impugned order. The same is under challenge in the instant petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »