Delhi Court January 2013 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.
D.E. Shaw Composite Investments (Mauritius) Ltd Vs. Amar Ujala Publica ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: January 30, 2013 + OMP No.218/2011 D.E. SHAW COMPOSITE INVESTMENTS (MAURITIUS) LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Shankh Sengupta & Mr.Parinay D.Shah, Advs. versus AMAR UJALA PUBLICATIONS LIMITED & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Vibhu Bhakru, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Mr.P.R.Rajhans & Mr.Neeraj Kapoor, Advs. for R-1 to R-6. Mr.Saket Sikri, Adv. with Mr.Hitesh Sachar, Adv. for R-7 to R-9. + OMP No.801/2011 D.E. SHAW COMPOSITE INVESTMENTS (MAURITIUS) LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Shankh Sengupta & Mr.Parinay D.Shah, Advs. versus AMAR UJALA PUBLICATIONS LIMITED & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Vibhu Bhakru, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Mr.P.R.Rajhans & Mr.Neeraj Kapoor, Advs. for R-1 to R-6. Mr.Saket Sikri, Adv. with Mr.Hitesh Sachar, Adv. for R-7 to R-9. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) I.A.No.783/2013 in OMP No.218...
J.M. Kohli Vs. Vimal Kanta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.S.A. NO.47 OF 200.Decided on :30. h January , 2013 J.M. KOHLI Through: Appellant Mr.Adhirath, proxy counsel. Versus VIMAL KANTA Through: Respondent Mr.Kanwal Choudhary, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a Regular Second Appeal filed in the year 2005 which is pending in this Court for nearly last eight years.2. The dispute in the instant case between the appellant and the respondent, who happen to be husband and wife, (since divorced on 30.9.1994) is with regard to the share in the property bearing no.50/5, East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.3. The case was called out earlier in the morning and a request for pass over was made by the proxy counsel for the appellant. In the second call, a request for adjournment is made by the proxy counsel on the ground that Ms.Geeta Luthra, learned senior counsel is held up in a matter in Supreme Court and therefore, the matter may be adjourned.4. On 11.9.12, the matter was fix...
Neelam and anr Vs. Sada Ram and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:30. h January, 2013. + CS(OS) 823/2010, I.A. No.5597/2010 (u/O 3.R-1 & 2 CPC) & I.A. No.5598/2010 (u/O 4.R-1 CPC) NEELAM & ANR Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. Deepender Hooda, Advocate. Versus SADA RAM & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr. B.S. Maan, Ms. Smita Maan and Mr. Jitin Singh, Advocates for D-1 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW JUDGMENT 30 01.2013 % 1. This suit is predicated on the fact that the two plaintiffs have a share in the properties inherited by their grandfather (defendant No.1) from his own father. The entire case of the plaintiffs is that the said properties are thus ancestral properties in the hands of their grandfather defendant No.1 and in which the father of the plaintiffs had a share by birth and which share, upon the death of their father devolved on the plaintiffs and their mother (defendant No.6). The plaintiffs thus claim partition. The defendants No.2 to 5 are the paternal aunts of...
Mohd. Aslam and anr Vs. K.K. Aggarwal and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on: January 30, 2013 OMP No.77/2013 & I.A.No.1448/2013 MOHD. ASLAM & ANR Through ..... Petitioners Mr.S.K.Bhalla, Adv. versus K.K. AGGARWAL & ANR Through ..... Respondents None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) I.A.No.1449/2013 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. OMP No.77/2013 & I.A.No.1448/2013 1. The abovementioned petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 11 read with Section 14(1)(a) & 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, called the Act) seeking directions to terminate the mandate of the sole arbitrator. It is an undisputed fact that earlier also, the petitioner No.1 filed the petition under Sections 14 & 15 of the Act seeking same prayers that the Arbitrator who was appointed to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the petitioner and the respondent should be withdrawn and assign...
Ms. Arati Bhargava and anr. Vs. Mrs. Madhur Bhargava and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:24. 04.2012 PRONOUNCED ON:30. 01.2013 + RFA 855/2003, C.M. APPL. 2099/2003, 2182/2003, 4688/2004, 13259/2006, 10056/2010 & 5670/2012 MS. ARATI BHARGAVA AND ANR. .Appellants Versus MRS. MADHUR BHARGAVA AND ORS. Respondents RFA 878/2003, C.M. APPL. 2144/2003 M/S. EKTA AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus MRS. MADHUR BHARGAVA AND ORS. RFA 912/2003, C.M. APPL. 2235/2003 MR. AJAY SANGHI Versus MRS. MADHUR BHARGAVA AND ORS. .Appellant Respondents .Appellant Respondents Appearance: Sh. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Alok Kumar, Ms. Lata Krishnamurti, Sh. Karan Kalia, Sh. Ashish and Sh. Pranav Diesh, Advocates, for appellants in RFA 855/2003 and for respondents in RFA 732/2003, RFA 878/2003 & RFA 912/2003. Sh. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shraddha Bhargava and Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocates. Sh. Virender Goswami with Ms. Soni Singh and Sh. Sankalp Sharma, Advocates, for appellant in RFA 912/2003. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. ...
M/S. Bio Line India Vs. M/S. Bajaj Blood Bank
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1. In a complaint case bearing No.695/2008 filed by the complainant against the Bio-Line India, Indore, pending before District Forum(Central) proceedings were ex-parte against the OP, and the Forum decreed the claim of the complainant ex-parte vide order dated 25.08.2009. 2. That is what brings the appellant/OP in this appeal before this Commission, assailing, order to declare him ex-parte vide order dated 05.03.2009 and the Award passed ex-parte. 3. We have heard Sh. Pramod Kumar, Proxy for Sh. Manish Garg, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent in this appeal. 4. Adverting to the order, to proceed ex-parte against the OP, we find that proceedings were made ex-parte against the OP by the Forum, since he did not appear on 13.01.2009, which was the first date of appearance and on two subsequent dates 25.02.2009 and 05.03.2009. 5. It does not appear from the District Forums record that how the notice was sent whether by registered post or by some ot...
Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 518/2013 % JANUARY 29 2013 MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA Through: ..... Petitioner In person with Mr. Jetendra Singh, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Ravinder Aggarwal, Adv./CGSC. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This is a very hard case, but, hard cases can lay down wrong law. Sometimes even courts are powerless to do anything, because although, in equity it may want to grant relief, however, where declaration of law is categorical, courts cannot breach the law to grant relief which is prayed merely on the grounds of sympathy and equity.2. In the present case, the petitioner challenges his transfer order passed sometime back on 14.05.2012. Pursuant to the transfer order a relieving order was issued on the same date, so that the petitioner may join his place of posting at EIA Kochi, HO. The petitioner instead of joining at Kochi ...
Sanjay Arora and ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Arora and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
#16 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TR.P.(C) 20/2012 SANJAY ARORA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Aaditya Vijaykumar, Advocate versus SUDHIR KUMAR ARORA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Advocate for R-2 to 4, 6 and 8. Date of Decision:29. h January, 2013. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral): I.A. 14466/2012 IN TR.P.(C) 20/2012 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. TR.P.(C) 20/2012 & I.A. 14465/2012 1. Present transfer petition has been filed under Sections 23 and 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer of probate case bearing RC No. 3/2011 pending before Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to this Court.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have already filed a suit for partition against respondent no. 1 being CS(OS) 39/2011 in this Court. He further states that vide order dated 10th January, 2011 this Court in CS(OS) 39/2011 stayed the alienation and transf...
Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. Udayan Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :29. h January, 2013 % + CM(M) 110/2013 PRISM CEMENT LTD. Through : .... Petitioner Mr.Akshay Ringe, Adv. versus UDAYAN LAL & ANR. Through : ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % PRATIBHA RANI, J.(ORAL) CM Nos.1499/2013 & 1500/2013 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. Applications stand disposed of. CM (M) No.110/2013 & CM No. 1498/2013 (Stay) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.11.2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioner (defendant No.1 in CS No.488 of 2006) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement, was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Delhi.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment sought to be made in the written statement is necessitated as certain facts came to the notice of the petitioner only after services of defendant No.2, who w...
Pragati Construction Co. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:29. 01.2013 + LPA 763/2003 .. Appellant PRAGATI CONSTRUCTION CO. Through : Mr. N.K. Kantawala with Mr. Amit P. Deshpande, Advocate Vs. .. Respondents D.D.A. & Anr. Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. LPA 764/2003 . Appellant PRAGATI CONSTRUCTION CO. Through : Mr. N.K. Kantawala with Mr. Amit P. Deshpande, Advocate Vs. UOI & Ors. .. Respondents Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % The Appellant was successful in its bid at a public auction by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for plot No.6, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The Appellants bid was confirmed on 21-8-1980. LPA 763-64/2003 Pag2. One of the auction conditions related to payment of ground rent; its terms were that for the first two years, such rent was Re.1/- per annum and subsequently, it was to be at 2.5% of the premium amount. The Ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »