Delhi Court December 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.
Symphony Services Corp(India) Private Ltd Vs. M.G Flo2go Technology Pr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:28. h November, 2013 Date of Decision:6. h December, 2013 % + CO.PET. 457/2010 SYMPHONY SERVICES CORP(INDIA) PRIVATE LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil A. Menon, Adv. versus M.G FLO2GO TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LTD..... Respondent Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar and Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR JUDGMENT R.V. EASWAR, J.: This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of the respondentcompany.2. The petitioner is a private limited company providing software products, engineering outsourcing services to independent software vendors, software enabled businesses and companies whose products contain embedded software. It entered into a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with the respondent-company on 21.9.2009. Under the MSA, the petitioner agreed to provide commercial software development for a product which the respondent-company intended to market. Ther...
Drojan Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on:28. 11.2013. Judgment delivered on:06. 12.2013 CRL.A. 408/2007 DROJAN SINGH Through: versus STATE Through: + CRL.A. 1005/2008 BHUPENDER SINGH Through: versus STATE Through: ..... Appellant Mr. C.M.Sharma, Adv. ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the State. ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. ..... Respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 Both the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2007 whereby they had been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 392/34 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year each for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC; for the offence under Section 392/34 of the IPC, they had been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 ye...
X Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2008/2013 and Crl. M.A. 18262/2013 (for directions) Date of Decision:6. h December, 2013 X (Assumed named of Petitioner) ..... Petitioner In person with Ms. Nandita Roy, Advocate. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for the State with SI Ramesh Chand, PS Kamla Market. Ms. Poonam Singh, Welfare Officer, Nirmal Chhaya. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA SUNITA GUPTA, J.(Oral) 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondent to facilitate medical termination of pregnancy which is likely to cause grave injury to the petitioner and put the child at substantial risk, if born.2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Status report has been filed by the State wherein it is stated that on 29th August, 2013 an information was received from J.R. Sharan, Project Co-o...
Harsh Vardhan and ors. Vs. State Council of Educational Research and T ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: November 26, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: December 06, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2383/2013 STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING & ORS. .....Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Tania Ahlawat, Advocate for Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate versus HARSH VARDHAN & ORS. .....Respondents Represented by: Mr.V.K.Bali, Sr.Advocate, Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Aditya Soni and Mr.K.D.Gupta, Advocates W.P.(C) 2506/2013 STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING & ORS. .....Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Tania Ahlawat, Advocate for Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate versus HARSH VARDHAN & ORS. .....Respondents Represented by: Mr.V.K.Bali, Sr.Advocate, Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Aditya Soni and Mr.K.D.Gupta, Advocates Mr.Roshanl Lal Goel, Advocate for R-5 W.P.(C) 7349/2013 HARSH VARDHAN & ORS. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.V.K.Bali, Sr.Advocate, Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Aditya Soni and Mr.K.D.Gupta, Advocate...
Gulshan Kumar and ors Vs. Sat NaraIn Tulsian (Deceased) Through Lrs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:6. h December, 2013 % + RFA3882011 GULSHAN KUMAR & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. G.L. Rawal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Amarjeet Singh and Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocates. Versus SAT NARAIN TULSIAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. for R-1, 2 & 4. Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr. Sukant Vikram and Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Advs for R-3. Mr. Madan Gera & Mr. Aman Vachher for subsequent purchaser. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 30th April, 2011 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge (Central-07) Delhi in Suit No.383/2010/1980 filed by the four appellants against Shri Sat Narain Tulsian being the predecessor of the respondents no.1 to 6 in this appeal) of dismissal of the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property No.H-3/11, Model Town, Delhi constructed over land ad measuring 1250 sq. yds.2....
Anand J. Datwani Vs. Geeti Bhagat Datwani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) 758 of 2008 & IA Nos. 14395-96 of 2008, 12013 of 2013 Reserved on: November 6, 2013 Decision on: December 6, 2013 ANAND J.DATWANI Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Rajat Navet, Ms. Prachi V. Sharma, Ms. Sanya Talwar and Mr. Kushagra Pandit, Advocates versus GEETI BHAGAT DATWANI & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr.A.P.S.Ahluwalia,Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Sharma and Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocates for Defendants 1-3 CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0612.2013 IA No.12013 of 2013 (Order VII Rule 11 CPC) 1. This is an application under Order VII Rule CPC filed by Defendant No.1 seeking rejection of the plaint.2. The above suit has been filed by Mr. Anand Datwani against his wife, Mrs. Geeti Bhagat Datwani and her parents, Mr. Manmohan Bhagat and Mrs. Sumohini Bhagat, Defendants 2 and 3 for partition, declaration and permanent injunction.The Plaintiff seeks partitioning of the property, including the land and building, at 32, Shivji Marg, We...
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Arun Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:06. 12.2013 + WP(C) No.7669 of 2013 & CM No.16356 of 2013 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nasir Ahmed & Mr. Mohd. Muzahir Hussain, Advs. Versus ARUN KUMAR Through: ....Respondent None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) The respondent before this Court submitted an application to the CPIO of the petitioner Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) seeking photocopies of the answer sheets of his Mathematics Paper-I, of Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2011, along with correct answer of the said paper with detailed solution. The CPIO vide communication dated 18.7.2012 informed the respondent that no model answers were prepared. The photocopies of the evaluated answer sheets was declined seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act.2. Feeling aggrieved from the response of the CPIO, the respondent preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed vid...
Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chanchal Arya and Ano ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) 126/2013 Date of Decision:06. 12.2013 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. PLAINTIFF Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Dhawan, Advocates. Mr.Sanchit Versus CHANCHAL ARYA AND ANOTHER Through: DEFENDANT None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.(Oral) 1. The matter is placed before the court by the learned Joint Registrar recording that no-one has been appearing for the defendants No.1 and 2 despite their having been served of the summons in the prescribed form under Order 37 CPC on 31.08.2013 and 18.03.2013 respectively. It is also recorded that not only that no-one has been appearing on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2, but, even the appearance i.e. mandatorily required to be filed as per the provisions contained in Order 37 Rule 2 (3) CPC, is not filed. As per the provisions contained in Rule 2 Sub-Rule 3 of Order 37 CPC, the allegations contained in the plaint are to be deemed to be admitted on the part of the defendan...
Arvind Garg Vs. Neeta Singhal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on :22. 11.20113 Judgment Pronounced on:06. 12.2013 + IA No.19812/2012 (u/O6R17CPC) in CS(OS) 347/2010 ARVIND GARG Through ..... Plaintiff Mr. Lalit Gupta, Ms. Payal Gupta and Mr. P. Gautham, Advocates with plaintiff in person. versus NEETA SINGHAL Through ..... Defendant Mr. Shoeb Shakeel and Mr. Shishir Kumar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA No.19812/2012 (u/O6R17CPC) 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the plaintiffs wife, the defendant. The plaintiff contends that in the period 2002 to 2009 from his own source of income and funds, he purchased several movable and immovable properties. It is further averred that some of the immovable properties were purchased in the joint name with the defendant, his wife, while some properties were purchased in the single name of the defendant out of love and affection. Hence, he has f...
Shruthi L.S Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education(New Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:06. 12.2013 + WP(C) No.7665 of 2013 &CM No.16345 of 2013 SHRUTHI L.S Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Dinesh Sabharwal and Mr. Sameer Bhardwaj, Advs. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION(NEW DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Adv. for CBSE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) The petitioner before this Court appeared in Class-XII examination held by the respondent Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), in March, 2013. The result of the said examination was declared on 27.5.2013. Being dissatisfied with her result, the petitioner before this Court, applied for revaluation of marks and for rechecking of her result in English (Core). Vide communication dated 14.6.2013, CBSE informed the petitioner that they had carried out scrutiny of marks and rechecking of result as per Rules and Regulations of the Board and there was no change in the marks already awarded to her. Being aggr...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »