Delhi Court May 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.
Bimalkishore Pandey Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :1. t April, 2013 DECIDED ON : May 30, 2013 + CRL.A. 25/2006 BIMALKISHORE PANDEY ..... Appellant Through : Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate. with Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate. versus C.B.I. Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Manoj Ohri, Spl.PP. AND + CRL.A. 36/2006 RAKESH SHARMA Through : ..... Appellant Mr.A.P.Mohanty, Advocate with Mr.P.K.Pattanaik, Advocate. versus STATE THR.C.B.I. Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Manoj Ohri, Spl.PP. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellants Bimal Kishore Pandey (A-1) and Rakesh Sharma (A-2) challenge judgment dated 23.12.2005 in RC No.56(A) & 57 (A) of 1990/CBI/ACB/ND CC No.53 of 2004 by which they were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine `10,000/- each in RC No.56 (A)/90 and RI for one and a half year with fine of `25,000 each in RC N...
Sara International Limited Vs. Rizhao Steel Holding Group Company Limi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2013
F-20 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1586/2009 SARA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Senior Advocate Amicus Curiae. Ms. Anuradha Mukherjee, Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Mittal and Ms. Jyoti Dastidar, Advocates for plaintiff. versus RIZHAO STEEL HOLDING GROUP COMPANY LIMITED Through: None. ..... Defendant Date of Decision:30. h May, 2013 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of US$ 2,72,110.91 along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its realization along with costs.2. The facts of the present case are that the defendant placed a purchase order on the plaintiff for supply of 41,000 Wet Metric Tonne (WMT) processed Indian Iron Ore Fines (goods) produced from mines in India with minimal 61% Iron (Fe) content. For this purpose, the parties entered into a formal contract dated ...
indus Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indus International Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2013
-* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No. 1341/1998 Date of Decision:30. 05.2013 INDUS TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD. Through: ....Plaintiff Ms. Lalita Kohli, Mr. Abhishek Swarup, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advs. Versus ...Defendant INDUS INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. Through: Nemo CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of USD 409,086 (US $ Four Hundred and Nine Thousand Eighty Six only), equivalent to Rs. 1,61,71,170/(Rupees One Crore Sixty One Lakh Seventy One Thousand and One Hundred Seventy Only).2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of tour operators in India, Nepal and other Asian countries. The defendant is a company incorporated under the laws of Japan and is also engaged in the business of tourism, operating from Japan. The plaintiff submits that it had been rendering various services for conducting tours to the defendant company since the...
M.P.Singh Sahni Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :1. t FEBRUARY, 2013 DECIDED ON :30. h MAY, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 3773/2003 & CRL.M.A.5093/2003 M.P.SINGH SAHNI Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.M.P.Singh Sahni in person. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Harnam Singh in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 05.01.2002 by which he was summoned for committing offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.2. It reveals that complaint case was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner on 11.11.1997 for committing offence under Section 500 IPC. It was stated that on 22.07.1991 an agreement was executed with the petitioner by which he was to provide professional/ consultancy services to him. Several correspondences were exchanged between them in pursuance of the said agreement. The complainant further...
Ashwani Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) Nos.2434/2013, 2439/2013, 2511/2013, 2513/2013 & 2514/2013 Date of decision:30. h May, 2013 % + W.P.(C) 2434/2013 DEEPAK KUMAR Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv. Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv. for R-3, 4 & 7. with + W.P.(C) 2439/2013 PRADYUMN KUMAR TOMAR Through: Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv. Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv. for R-3, 4 & 7. with + W.P.(C) 2511/2013 SHARWAN KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv. Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv. for R-3, 4 & 7. with + W.P.(C) 2513/2013 VAREITHING A. SHATSANG ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Soayib Qureshi, Adv. and + W.P.(C) 2514/2013 ASHWANI KUMAR Through...
Dileep Kumar Singh Bisht Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :22. 05.2013 Decided on :30. 05.2013 + W.P.(C)3156/2013 DILEEP KUMAR SINGH BISHT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anil Mittal, Advocate VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Himanshu Bajaj and Mr.Aditya Malhotra, Advocates for UOI/R-1, R-4 and R-5 Mr.Narendra Mann, Advocate for R2/CBI CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.1. By the present public interest litigation, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for directions to respondent No.2 CBI to hold time-bound inquiry against respondent No.3 Sh. Subhash Kumar under the direct supervision of this Court and to investigate the allegations against him.2. The petitioner claims to be a citizen of India and a domicile of Uttarakhand. He is also an Ex-Corporator of the Lucknow Nagar Nigam. He states that the present writ has been filed on the basis of information received by him from various documen...
Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :1. t FEBRUARY, 2013 DECIDED ON :30. h MAY, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 2790/2000 & CRL.M.A.Nos.3413/2000, 2131/2001, 1405/2002 & 4162/2003 MOHINDER PAL SINGH Through : ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Harnam Singh in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner Mohinder Pal Singh for quashing of the complaint case Harnam Singh vs. Mohinder Pal Singh by which he was summoned for committing offence punishable under Section 420 IPC vide order dated 11.11.1998. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed review application against order dated 11.11.1998 vide order dated 15.10.1999. Vide order dated 20.07.2000, the revision petition was also dismissed. The said orders are also under challenge.2. It reveals that complaint case under Sections 415-418 and 420 IPC was instituted on 12.01.1998. The complain...
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Mr. Onkar Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2013
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) Nos. 805/2004 Date of Decision:30. 05.2013 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. Through: ......Plaintiff Mr. Said Khan, Mr. Achutan Sreekumar, Advs. Versus MR. ONKAR SINGH & ORS ............Defendants Through: Nemo CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, breach of contract, inducement to breach, damages, rendition of accounts of profits and delivery up of all infringing materials with respect to copyright in the album Sun Nakhre Waliye. It is pertinent to note at the very outset that the issues in the instant suit would be governed by the Copyright Act, 1957 (Act). This is in light of the fact that under the erstwhile Act, the author of a literary or musical work included in a sound recording could sell all copyrights including the right to receive royalties for a one-time or a lump sum consideration. The facts of the case are as follows:2. The plainti...
M.P.Singh Sahni Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :1. t FEBRUARY, 2013 DECIDED ON :30. h MAY, 2013 + CRL.M.C. 3781/2003 & CRL.M.A.Nos.4381/2005, 8307/2008 & 5104/2003 M.P.SINGH SAHNI Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.M.P.Singh Sahni in person. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : + Mr.Harnam Singh in person. CRL.M.C. 3782/2003 & CRL.M.A.Nos.5106/2003, 8306/2008 & 5962/2008 M.P.SINGH SAHNI Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.M.P.Singh Sahni in person. versus STATE &ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Harnam Singh in person. AND + CRL.M.C. 3783/2003 & CRL.M.A.Nos.5108/2003, 8305/2008 & 5950/2008 M.P.SINGH SAHNI Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.M.P.Singh Sahni in person. versus STATE &ORS. ..... Respondents Through : CRL.M.C.Nos.3781-3783/2003 Mr.Harnam Singh in person. Page 1 of 16 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. M.P.Singh Sahni (hereinafter referred as the petitioner or accused) has preferred various petitions CRL.M.C.Nos. 3772/2003, 244445/2005, 54/2008, 2790/2000,...
Arif Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) Nos.3409/2013 Date of decision:30. h May, 2013 % ARIF ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Seema Sharma,Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Adv. for R1. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA % ORDER 30 05.2013 GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. With the consent of both the sides, this writ petition is taken up for hearing. A short issue which arises in this case is as to whether the petitioner, whose signatures are entirely in capital letters in English can be denied appointment to the post of Constable(GD) in the Central Armed forces i.e BSF, CISF, CRPF, SSB etc.2. This issue has been dealt with earlier vide a pronouncement dated 24 th February, 2012 in W.P.(C) 1004/2012 titled as Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another v. Neeraj Kumar and Another.3. A similar issue thereafter was decided in favour of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C). 6959/2012 vide an order da...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »