Delhi Court July 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.
Zaishu Xie and anr Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:26. h July, 2013 % + CM(M) 1278/2012 ZAISHU XIE & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary and Mr. Neeraj Sood, Advs. versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur and Mr. Amit Gaur, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that they filed an application under Section 151 CPC for the modification of the order dated 07.01.2012 before the ld. Tribunal, however, till date the same has not been decided.2. Further submits, the petitioners, i.e., parents of the deceased are more than 75 years of age. They are Chinese nationals and staying in China.3. After hearing Ld. counsels for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the ld. Tribunal to hear both the parties on aforesaid application and decide the same expeditiously; not later than 2 month...
Mr. Arun Mehra and anr. Vs. Mr. Ravinder Nanda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:14. 05.2013 Pronounced on:26. 07.2013 + RFA (OS) 62/2010, C.M. APPL. 11525/2010, 16110/2010, 3865/2011 & CRL. M.A.853/2011 MR. ARUN MEHRA AND ANR. .....Appellants Through: Sh. Mohit Chaudhary with Ms. Pragya Singh and Sh. Harsh Sharma, Advocates. Versus MR. RAVINDER NANDA AND ORS. .......Respondents Through: Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents. Sh. Udyan Jain with Sh. Amit Sherawat, Advocates, for applicants in C.M. Appl.5107/2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a Learned Single Judge, rejecting the plaint in a suit filed by the appellant (hereafter the Plaintiff) claiming permanent injunction. RFA(OS)62/2010 Pag2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these applications are that the plaintiffs entered into a share purchase agreement dated 19th May, 1997 to purchase ...
Jagdish Nautiyal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 413/2013 IN THE MATTER OF : JAGDISH NAUTIYAL Decided on 26.07.2013 ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Addl. PP CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC praying inter alia for setting aside the order on charge dated 02.07.2013 passed by the learned ASJ in respect of case FIR No.67/2011, lodged under Sections 376/420 IPC.2. Before dealing with the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, a brief reference to the relevant facts of the case leading to the registering of the FIR is considered necessary.3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the complainant/ prosecutrix had alleged commission of offences of cheating, rape and bigamy against the petitioner. She had stated that in the year 1994, she was...
Dr. Rajender Yadav and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
$~S-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:26. 07.2013 + REVIEW PET.322/2013 CM APPL.9791, 9792/2013 IN W.P.(C) 3028/1997 DR. RAJENDER YADAV AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The unsuccessful respondent in the writ petition has preferred this review petition.2. The review petitioner had approached the Court challenging an order proposing to enter the property and to cancel the lease and Review Pet.322/2013 in WP (C) 3028/1997 Page 1 re-enter the property. The orders impugned were 29.05.1997 and 30.06.1997. The order of 6.3.2012 disposing of the writ petition was on agreed terms. The material part of the said order reads as follows: It is, thus agreed that this writ petition be disposed ...
Akhil Dass Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :26. h July, 2013 + CRL.A. 847/2013 & Crl.M.B,No.1372/2013 AKHIL DASS ..... Appellant Through : Mr.J.S.Kushwaha, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. The appellant-Akhil Dass impugns the judgment dated 11.06.2012 in Sessions Case No.9/2010 arising out of FIR No.73/2010 registered at Police Station Narcotics Cell by which he, Chijoke Smith Okpe and Marina were convicted under Section 25A NDPS Act r/w Section 29 NDPS Act. By an order dated 03.07.2012 he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years with fine of `20,000/2. Allegations against the appellant were that he and Chijoke Smith Okpe entered into a criminal conspiracy for supply of controlled substance (ephedrine) and consequent to that appellant and Chijoke Smith Okpe were found exchanging the same with conscious possession of ephedrine. On 25.05.2010 a secret inform...
Arun Vs. District and Sessions Judge
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.5880/2012 and C.M. No.12101/2012 26th July, 2013 % ARUN Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. versus DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat & Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition came up for hearing in the morning when a request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for adjournment to file the rejoinder affidavit. The counter affidavit was filed way back in January, 2013 (i.e as many as six months back), and therefore, request for filing rejoinder was declined. The request for passover was however acceded to. On the second call, during the course of hearing I told the counsel for the petitioner that whatever is the rejoinder with him, he may give the same to the Court, however, this rejoinder has not been given to the Court. Counsel for the petitio...
Vinaik Goods Transport Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (C) NO.5164/2012 VINAIK GOODS TRANSPORT CO. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Advocate. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Ms. Suparna Srivastva, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Sh. Mangal Vinaik, proprietor of M/s Vinaik Goods Transport Co., praying for directions to the respondent, which happens to be the North Delhi Municipal Corporation in this case, to issue a No Objection Certificate in respect of Plot not BG-120, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Samaypur Badli, G.T. Road, Delhi, in favour of the petitioner so that the petitioner may be in a position to get the necessary building plan sanctioned and thereafter to carry out construction on the said plot. Further directions are sought to the North Delhi Municipal Corporation to execute the requisite Lease Deed in favour of the petitioner with reg...
Haripal Singh Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.4659/2013 Date of decision:26. h July, 2013 % HARIPAL SINGH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. N.L.Bareja, Advocate versus THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Anil Gautam, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1 st May, 2013 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal in O.A.No.429/2012 rejecting the petitioners challenge to the order dated 18th July, 2012 whereby the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Havildar to Naib Subedar from the date when Hav.K.N.Pandey being junior to the petitioner was promoted, has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the assessment endorsed by the Reviewing Officer on the petitioners ACRs for the year 2004 and 2005.2. The petitioner was enrolled as Driver (MT) on 2nd October, 1982 and was thereafter pr...
Prem Lata Dubey Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 4671/2013 26th July, 2013 PREM LATA DUBEY ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Shekhar Nanawaty, Adv. VERSUS DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner one Smt. Prem Lata claiming the relief of release of family pension to her, and which pension was payable on account of late husband of the petitioner Sh. N.P.Dubey having worked with the respondent-Delhi Cantonment Board.2. On behalf of the petitioner, it is claimed that the entitlement to pension is not a bounty by the Government and it is a right in property which therefore cannot be withheld by the Government under any circumstances. This argument is raised because the petitioner, and prior thereto her husband, are illegally holding on to the accommodation given to Sh. N.P.Dubey during the period of N.P. Dubeys service wit...
M/S Coral Seal and Ceramics Vs. Sunil Sagar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
* #22 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 1662 of 2012 M/S CORAL SEAL & CERAMICS ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sushant Singh with Mr. P.C. Arya, Mr. Gowtham, Mr. V.K. Shukla, Mr. Tejinder Singh and Ms. Parveen Arya, Advocates. versus SUNIL SAGAR ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 26 07.2013 % 1. The following issues are framed: (1) Whether the Plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the trademark CORAL MECHANICAL SEAL? OPP (2) Whether the Defendant is passing off its goods as and those of the Plaintiff? OPP (3) Whether the Defendants packaging is identical to the Plaintiffs packaging, thereby amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs copyright? OPP (4) Whether there is concealment of material facts by the Plaintiff and to what effect? OPD (5) Whether the Defendant is the prior user of the impugned trademark CORAL MECHANICAL SEAL? OPD (6) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages as claimed by the Plaintiff? OPP (7...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »