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.
Sajid Alam Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
$-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :5. h JULY, 2013 + CRL.A. 30/2012 & CRL.M.B. 837/2013 SAJID ALAM Through : ..... Appellant Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J.(Open Court) 1. The appellant- Sajid Alam challenges a judgment dated 08.06.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 16/2010 arising out of FIR No. 49/2009 PS Paharganj by which he and his associate Moinudin @ Chhotu were held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. By an order dated 07.07.2011, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for six years with fine ` 10,000/and failing to pay the fine to undergo SI for six months.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 04.03.2009 at 11.00 P.M. at Chitragupta Road, the appellant- Sajid Alam and his associate- Moinudin @ Chhotu attempted to kill Ashfaq Alam. Moinudin threw acid on him and...
Rk Hirenkohomba Vs. Gs Patnaik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
P$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 574/2011 RK HIRENKOHOMBA ..... Petitioner versus GS PATNAIK ..... Respondent Date of decision:5. h July, 2013 Advocates who appeared in this case: For the petitioner: Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Zubeda Begum, St. Counsel for GNCTD. Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(ORAL) 1. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that despite the order passed on 20.04.2011 in writ petition No.2462/2011 issuing directions to the effect that, If there is any encroachment, DDA shall take appropriate action regard being had to the averments made in the present petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed today; the DDA has failed to demolish and remove the encroachments. This order came to be passed on the allegations, inter alia, that there is an encroachment on the land situated in Khasra No.560/1...
Shri Sanjay Sharma Vs. Shri Madan Mohan Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h July, 2013 % + RFA2922013 & CM No.9821/2013 (for stay) SHRI SANJAY SHARMA Through: ..... Appellant Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate. Versus SHRI MADAN MOHAN SHARMA Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 Though this is a first appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge and is before this Bench today for the first time for admission and further though ordinarily first appeals require consideration on merits after perusal of the records, but the facts of the present case are such that there is no need to follow the said ordinary procedure which would result in the negation of justice.2. The respondent filed the suit from which this appeal arises against the appellant for recovery of possession of flat No.74C, Pocket-E, Dilshad Garden, Delhi claiming the appellant to be in trespass/unaut...
Jord Engineers India Ltd Vs. J.K. Forgings
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h July, 2013 % + RFA4232012 JORD ENGINEERS INDIA LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Afroz Ahmad, Adv. versus J.K. FORGINGS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. B.S. Dhir, Adv. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J1 This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC impugns the judgment and decree dated 7th July, 2012 of the learned Addl. District Judge-04, West (in CS2262011) in favour of the respondent for recovery of Rs.6,57,060/along with pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum from the appellant. Notice of the appeal was issued and vide ex parte ad interim order dated 16th October, 2012 the operation of the impugned judgment and decree was stayed subject to the appellant depositing the entire decretal amount before this Court. The same has not been done and CM No.569/2013 has been filed seeking exemption from such deposit on the ground of the appellant being a sick company within the meaning of Sick Industrial Co...
Abhey Dewan and ors Vs. Manoj Sethi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h July, 2013 % + CS(OS) 491/2010, I.A. Nos.3459/2010, 3460/2010 & 3461/2010 (all u/O 3.R-1 & 2 CPC) & I.A. No.8014/2012 (of defendant no.3 u/O 7 R-11 r/w O-1 R-10 CPC). ABHEY DEWAN & ORS Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. R.K. Sinha and Mr. Ganesh Kumar, Advocates. Versus MANOJ SETHI & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Vipul Srivastav, Adv. for D-1&2 Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Adv. for D-3. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.The three plaintiffs have instituted this suit for cancellation of documents, recovery and damages of Rs.25 lacs and permanent injunction, pleading:(a). that the plaintiff no.3 Shri Gobind Dewan is the father of the plaintiff no.1 and father-in-law of the plaintiff no.2 Mrs. Mahima Dewan; (b). that the defendant no.1 Shri Manoj Sethi had approached the plaintiff no.1 on 24th October, 2005 for sale to the plaintiff no.1 of plot ad-measuring 32 sq. mtrs. bearing not C-2/299, Sector32, ...
Tirupati Buildplaza Private Limited Vs. ....
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h July, 2013 COMPANY PETITION NO. 26 of 2013 Tirupati BuildPlaza Private Limited ......Petitioner Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. K.S. Pradhan, Dy. Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director. Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR R. V. EASWAR, J.: (ORAL) 1. This second motion petition has been filed under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) by Tirupati BuildPlaza Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Transferor company) seeking sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation (Scheme) between the Petitioner Transferor company and Gupta Promoters Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferee company). The Petitioner Transferor company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Transferee company and there being no rearrangement vis a vis the shareholders of the Transferee company, the Transferee company has not a...
Peeyush Aggarwal Vs. Sanjeev Bhavnani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h July, 2013 % + CS(OS) 1026/2010 PEEYUSH AGGARWAL Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sachin Chopra with Mr. Sarvpreet S. Chawla & Mr. Anuj Tyagi, Advs. Versus SANJEEV BHAVNANI Through: .....Defendant Mr. N. Kumar with Ms. Shelly Dutta, Advs. Mr. Kamal Bansal, Adv. for D2&3. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.The plaintiff claims: (i) that M/s Visesh Infotecnics Ltd. (VIL) is a public limited company; (ii) that the defendant was a Joint Managing Director of the said company holding about 11,000 shares in his name; (iii) that in the year 2004, the plaintiff purchased the majority shares in the said company and took over the management thereof from the erstwhile management and assumed the position of chairman of the said company; (iv) that the plaintiff, for the sake of continuity, allowed the defendant to continue with the company and gave him the position of Managing Director in the company making ...
Vikas @ Kishore Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : April 18, 2013 DECIDED ON : July 04, 2013 + CRL.A.1026/2011 VIKAS @ KISHORE Through : ..... Appellant Mr.S.K.Sethi, Advocate. versus STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The appellant-Vikas @ Kishore impugns judgment dated 31.03.2010 in Sessions Case No.1008/2009 arising out of FIR No.220/2008 police station Ashok Vihar by which he was convicted under Section 394/34 read with Section 397 IPC. By an order dated 13.04.2010, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine `50,000/-.2. Allegations against the appellant Vikas @ Kishore were that on 28.06.2008 at 04.30 A.M. he and his associates Ravinder @ Sudhir and Raju committed lurking house trespass at Nathu Rams House not L-196, Wazirpur, JJ Colony. They were armed with knives and in the process of committing robbery injured Nathu Ram when he raised alarm. He was injured on his hea...
M/S. Silicon Graphics Systems India Private Limite Vs. Nidas Estates P ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29. 04.2013 Pronounced on:04. 07.2013 + RFA (OS) 116/2011, C.M. APPL. 4178/2012 M/S. SILICON GRAPHICS SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Rajiv Tyagi, Advocate. Versus NIDAS ESTATES PRIVATE LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Sh. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Mannmohit. K. Puri, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % FACTS 1 The present appeal arises against the decree passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 1661/2003 and CS(OS) 2108/2011 for the recovery of Rs. 45,23,414/-.2. The appellant and respondent, both private limited companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 entered into a license agreement dated 01.09.1995 in respect of premises bearing No 305A and 305B, Embassy Square, 148 Infantry Road, RFA(OS)116/2011, C.M. APPL.4178/2012 Page 1 Bangalore (suit premises). The said premises were licensed by the respondent to...
Smt Suman Malhotra and anr Vs. Gulfam and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:4. h July, 2013 % + MAC.APP. 44/2011 SMT SUMAN MALHOTRA & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Rajat Aneja, Adv. versus GULFAM & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Ms.Shanta Devi Raman, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant by challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby the claim petition filed under Section 163-A has been dismissed on the ground that the annual income of the deceased was much more higher than Rs.40,000/- per annum, the ceiling prescribed in Schedule-II.2. The learned Tribunal has also considered the case of Rumkani Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another 2009 ACJ 220.and opined that in the facts and circumstance of the case, the above cited case is not applicable.3. The issue before coordinate bench of this court in the case of Rukmani Devi (Supra) was that whether a clai...
- ‹ Prev
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next ›
- Last »