Delhi Court December 2014 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.
the Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K.Batra and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6634/2011 & CM No.13398/2011 THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ..... Petitioner versus COMMODORE LOKESH K.BATRA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Ms Maneesha Dhir, Mr K. P. S. Kohli, Mr Satyam Thareja and Ms Neha Singhj. For the Respondents : Mr Pranav Sachdeva for Mr Prashant Bhushan. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter the CIC) directing the Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court (hereafter CPIO) to provide information to respondent no.1 regarding pending cases which had been heard and orders reserved. The CIC had further directed that if the information sought was centrally not available, the necessary arrangement be made in future for compiling such information a...
Baijnath Mandal Vs. Uoi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Date of decision:04. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 4151/2008 BAIJNATH MANDAL Through: versus ..... Petitioner Ms. Meenu Mainee, Advocate UOI & ORS .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The present Writ Petition is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for assailing the order dated 11.12.2006 in O.A. No.1687/2005, and order dated 12.03.2008 in R.A. No.36/2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CAT/Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the CAT held that the termination of services of the Petitioner by the Respondents was within the framework of rules and regulations prescribed.2. At the outset, we may note that there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents after 10.09.2014. However, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. We have heard submissions of learned...
Cement Corporation of India Ltd Vs. Mrs. Shobha Dikshit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA4402014 Decided on 4th December, 2014 CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kailash Pandey and Mr. Chirag, Advs. versus MRS. SHOBHA DIKSHIT Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Naveen K Chaudhry, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. Respondent filed a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits against the appellant alleging therein that she had purchased the suit property, that is, Flat No.501 on the 5th Floor, C.C.I. House, 87, Nehru Place, New Delhi admeasuring 530 square feet, more particularly shown in yellow colour in the site plan, from the erstwhile owner. Appellant was tenant of erstwhile owner. Thereafter, appellant attorned the tenancy in favour of respondent and accepted her as landlord. Appellant started paying monthly rent of `1590/- to respondent with effect from March, 1980. However, no registered lease deed was executed between the parties. Appellant increased the r...
Vls Finance Ltd Vs. Southend Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Thr Its
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 970/2013 Decided on :4. H December, 2014 VLS FINANCE LTD Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Ms. Madhavi Khare & Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocates. versus SOUTHEND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD THR ITS DIRECTOR, MR DINESH KUMAR GUPTA, @ D K GUPTA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Arora & Ms. Sanghitra Sawant, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Dushyant Dave & Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocates with Mr. Vijay K. Sondhi, Mr. Venancio DCosta, Mr. Ashish Kr. Singh & Mr. Azeem Samuel, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.(ORAL) 1. By virtue of the present order CM No.4181/2014 filed by respondent No.2 is being decided. The question which has arisen for consideration in this application is as to whether the contempt court, which has passed the order dated 09.01.2014 in CM No.20181 of 2013, to the R-2/Wonder Space Properties Pvt. Ltd in whose favour rights have been created by respondent No.1 as described...
Zest System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adesh Sant
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:4. h December, 2014 % + CS (OS) No.1672/2013 ZEST SYSTEM PVT. LTD. Through Mr. Satinder, Adv. versus ADESH SANT ..... Plaintiff ..... Defendant Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a summary suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff against the defendant under Order XXXVII CPC for a sum of Rs.26,25,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a dealer of H.P. Computers and Laptops who is engaged in the business of selling laptops and computer along with computer peripherals.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was introduced to the plaintiff by the former Vice-President, Marketing of the plaintiff company as a potential client who could provide significant business to the plaintiff. Defendant represented that he is in the business of bulk procurement and supply of computers, laptops an...
M/S Obsurge Biotech Ltd Vs. M/S Goodman Gilmans Life Sciences Pvt Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:4. h December, 2014 % + CS (OS) No.2535/2012 M/S OBSURGE BIOTECH LTD Through ..... Plaintiff Mr. Vikram Bhatia, Adv versus M/S GOODMAN GILMANS LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD & ANR. ....Defendants Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages for infringement of trademark, passing off, delivery up and rendition of accounts etc. against the defendants. Along with the suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC being I.A.No.15108/2012.2. The suit along with said interim application was listed before Court on 22nd August, 2012. After hearing, detailed ex-parte order was passed restraining the defendants, its servants, agents, franchisees, representatives etc. from manufacturing, selling, distributing its medicinal preparation under the name of OSTILAX which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs pr...
The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K.Batra and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 6634/2011 & CM No.13398/2011 THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ..... Petitioner versus COMMODORE LOKESH K.BATRA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Ms Maneesha Dhir, Mr K. P. S. Kohli, Mr Satyam Thareja and Ms Neha Singhj. For the Respondents : Mr Pranav Sachdeva for Mr Prashant Bhushan. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter the CIC) directing the Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court (hereafter CPIO) to provide information to respondent no.1 regarding pending cases which had been heard and orders reserved. The CIC had further directed that if the information sought was centrally not available, the necessary arrangement be made in future for compiling such information a...
Virender Bidhuri Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. No.701 of 2014 & CRL.M.B. No.1197 of 2014 VIRENDER BIDHURI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. F.A. Khan, Advocate. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State. Mr. S.K. Rungta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER0412.2014 Introduction 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd May 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2013 filed by Respondent No.2 seeking setting aside an order dated 30th August 2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) South-East in the case arising out of FIR No.40/05 registered at Police Station (PS) Sarita Vihar whereby while holding him guilty of the offence under Section 379 IPC, the learned MM had ordered release of the Appellant herein on probation of good conduct given him the benefit of Sectio...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. the Commissioner of Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04. 12.2014 W.P.(C) 3479/2012 RAMESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr S.S. Parashar. For the Respondents : Ms Renuka Arora for DSIIDC. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner impugns an order dated 13.05.2010 (hereafter impugned order) rejecting petitioners application/appeal for allotment of industrial plot under the relocation scheme on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish that he was carrying manufacturing business prior to 19.04.1996.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the industrial units which were functioning in non-conforming areas were to be relocated to conforming areas in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) No.4677/1985. In order to facilitate shifting of industrial units from n...
Kale Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2014
$~9,10,13, 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : December 04, 2014 + CRL.A. 1094/2014 NASIR Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate with Mr.Ashok Verma, Advocate versus THE STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Insp.Vijay Kumar, P.S.Vivek Vihar CRL.A. 1121/2014 RAJ KUMAR @ JHUMRU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Rajat Agnihotri, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Represented by: + ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Insp.Vijay Kumar, P.S.Vivek Vihar CRL.A. 1374/2014 KALE Represented by: CRL.A. Nos. 1094, 1121, 1374 & 1459 of /2014 ..... Appellant Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate with Mr.Ashok Verma, versus THE STATE Represented by: + ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with Insp.Vijay Kumar, P.S.Vivek Vihar CRL.A. 1459/2014 AKEEL Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Azhar Qayum, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- Next ›
- Last »