Delhi Court June 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 1 of about 16 results (0.021 seconds)Kavita Kanwar Vs. State (N.C.T.Delhi) and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO362010 Date of Decision: June 27th, 2014 % KAVITA KANWAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Arun Khosla with Ms.Shreeanka Kakkar, Advocates versus STATE (N.C.T.Delhi) & ORS .... Respondents Through: Mr.P.Banerjee with Ms.Nidhi Parashar, Advs for respondent no.2. Ms.Maninder Acharya, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Mr.Yatish Chandra & Mr.Gaurav Khanna, Advocates for respondent no.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J * 1. Present is an appeal under section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein challenge has been made to the judgment dated 23.11.2009 passed by the ld.Addl. District Judge in Probate Case no.465/2006 whereby the probate petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.2. Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are as under:Appellant had filed a probate petition for the grant of probate of Will dated 20.5.2003 alleged to have been executed by her...
Tag this Judgment!Microsoft Corporation and anr Vs. Manjeet Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:18. 06.2014 CS(OS) 1562/2014 MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Julien George, Advocate Versus MANJEET SINGH & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Nitin Mishra, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) I.A.No.11545/2014 1. The present suit has been instituted by Microsoft Corporation against the defendants inter alia for infringement of copyright. The plaintiffs and the defendant companies, part of the Nahar Group of Companies have now entered into a settlement dated 16.06.2014 which is recorded in the present application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement incorporated in the said application are as follows:- (a) The Defendants acknowledge the plaintiffs to be the owner of copyright in the computer programs developed and marketed by them and undertakes that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sudershan Kumar Vs. Harish Chand Garg
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: June 13, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.109/2013 SUDERSHAN KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Narender Sharma, Adv. versus HARISH CHAND GARG Through + ..... Respondent Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr.Adv. with Mr.B.B.Gupta, Mr.Sumeet Batra & Ms.Ankita Gupta, Advs. RC. Rev. No.113/2013 & C.M. No.4912/2013 SURESH KUMAR GUPTA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Gaurav Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr.M.P.Sinha, Adv. versus SUDERSHAN KUMAR Through ..... Respondent Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Narender Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. Mr. Sudershan Kumar, landlord/owner filed two eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for bonafide requirement, against his two tenants, namely, Mr.Suresh Kumar Gupta and Mr.Harish Chand Garg.2. The said eviction petitions were filed by him with respect to Shop No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Shah Vs. M/S Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: June 13, 2014 + Arb. A. No.14/2014 SURESH SHAH Through ..... Appellant Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vikas Dhawan, Mr.Devdutt Kamat & Mr.S.Panda, Advs. versus M/S TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr.Suhail Dutt, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Ekta Kapil, Mr.Munindra Dvivedi, Ms.Divya Bhalla & Ms.Preeti Yadav, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16th April, 2014 passed by the learned Arbitrator in the application filed by the appellant under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the arbitration proceedings bearing case reference No.DAC/522/01-14 pending between the parties.2. Brief facts for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are that the property bearing No.154-B, Block-A, Sector 63, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (the said property) was allotted an...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. Sudershan Kumar
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: June 13, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.109/2013 SUDERSHAN KUMAR Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Narender Sharma, Adv. versus HARISH CHAND GARG Through + ..... Respondent Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr.Adv. with Mr.B.B.Gupta, Mr.Sumeet Batra & Ms.Ankita Gupta, Advs. RC. Rev. No.113/2013 & C.M. No.4912/2013 SURESH KUMAR GUPTA Through ..... Petitioner Mr.Gaurav Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr.M.P.Sinha, Adv. versus SUDERSHAN KUMAR Through ..... Respondent Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Narender Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. Mr. Sudershan Kumar, landlord/owner filed two eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for bonafide requirement, against his two tenants, namely, Mr.Suresh Kumar Gupta and Mr.Harish Chand Garg.2. The said eviction petitions were filed by him with respect to Shop No.1...
Tag this Judgment!U.O.i and ors Vs. Ex-major B.S.Chhabra
Court: Delhi
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C)No.3367-68/2006 Reserved on:29. h May, 2014 Date of decision:13. h June, 2014 U.O.I & ORS Through : ..... Petitioners Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Adv. versus EX-MAJOR B.S.CHHABRA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. A.K. Behera, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J.1. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 2nd August, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in C.P.No.474/2004 in O.A.No.3147/2001 inter alia on the ground that while exercising the contempt jurisdiction, it was not open to the Tribunal to grant relief which had not been granted even under the order, violation whereof was contended by the respondent.2. We may briefly note the facts giving rise to the present writ petition. WP(C) No.3367-68/2006 page 1 of 24 3. Major B.S. Chhabra, (respondent herein) was commissioned in the Indian Army in September, 1963 as an Emergenc...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M/S Track Innovations (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: June 11, 2014 + O.M.P. No.105/2011 UNION OF INDIA Through ..... Petitioner Ms.Geetanjali Mohan, Adv. versus M/S TRACK INNOVATIONS (INDIA) PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr.B.T.Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The present objections are filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, called the Act) against the Award dated 12th October, 2010 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator Ms.Sharda Aggarwal (a retired Judge of this Court).2. Brief facts are that the respondent-firm is a Mono Block concrete sleeper manufacturer and supplies Mono Block sleeper to Railways. The General Manager, Northern Railway through Chief Engineer/TSP, Northern Railway entered into an agreement with the respondent firm vide agreement No.187-S/875/TSO/TRACK-INNOV/ REPEAT ORDER dated 8th October, 1997 for the supply of 3,75,000 Mono Block concrete PRC sleepers.3. Clause 1.12...
Tag this Judgment!Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: June 11, 2014 + Arb. A. No.4/2012 & I.A. No.2580/2012 STERLITE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr.N.K.Kaul, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Kirat Singh Nagra & Mr.Pranav Vyas, Advs. versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ankur Mittal, Adv. with Mr.Abhay Gupta, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. In the present Appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 10th October, 2011, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, wherein the learned sole Arbitrator has allowed an application moved by the respondent under Section 16(1), (2) and (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The impugned order terminates the arbitration proceedings. It is held in the impugned order that the claim submitted by the appellant before the tribunal cannot be entertained.2. Brief facts are that appellant had been supplying the respondent with PIJF undergr...
Tag this Judgment!M/S National Highways Authority of India Vs. M/S Afcons-apil (Jv)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: June 9, 2014 + O.M.P. 719/2012 M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Adv. versus M/S AFCONS-APIL (JV) Through ..... Respondent Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Manu Seshadri & Mr.Tanmay Nandi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. In the present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioner has assailed award dated 18th March, 2012 and modified award dated 2nd May, 2012.2. (i) Brief facts as set out by the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner invited bids for the work of four laning and strengthening of Km. 404 Hubli-Haveri section on NH-4 in Karnataka. The respondent among others, submitted its Bid on 7th March, 2001, and the petitioner awarded the work in respect of the project to the respondent vide Agreement dated 28th March, 2001. The contract price ...
Tag this Judgment!Amina Bharatram Vs. Sumant Bharatram and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: June 09, 2014 + I.A. No.12186/2010 in CS(OS) No.411/2010 AMINA BHARATRAM Through ..... Plaintiff Ms.Malavika Rajkotia, Adv. with Mr.Ranjay N., Adv. versus SUMANT BHARATRAM & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Dinesh Garg, Adv. with Ms.Surbhi Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff, Mrs.Amina Bharatram has filed the suit for maintenance and separate residence under Sections 18, 20 & 23 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 as well as for permanent and mandatory injunction and declaration, against the four defendants.2. Defendant No.1, Mr.Sumant Bharatram is the husband of the plaintiff. Defendants No.2 & 3, namely, Dr.Vinay Bharatram and Ms.Panna Bharatram are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the plaintiff and defendant No.4, Mr.Hemant Bharatram is the brother of defendant No.1.3. Few relevant facts are necessary; the same are that the plaintiff and defendant N...
Tag this Judgment!