Delhi Court March 2015 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.
Jagjit Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 24, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 1185/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.4359/2015 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Mukul Kumar Gupta, Advocate with petitioners in person versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State with SI Ramphal Mr. Mahesh Verma, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.24/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Dabri, Delhi is sought on the basis of mediated settlement of 15th February, 2014 arrived at The Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Notice. Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Mahesh Verma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Crl.M.C.No.1185/2015 Page 1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State submits th...
Umesh Saroha Vs. Natha Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1055/2013 and CM No.15657/2013 (Stay) Decided on:24. h March, 2015 % UMESH SAROHA Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Aman Mehta, Advocate. versus NATHA SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.T.C.Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. The facts leading to filing of the present petition are that Natha Singh, the Respondent herein filed Civil Suit No.77/2004 against the Petitioner Dr.Umesh Saroha and others seeking declaration and permanent injunction. Since no ad-valorem court fee was paid objection was taken by Dr. Umesh Saroha whereafter amended plaint was filed paying ad-valorem court fees and enclosing the site plan along with the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Since the suit was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, the same was returned and refiled in the Court of learned District Judge.2. Dr. Umesh Saroha and o...
D R I Vs. Rajesh Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 24, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 5222/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.4343/2015 DRI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Amish Aggarwala & Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocates versus RAJESH SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Janendra Kumar Chumbak, Advocate with respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Impugned order of 9th September, 2013, grants bail to respondentaccused and denies bail to his co-accused- Somnath Pal, as contraband substance weighing 136.840 kg. of 3,4-Methylenedioxyphenyl1-2Propanone and 54.740 kg. of Ephedrine/Pseudoephedrine was recovered from the godown at 35/5, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Phase-B, Near Telephone Exchange, Derawal, Model Town Gurdwara, Delhi and the said godown belonged to his co-accused Somnath Pal. In pursuance to the separate raids conducted by different teams of DRI officers at various places, including residence of respondent-accuse...
Vikram Sarin Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. 03.2015 W.P(C) 6577/2014 & CM No.15661/2014 VIKRAM SARIN .... Petitioner versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.1 For the Respondent No.2 For the Respondent No.3 : Mr Mobin Akhtar and Mr Sumit Handa : Mr Siddharth Panda : Mr Rajat Agnihotri proxy for Mr Manu Mridul : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr Kushal Raj Tater CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The counter affidavit which was filed by Mr Pathak on behalf of respondent No.3 has evidently been returned with objections. A photocopy of the said counter affidavit has been handed over to us and we have examined the same. The counter affidavit was filed under diary No.125182 on 16.03.2015. Mr Pathak undertakes to re-file the same within two days. The Registry is directe...
Acb India Limiteded (Formerly M/S Aryan Coal Benef Vs. Assistant Commi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on 24th March, 2015 + ITA6152014 ACB INDIA LIMITEDED (FORMERLY M/S ARYAN COAL BENEFICATIONS (P) LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Vikas Jain, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.... Respondent Through Mr. N P Sahni, sr. standing counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % CM No.16296/2014 Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CM No.16297/2014 For the reasons mentioned in the application the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. ITA6152014 1. Admit.2. Mr. N P Sahni, Advocate accepts notice.3. The question of law urged on behalf of the assessee is whether the decision of the ITAT as to the disallowance under Section 14A of the ITA6152014 Page 1 Income Tax Act, is in error of law in the circumstances of the case. For the assessment year 200...
Food Inspector Vs. Mukesh Kumar Sampat and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:24. 03.2015 CRL.L.P.142/2015 FOOD INSPECTOR ..... Petitioner versus MUKESH KUMAR SAMPAT & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Ms. Isha Khanna, APP : None CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) 1. The present is a petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, New Delhi, in CC No.47/2001 whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him.2. The facts herein briefly are, the Food Inspector Bal Mukand purchased a sample of Mustard Oil (Dhara) from the respondent on 24.08.1998 at about 4:15 p.m. Thereafter, the Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts, each bottle containing the sample was separately packed, fastened and sealed according to the PFA Act and Rules. The respondents signatures we...
Bimla Chhabra and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. 03.2015 W.P(C) 6607/2014 BIMLA CHHABRA AND ORS versus .... Petitioners UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondent No.1 For the Respondent No.2 For the Respondent No.3 : Mr Sumit Bansal and Ms Richa Oberoi : Mr Vikram Jetly : Mr Yeeshu Jain : Mr Pawan Mathur CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM No.5291/2015 This is an application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the learned counsel for the DDA. The application is allowed. The counter affidavit is taken on record. W.P(C) 6607/2014 & CM No.15708/2014 1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of respondent No.2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he would be relying on the averments already contain...
Food Inspector Vs. Bablu Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:24. 03.2015 CRL.L.P.140/2015 FOOD INSPECTOR ..... Petitioner versus BABLU SINGH ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Ms. Isha Khanna, APP : None CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) 1. The present is a petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, New Delhi, in CC No.47/2001 whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him.2. The facts herein briefly are that Food Inspector O.P.S. Ahlawat purchased a sample of Paneer from the respondent on 16.06.05 at about 4:00 p.m. The said sample was taken under the supervision and direction of Sh. R.K. Sharma, SDM/LHA. Thereafter, the Food Inspector divided the sample into three equal parts by putting them in three separate clean and dry bottles. 20 drops of formalin...
M/S Richlook Garments Pvt Ltd and Ors Vs. Reliance Capital Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:24. 03.2015 + FAO(OS) 134/2015 M/S RICHLOOK GARMENTS PVT LTD & ORS .... Petitioners versus RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Subodh K. Pathak and Mr Rohit Aggarwal, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Rajat Katyal, Advocate CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM No.5406/2015 (for Exemption) Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.5407/2015 (for condonation of delay) This is an application for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. The application is allowed. FAO(OS) 134/2015 and CM No.5405/2015 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.01.2015 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP No.170/2013 which was a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as t...
Ganeshi Lal Jain and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
$~26 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:24. 03.2015 W.P.(C) 49/2015 & CM832015 GANESHI LAL JAIN & ANR. ... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Bansal and Ms. Richa Oberoi, Advocates. For the Respondent/UOI : Mr. Rajesh Kumar with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate for UOI. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the201. Act) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the189. Act) and in respect of which Award No.15/1987-88 dated 05.06.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »