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.
Chemical Systems Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Simbhaoli Sugar Mi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :25.02.2015 Judgment delivered on :02.03.2015 CS(OS) 1480/2009 & I . A No 11029/3013 CHEMICAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Mr. Udit Gupta and Mr.Eklavya Bahl, Advs. versus + SIMBHAOLI SUGAR MILLS LTD. Through ..... Defendant Mr.M.A.Niyazi, Mr.P.Kumar, Advs. along with Navin Kumar, A.R. of the defendant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The plaintiff (Chemical Systems Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present suit against the defendant (Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd.) for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,80,81,564/-. In terms of a purchase order dated 11.02.2006, the plaintiff had supplied a cane juice purification plant to the defendant which was erected, installed and commissioned at the premises of the defendant. The defendant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,97,50,000/- in terms of the aforenoted purchase order. An advance of Rs.1 crore has ...
R.K.Silk Mills (India) Limited Vs. Mcd and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on February 24, 2015 Judgment delivered on March 02, 2015 + O.M.P. 704/2012 R.K.SILK MILLS (INDIA) LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Gaurav Duggal, Advocate with Mr.Shyam, Mr.Sanjeev Baliyan, Advocates versus MCD AND ANR. Through ..... Respondent Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Mr.Yoothica, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the award dated April 7, 2012 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, whereby the learned Sole Arbitrator has rejected the claims of the petitioner and allowed three counter claims of the respondents herein. The facts:2. The petitioner had submitted a tender in response to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated December 23, 2004 issued by the respondent No.1 corporation for the supply of 24,44,630.8 meters of Polyester Cotton Blend Shirting for uniforms of children studying in MCD schools. The bid of the petitioner was found to be lowe...
Anup Singh and Ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
$~12 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 03.2015 W.P.(C) 8975/2014 & CM205242014 ANUP SINGH & ORS. ... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Vishal Maan, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate for Respondent No.1 & 2 CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The counter affidavit handed over by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.2. 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) wh...
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs. Ceylon Biscuits Pvt Ltd and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
$~3 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on 02nd March, 2015 CO.APP. 23/2013, CM APPL. 5115/2013 PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Tara V. Ganju, Advocate. versus CEYLON BISCUITS PVT LTD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Ms. Ankita Salkia and Ms. Anushruti, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Abhinit Das, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Jay Savla, Ms. Amrita Mishra and Mrs. Ankita Jain, Advocates for R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Ld. Company Judge in Company Petition No.204/2003. The appellant Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the PSPCL) is aggrieved by the directions in the impugned order and in respect of payment of electricity charges for the period the premises were under control of the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as CBI...
Jitender Kumar Churamani and Anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
$~17 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 03.2015 W.P.(C) 9020/2014 & CM206182014 JITENDER KUMAR CHURAMANI & ANR. ... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Vishal Maan, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for Respondents No.1 & 2 Mr Arjun Pant and Mr Dhanesh Relan, Advocates for DDA CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.2. 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 ...
the New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Sher Singh and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
$-16 & 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:02. d March, 2015 + MAC.APP. 38/2014 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Pankaj Seth Gaur, Advocate versus SHER SINGH & ANR Through: + .... Respondents Mr. Aman Shankar, Advocate MAC.APP. 50/2014 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Pankaj Seth Gaur, Advocate Through: .... Respondents Mr. Aman Shankar, Advocate versus POOJA & ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant at the time of hearing of the appeals is that since the offer given by the Appellant Insurance Company was not accepted by the Respondents(claimants), the Claims Tribunal instead of going into the question of negligence, directly proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the Appellant has urged that once the offer given by the Appellant was not accepted, it was obligatory on the part o...
Airef Engineers (P) Ltd Vs. Vinod Shetty
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:02. 03.2015 + CS(OS) 2380/2011 AIREF ENGINEERS (P) LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vaibhav with Ms. Aamna and Mr. Shantanu Sood, Advs. versus VINOD SHETTY ..... Defendant Through: Ex parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.(Oral) 1. This is a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant and all others acting on his behalf from committing breach of contract, misuse of confidential information, know-how, misappropriation of plaintiffs trade secrets amounting unfair competition, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up.2. The plaintiffs case is a company registered under the Companies Act. This suit has been filed through its Managing Director who has been duly authorised to do so. The plaintiff claims to be engaged in the business of providing solutions for multidisciplinary engineering services. It offers sales, service, maintenance, repair and installation of new high efficient hear...
All India Central Universities officers Confederat Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.3034/1999 2nd March, 2015 % ALL INDIA CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES OFFICERS CONFEDERATION & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Sanjay Kr. Pathak with Mr.Ashish Kumar Sinah, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Ms.Prerna Shah Deo, Advocate for R1. W.P.(C) No.5752/2003 MS.SATISH KUMARI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Sanjay Kr. Pathak with Mr.Ashish Kumar Sinah, Advocate. versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Manoj R.Sinha, Advocate for UGC. Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Advocate for R-4/College CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) W.P.(C) No.3034/1999 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are in the cadres of Assistant Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Registrars and other equivalent posts seek the relief that they should have the s...
Artisans Guild Vs. Tirupati Constwell Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
$~A-6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: March 02, 2015 + CS(OS) 2683/2012 ARTISANS GUILD Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Varun Singh, Advocate. versus TIRUPATI CONSTWELL PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through Mr.Rajeev Saxena, Mr.Vardaan Dhawan and Ms.Mehak Tanwar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) IA No.8730/2012 (u/O37R3CPC) 1. This is an application under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC filed by the defendant for leave to defend.2. The accompanying suit is filed based on an order placed on the plaintiff by the defendant for the supply of different kinds of furniture. It is stated that an oral order was made on 12.10.2009. A part advance payment of Rs. 22,73,000/- was made between the period 11.11.2009 to 09.08.2010. It is further averred that since 11.11.2009 the plaintiff has been maintaining continuous running account. The plaintiff is said to have supplied all the orders as per the specifications given by the defendant from time to time. ...
Umesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 859/2012 Judgment dated 2nd March, 2015 % UMESH KUMAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Vivek Sood, Mr.Prek Prakash and Mr.S. Kukreja, Advocates versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP for the State CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) The principle on which the dying declarations are admitted in evidence is indicated in the legal maxim Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire i.e. a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment dated 9.11.2011 and order on sentence dated 15.11.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No.110/10, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition to the above, the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›