Delhi Court October 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 1 of about 298 results (0.019 seconds)Girish Kumar Suneja vs.cbi
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3847/2016 Reserved on:24. h October, 2016 Decided on:27. h October, 2016 GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Mr. Amrit, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Mr. Utkarsh Saxena, Advs. versus CBI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Harinder Bains, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th April, 2016 passed by the Special Judge in case titled as CBI Vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Ors. in RC No.219/2013/E/0006 directing framing of charge against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 120- B/409/420 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act).2. When the matter came...
Tag this Judgment!Omaxe Ltd vs.pvp Entertainment Ltd & Anr.
Court: Delhi
ARB. A. (COMM.) 4/2015 & IA No.25831/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI OMAXE LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Mr. Shalabh Singhal, Mr. Rohit Kumar, Mr. Abinash Agarwal, Advocates along with Mr. Ankur Gupta, General Manager in person. $~ * 1 + % 1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, PVP ENTERTAINMENT LTD & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Goel, Mr. Kunal Dutta and Ms. Arushi, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER2710.2016 versus 1996 (Act) is directed against an interim order dated 12th October, 2015 passed by the learned Arbitrator in an application filed by the... RESPONDENTS under Section 17 of the Act.2. Although no plea was taken in the reply to the claim, in the course of the submissions today in Court a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the... RESPONDENTS that the present appeal was not maintainable.3. Elaborating ...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd vs.jameela Khatoon & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: October 27, 2016 + MAC.APP. 350/2015 & C.Ms.21232/15, 68SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate versus JAMEELA KHATOON & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. Basant Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % (ORAL) JUDGMENT Impugned order of 4th February, 2015 grants compensation of `20,16,984/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to respondents- claimants on account of death of Rashid, the driver of the Canter, in a vehicular accident on 4th June, 2013 at 4 A.M.. The factual background, as noted in the impugned Award, is that on the above-mentioned date and time, the deceased alongwith his helper was going in the Canter Eicher and when he had reached near Punjabi Bagh, there was a vehicular accident of his Canter with Tata Truck in MAC APP. 350/2015 Page 1 of 4 which he sustained fatal injuries. Re...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanti vs.rakesh Mediratta
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI JAYANTI Judgment Reserved on: October 24, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: October 27, 2016 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 129/2016 Represented by: Mr.Manjit Singh Chauhan, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus RAKESH MEDIRATTA ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sunil Mittal, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.Dhruv Grover and Mr.R.K.Bedi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. The appellant-wife is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated July 21, 2016 passed by learned Judge, Family Court in HMA Petition No.289/2014 (Old No.647/2012) whereby the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce.2. The appellant-wife in this case is well qualified. She is M.Com, B.Ed. employed as Post Graduate Teacher in a reputed public school in Delhi. The respondent-husband is also well placed in a private company earning a decent salary. We shall hereinafter refer the parties as the wife and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sangeeta vs.ramphool @ Bobby
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SANGEETA RSA No.205/2015 27th October, 2016 Through: Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate ..... Appellant with Mr. Ashok Jain, Advocate. versus RAMPHOOL @ BOBBY CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Through: Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate. ..... Respondent To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 4.2.2015 whereby the first appellate court dismissed the suit by reversing the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 1.7.2014 by which the trial court had decreed the suit for possession, damages, mesne profits etc with respect to the suit property being plot no.58, House no.716, Main Road, Village Alipur, Narela Road, Delhi.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff is the real sister of the respondent/defendant. The father of the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar vs.state of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CRL.A.No.395/2000 Reserved on :26. h September, 2016 Date of decision :27. h October, 2016 RAMESH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. versus Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Amicus Curiae. STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Goswami, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. TEJI JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, J.1. By the instant appeal, the appellant assails the judgment dated 17th May, 2000 whereby he stands convicted for commission of the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC with which he was charged in SC Case No.25/1999 arising out of FIR No.5registered by the Police Station Jahangir Puri under Sections 498A/304B/4of the IPC and the consequential order of sentence dated 23rd May, 2000 whereby he has been sentenced to undergo Crl.A.No.395/2000 Page 1 of 56 rigorous imprisonment for three years for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC with fine of `500/- and in d...
Tag this Judgment!The Singer Company & Anr vs.mohammed Fayaz
Court: Delhi
$~6. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 747/2016 Judgment dated 27th October, 2016 THE SINGER COMPANY & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Ms. Anuradha Salhotra and Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Advocates. versus MOHAMMED FAYAZ CORAM: Through: None ..... Defendant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off,dilution, delivery up etc. against the defendant.2. While issuing summons in the suit on 29.04.2013, this Court had grantedan ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Defendant had entered appearance and also filed their written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed amended plaint and this court had granted time to the defendant to file its written statement to the amended plaint but defendant failed to file the same. On 15.05.2015, none was present on behalf of the defendant andaccordingly,the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vineet Kumar Tyagi vs.bhagat Singh Chauhan
Court: Delhi
$~8 * + VINEET KUMAR TYAGI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :27. h OCTOBER, 2016 CRL.M.C.4029/2016 ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.Amar Nath Saini, Advocate. versus BHAGAT SINGH CHAUHAN ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) CRL.M.A.No.16858/2016 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C.4029/2016 1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 09.08.2016 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby application moved under Section 145 (2) Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the respondent was allowed and he was permitted to cross-examine the complainant.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the file.... Petitioners counsel urged that the respondent did not specify the grounds in application under Section 145 (2) Negotiable Instruments...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi International Airport Private Limited vs.union of India, Departm ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29. 08.2016 Pronounced on:27. 10.2016 + W.P.(C) 374/2014 DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant Through: Sh. Atul Sharma and Sh. Sarojanand Jha, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ORS. ..Respondents Through: Ms. Geeta Malhotra, Advocate, for Respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The petitioner (DIAL hereafter) challenges Regulation 6(1)(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 [hereafter Cargo Regulations]. as ultra-vires the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and furthermore on the ground of arbitrariness and unconstitutionality (as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.2. The Operation, Maintenance and Development Agreement ("the Agreement") was signed on 04-04-2006, between the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and DIAL, pursuant to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Pal Singh Jadon vs.state Bank of India
Court: Delhi
$~10 * + W.P.(C) 4007/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI1 2. ASHOK PAL SINGH JADON Through : Mr. B.A.S. Jadon, Advocate ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate ..... Respondent versus STATE BANK OF INDIA CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % Pleadings are complete. ORDER2710.2016 Counsel for the respondent states that he has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition in this Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner has opened an account with the main branch of the respondent/Bank at Morena in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner himself is a resident of the Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and therefore no part of the actionable cause of action has arisen in Delhi.3. Counsel for the petitioner fairly states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the competent court vested with the territorial jurisdiction in that regard, for venting ...
Tag this Judgment!