Delhi Court October 2016 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.
Shazi Jah vs.managing Committee Hamdard Public School and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9865/2016, CM APPL. 39284/2016 (Exemption) SHAZI JAH Decided on 24th October, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Tamali Wad with Ms. Indrani Ghose, Advs. versus MANAGING COMMITTEE HAMDARD PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Ekta Sikri with Mrs. Adwaita Sharma, Adv. for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4. Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Delhi School Tribunal 1. dated 22.09.2016 in Appeal No.59 of 2015 whereby the order dated 18.05.2015 terminating her services was upheld.2. It is the petitioners case that she was employed by respondent No.1 - Hamdard Public School and not by respondent No.2, i.e., the Hamdard Education Society. Therefore, insofar as the letter of termination has been issued by the Hamdard Education Society, it would be non est in law and of WP(C) 9865 of 2016 Page 1 of 5 no consequence...
Shashank Kalra vs.kshipra Rawat & Ors. (Iffco Tokio General Insurance ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:24. h October, 2016 $~48 * % + MAC.APP. 11/2016 and CM5122016 SHASHANK KALRA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Advocate Versus KSHIPRA RAWAT & ORS. (IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.) ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocates for Respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.12,46,357/- has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant is seeking enhancement of the award amount. The accident dated 9th September, 2012 resulted amputation of 2. paw of left foot of the appellant. The disability suffered by the appellant has been assessed to be 45% in respect of left lower limb. The Claims Tribunal took the functional disability to be 23%. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,35,507/- towards loss of earning capacity, Rs.70,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.70,000/- tow...
Sushila Devi vs.commissioner of Income Tax-Xii
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:21. 10.2016 + W.P.(C) 7620/2011 Through: Sh. N.P. Sahni, Advocate SUSHILA DEVI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XII Versus Petitioner ..Respondent Through: Sh. Ashok. K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The writ petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is aggrieved by the refusal - by the respondents i.e. the income tax authorities -to release the jewellery - approximately 319. 98 g, seized by them in the course of search proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter "the Act").2. On 10th August, 2000, the income tax authorities conducted search and seizure proceedings in respect of the petitioner's husband's premises and seized several documents and other materials. On 21st March 2001 a consequential action by way of search of a locker in the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) was condu...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.bharat Shah & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. t October, 2016 $~26 * % + MAC.APP. 106/2013 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Through: Mr. Brijesh Bagga, Advocate ........ Petitioner Versus BHARAT SHAH & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA R-1 and 2 JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The Appellant has challenged the award of Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 11,20,036/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents no.1 and 2. The accident dated 27th January, 2011 resulted in death of 2. Sogarath @ Subharath. The deceased was aged around 23 years at the time of accident. The Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of Rs.5,278/-, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted Rs.3,958/- towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 18 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.8,55,036/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1 lakh towards loss of care, attention and expenses, Rs.50,00...
Sunil Kumar Verma vs.sh Ram Kumar Bhagat & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EX.P. 384/2015 SUNIL KUMAR VERMA ..... Decree Holder Through Mr. Ashok Mittal, Advocate versus CORAM: SH RAM KUMAR BHAGAT & ORS Through Mr. Raj Kapoor, Advocate ..... Judgement Debtors HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER2110.2016 % E.A.(OS).546/2016(u/s 151 CPC) 1. Decree holder seeks execution of the decree dated 23.12.2014. In terms of the decree, the decree holder was to tender the balance sale consideration to the legal representatives of the judgment debtors and simultaneously the legal heirs of the judgment debtors were to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the decree holder with respect to Shop no.12, CSC, Pocket D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Since the judgment debtors did not comply with the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014, the present execution petition has been filed.2. Notice was issued in the matter. The judgment debtors are represented through counsel. No objections have been filed. This matter had been adjourned from ti...
M/S Catvision Products Ltd vs.cablevision Network
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
$~7 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA4532016 M/S CATVISION PRODUCTS LTD Through : Mr. Virendra Rawat, Advocate ..... Appellant versus CABLEVISION NETWORK Through : Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER2110.2016 1. Pursuant to the parties being referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, a Settlement Agreement dated 19.09.2016 has been placed on record.2. The terms and conditions of the settlement are set out in para 9 of the Settlement Agreement, whereunder both the parties have agreed not to press any claim against each other, subject matter of the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.3.2016. Further, the appellant and the respondent have agreed not to assail the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.3.2016 by preferring any appeal. Both the parties have also undertaken that they will not raise any dispute or claim against each in respect of the present settlement.3. The Court has perused the S...
Vishal Kumar vs.satjit Singh Walia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21.10.2016 CM(M) 1033/2016 and CM No.38016/2016 $~A-42 * % + VISHAL KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Ashim Shridhar and Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocates. versus SATJIT SINGH WALIA ..... Respondent Through Mr.P.K.Rawal and Mr.Tarun Agarwal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) 1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 29.03.2016 to the extent that it dismissed the application for amendment filed by the petitioner for non-prosecution, the order dated 27.04.2016 by which the trial court declined to recall its earlier order dated 29.03.2016 and to set aside the order dated 10.05.2016 to the extent that the said order directed postponement of the review application of the petitioner praying for review of the foresaid order dated 27.04.2016.2. The background facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff has fi...
Manoj Bhagat vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: September 23, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: October 21, 2016 CRL.A. 1585/2011 Represented by: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Adv. ..... Appellant Versus MANOJ BHAGAT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA STATE Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with SI Mithlesh Yadav, PS Mukherjee Nagar. ..... Respondent MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Manoj Bhagat challenges the impugned judgment dated 10th May, 2011 convicting him for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and the order on sentence dated 20th May, 2011 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of `10,000/-.2. Assailing the conviction learned Counsel for Manoj contends that the testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence as she has not stated in her statement that she was forced or threatened. The conduct of the appellant shows that he has been falsely implicated in the case as he was arrested from his house only and he d...
Delhi Development Authority vs.birender Singh & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.293/2015 21st October, 2016 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Dhruv Tamta and Ms. Arpita, Advocates. versus BIRENDER SINGH & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, Mr. Anshum Jain and Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate for SDMC/R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES 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 appellant/Delhi Development Authority (DDA)/defendant No.2 challenging the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 15.1.2007 and the First Appellate Court dated 25.4.2015; by which the courts below have decreed the suit for injunction filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff and restrained the appellant/defendant no.2 RSA No.293/2015 Page 1 of 17 from disposses...
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp. Vs.dhara Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. t October, 2016 $~58 * % + MAC. APP. 398/2013 UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate Versus DHARA SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Raj Kumari and Ms. Prabha Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- has been awarded to the respondent. The accident dated 06th September, 2010 resulted in pelvic 2. fracture with perineal wound to the respondent who underwent four surgeries. The injuries suffered by the respondent resulted in 26% disability relating to the left hip as per the disability certificate Ex.C-1. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, Rs.20,000/- towards special diet and attendant charges, Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life and R...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »