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.
Rajender Kumar vs.nandini & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: October 21, 2016 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/2016 RAJENDER KUMAR Represented by: Mr.Balkishan, Advocate. ..... Appellant $~3 * % + versus NANDINI & ANR. ..... Respondent Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.(Oral) 1. Notice sent to the respondent/wife by registered A.D. post has been received back with the postal endorsement Refused by Addressee. We find that even before the learned Trial Court the respondent/wife shows not to appear inspite of being served and thus, she was proceeded against ex-parte. We proceed ex-parte against the respondent/wife.2. TCR has already been requisitioned. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/husband.3. The appellant/husband is aggrieved by the judgment dated April 23, 2016 whereby the petition filed by him for seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife has been dismissed by the learned Judge, Famil...
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs.dilram Jaisi & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. t October, 2016 MAC.APP. 11/2015 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Mr.P. Acharya, Advocates. versus DILRAM JAISI & ORS ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Saurav Bhasin, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT awarded Rs.9,56,000/- The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal to CM No.74/2015 1. whereby the Claims Tribunal has respondents No.1 and 2. The accident dated 19th September, 2013 resulted in the death of 2. Padam Jaisi. The deceased was aged 16 years at the time of the accident and was survived by his parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was working as a cook with a Dhaba named Yash Hotel at Rewari earning Rs.6,000/- per month as salary apart from free food and accommodation. The Claims Tribunal took into consideration the minimum wages of Rs.5,471/- in respect of MAC.APP.11/2015 ...
Maharishi Solar Technology Private Limited vs.maharishi Vedic Construc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO. APPL. (M) 151 OF2016IN THE MATTER OF: - MAHARISHI SOLAR TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED . Applicant No.1/Transferor Company No.1 AND MAHARISHI TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION LIMITED . Applicant No.2/Transferor Company No.2 AND MAHARISHI VEDIC CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED . Applicant No.3/Transferee Company Through: Mr Vipul Ganda and Mr S.K.Giri, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL ORDER2110.2016 1. The present first motion application under section 391 read with section 394 and other provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act), has been filed on behalf of Maharishi Solar Technology Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company No.1), Maharishi Technology Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company No.2) and Maharishi Vedic Construction Corporation Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as CO.APPL. (M) 151/2016 Page 1 of 1 Transferee Company), in connection...
Sandhya Kumari vs.manish Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : October 19, 2016 Judgment Delivered on : October 21, 2016 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 36/2014 SANDHYA KUMARI Represented by: Mr.Pramod Kapur, Adv. ..... Appellant MANISH KUMAR Represented by: Ms.Juhi Arora, Adv. versus ..... Respondent MAT.APP.(F.C.) 57/2014 MANISH KUMAR Represented by: Ms.Juhi Arora, Adv. ..... Appellant versus Represented by: Mr.Pramod Kapur, Adv. ..... Respondent SMT. SANDHYA KUMARI CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Sandhya is aggrieved by the decision dated January 31, 2014 dismissing HMA No.489/2012 filed by her seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Manish is aggrieved by a decision of even date dismissing HMA No.141/2012 filed by him seeking decree for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The two decisions dated January 31, 2014 have been authored by the same learned Judge presiding over the Family Court at Dwarka and we find that the evidence le...
Shri Chand vs.delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :04. 10.2016 Judgment delivered on :21. 10.2016 + W.P.(C) 8307/2016 & C.M. Nos.34426-34429/2016 SHRI CHAND ........ Petitioner versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 9059/2016 & C.M. Nos.36712-14/2016 SANJEEV CHAUHAN ........ Petitioner versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 9063/2016 & C.M. Nos.36718-20/2016 BUDH RAM ........ Petitioner versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 9064/2016 & C.M. Nos.36721-23/2016 RAJENDER ........ Petitioner versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .... Respondent + W.P.(C) 9065/2016 & C.M.Nos.36724-26/2016 LAXMI NARAIN ........ Petitioner W.P.(C)Nos.8307/2016, 9059/2016, 9063/2016 to 9065/2016, 9085/2016 to 9087/2016, 9105/2016, 9110/2016, 9111/2016, 9113/2016, 9117/2016, 9118/2016, 9119/2016, 9121/2016, 9122/2016, 9137/2016, 9139/2016, 9140/2016 & 9143/2016 Page 1 of 20 versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent + W...
M/S Janaki Das Ram Chand Trust vs.praveen Kaushal & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
$~15 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. 10.2016 CM(M) 1214/2015 & CM No.30081/2015 M/S JANAKI DAS RAM CHAND TRUST Through Mr.P.R.Aggarwal, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus PRAVEEN KAUSHAL & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Ms.Rajni Anand, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Y.R.Sharma, Adv. for R-2 & 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of 1. India, the petitioners seek to impugn the order dated 12.10.2015 by which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was allowed.2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3. Late husband of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 were real brothers. Respondent No.3 is the nephew of respondent No.1 i.e. son of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 claims to have acquired tenancy right through her husband after his death in respect of the suit pr...
Rekhi Education Society (Regd.) vs.delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.315/2016 21st October, 2016 REKHI EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. C.K.Jha, Advocate. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Through: ..... 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 appellant/plaintiff against the impugned Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 5.8.2016 by which the first appellate court has dismissed the first appeal as barred by limitation because there was an unexplained delay of 448 days in filing of the first appeal. The first appellate court found that the grounds for condonation of delay were not valid grounds for condoning the delay.2. The reasons given for condonation of delay in the application for condonation of delay are contained in para 2 of the application under RSA No.315/2016 Page 1 of 8 Section 5...
Nand Kishore vs.lovely
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
$~1 * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA5082015 & CMs No.33630-31/2016 NAND KISHORE ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate LOVELY versus Through : None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % Counsel for the appellant states that initially, when the present appeal ORDER2110.2016 was filed, a preliminary decree dated 9.3.2015 passed by the trial court in a suit for partition and permanent injunction instituted by the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) in respect of an immovable property situated at Shahdara, Delhi. During the pendency of the present appeal, a final decree came to be passed on 16.5.2016. As a result, learned counsel seeks leave to withdraw the present appeal, while reserving the right of the appellant to file a substantive appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2015, in accordance with law.2. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present appeal is disposed of, along with the pending applications, with liberty g...
Manesar Projects Private Limited vs.ganga Overseas Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
$~8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY APPLICATION (M) NO.140 OF2016In the matter of The Companies Act, 1956 and The Companies Act, 2013 (to the extent applicable): AND Application under Rule 6 & 9 of the Companies Court Rules, 1959 read with Section 391 & 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 Scheme between: Manesar Projects Private Limited Amalgamation of Applicant/Transferor Company no.1 AND Crabel Dealers Private Limited Applicant/Transferor Company no.2 AND Ancient Financial Consultants Private Limited Applicant/Transferor Company no.3 Ganga Overseas Private Limited WITH Applicant/Transferee Company Through: Mr. Ashish Middha Advocate for the Applicants CO.APPL.(M) 140/2016 Page 1 of 9 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL1 ORDER2110.2016 The present first motion application under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, has been filed on behalf of Manesar Project...
Manish Kumar vs.smt.sandhya Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : October 19, 2016 Judgment Delivered on : October 21, 2016 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 36/2014 SANDHYA KUMARI Represented by: Mr.Pramod Kapur, Adv. ..... Appellant MANISH KUMAR Represented by: Ms.Juhi Arora, Adv. versus ..... Respondent MAT.APP.(F.C.) 57/2014 MANISH KUMAR Represented by: Ms.Juhi Arora, Adv. ..... Appellant versus Represented by: Mr.Pramod Kapur, Adv. ..... Respondent SMT. SANDHYA KUMARI CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Sandhya is aggrieved by the decision dated January 31, 2014 dismissing HMA No.489/2012 filed by her seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Manish is aggrieved by a decision of even date dismissing HMA No.141/2012 filed by him seeking decree for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The two decisions dated January 31, 2014 have been authored by the same learned Judge presiding over the Family Court at Dwarka and we find that the evidence le...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »