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.
Steel Authority of India Ltd vs.british Marine Plc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 48/2016 & IA No.7759/2016 (for stay) Reserved on: September 26, 2016 Date of decision: October 20, 2016 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD Through: Mr. Ciccu Mukhopadhaya, ........ Petitioner Senior Advocate with Mr. Shival Srivastava and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocates. versus BRITISH MARINE PLC. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit K. Batra & Ms. Priya Chauhan, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR % 1. An interesting question of law arises for determination in this petition J UD G M E N T2010.2016 filed by the... Petitioner, Steel Authority of India (SAIL) against the Respondent, British Marine PLC. (BMPL) under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act). It is whether the Court, in exercise of its power under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act, can declare that two of the three members constituting the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) are unable" to perform their functions and t...
Ram Udagar vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: September 27, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: October 20, 2016 CRL.A. 1260/2015 TEJ NARAIN @ NARAIN ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. K. Singhal, Adv. STATE versus Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for ..... Respondent the State. CRL.A. 10/2016 + SUKHIYA Represented by: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. ..... Appellant STATE versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State. CRL.A. 1381/2015 + RAM UDAGAR STATE Represented by: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Adv.. ..... Appellant versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.the State.1. Vide impugned judgment dated August 1, 2015, Tej Narain alias Narain, the appellant in Crl. A. 1260/2015, Sukhiya, the appellant in Crl. A. Crl.A. 1260/2015, 10/2016 & 1381/2015 Page 1 of 6 10/2016 and Ram Udagar, the appellant in Crl. A. 1381/2015 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 366...
Girish Pandey & Ors vs.state & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 2129/2016 GIRISH PANDEY & ORS Date of Decision: October 20th, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Karan Khanna, Advocate Versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub- Inspector Saurabh Chand, CAW Cell/East CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by 1. the petitioners, namely, Sh. Girish Pandey, Sh. Bhagirath Pandey, Smt. Dharma Pandey and Ms. Hansa Pandey for quashing of FIR No.653/2013 dated 17.07.2013, under Sections 498-A/4IPC registered at Police Station Shakarpur on the basis of Mediation Report of Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Veena Pandey on 09.10.2013.2. respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/...
Hythro Power Corporation Limited vs.regional Provident Fund Commission ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
$~54 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:20. h October, 2016 W.P.(C) 9057/2016 & CM Nos. 36623-26/2016 & 38784-85/2016 HYTHRO POWER CORPORATION LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanath Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Yadav, Advocate. Versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER .....Respondent Through: Mr. R.C. Chawla, Mr. Charanjeet Singh and Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner impugns orders dated 28.01.2016 and 30.03.2016 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal) in ATA No.96(4)2016. By the first order dated 28.01.2016, the quantum of pre-deposit was reduced from 75% to 50% by the Tribunal with a direction to deposit the same within 60 days therefrom. In the latter order of 30.03.2016, the petitioners appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal observing that the pre-deposit had not been made till that date.2. Mr. Sanath Kumar, the learned Sen...
Musarfen vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: October 03, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: October 20, 2016 CRL.A. 1674/2014 Represented by: Mr. Imran Khan, Adv. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP. ..... Respondent versus MUSARFEN CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA STATE MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354A/506-I IPC and Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act) Musarfen challenges the impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2014 and the order on sentence dated 30th January, 2014 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of `2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part I IPC.2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 31st May, 2013 around 2 P.M., the prosecutrix along with her mother ...
Mahander Kumar Gupta vs.new Delhi Municipal Council and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
$~8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7607/2016 and CM APPL. 31297/2016 1. MAHANDER KUMAR GUPTA Through: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Sakshi Popli, Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Kr. Tripathi, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Neelam Singh, Advocate for R-2 with SI Vijay Pal, PS Tughlak Road. Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % This order is in continuation of the order dated 04.10.2016, on which ORDER2010.2016 date, at the request of the counsels for the parties, a Local Commissioner was appointed to submit a report with regard to the nature of the construction activity/repair work undertaken by the respondent No.3 on the ground, first and second floors of the subject premises.2. The Local Commissioner has filed a report under index dated 07.10.2016, stating inter alia that she had inspected the premises on two ...
Vikas Kapoor vs.state and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
$~47 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI TEST.CAS. 14/2015 VIKAS KAPOOR Judgment Dated:20. h October, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through Mr. S.S. Saluja, Advocate versus CORAM: STATE AND OTHERS ........ RESPONDENTS Through None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of letters of administration.2. Notice was issued in this matter to the State. Citation was also published in the newspaper Indian Express English edition and Jansatta Hindi edition. No objections have been filed by the close relations respondent no.2(mother of the deceased), respondent no.3(wife of the deceased) and respondents no.4 and 5(being daughters of the deceased). The petitioner has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.3. As per the affidavit so filed, deceased Vijay Kapoor died on 26.02.2014 leaving behind the legal heirs, being the petitioner and respondents no.2 to 5 herein. Copy of the death certificate...
Rashmi Dixit vs.medical Council of India and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:20. 10.2016 ........ Petitioner versus $~10 * % + W.P.(C) 7320/2016 RASHMI DIXIT Advocates who appeared in the case: For the... Petitioner: For the... RESPONDENTS: MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Jai Dehadrai and Ms.Shivangi Gupta, Advocates Mr. T.Singhdev, Mr.Tarun Verma and Ms.Michelle, Advocates CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2010.2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking directions to respondent No.1- Medical Council of India to cancel the licence of respondent No.2 or to at least suspend her registration for a temporary period.2. It is contended that the petitioner was admitted in Amar Leela Hospital & Heart Centre on 22.05.2013. A surgery was carried out by respondent No.2 and thereafter the petitioner was discharged on 25.05.2013. The condition of the petitioner deteriorated and, W.P.(C) No.7320/2016 Page 1 of 13 accordingly, t...
Manpreet Singh Bhatia vs.sumita Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : October 20, 2016 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 79/2014 MANPREET SINGH BHATIA ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Rebecca M.John, Senior Advocate instructed by Ms.Koplin K.Kandhari, Advocate. versus SUMITA BHATIA ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rajat Aneja and Ms.Chandrika Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The husband is aggrieved by the order dated June 02, 2014 deciding application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the wife granting monthly maintenance in sum of `25,000/- to the wife and similar amount towards education and maintenance Baby Sohana born to the couple on December 03, 2003.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant did not challenge the impugned order insofar `25,000/- per month has been directed to be paid to the respondent for the education and maintenance of Baby Sohana who is currently a hostler in a ren...
Rai Singh and Others vs.union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2016
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA. APP. No.364/2015 RAI SINGH AND OTHERS Through: versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Through:20. h October, 2016 Mr. H.M. Singh, Advocate. ..... Appellants ........ RESPONDENTS Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for defendant No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is essentially filed against the Judgment of the LAC Court dated 20.4.2005 whereby Sh. Rai Singh, Sh. Sarup Singh and Sh. Ishwar Singh were held not entitled to compensation because they had failed to show that they were the owners of the land acquired by the Government. The first appeal also challenges the Order dated 1.12.2014 dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Sections 151 to 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for LA. App. No.36...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »