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.
Picasso Digital Media pvt.ltd. Vs.pick-a-cent Consulatancy Service pvt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
$~ * 4. + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 22/2016 PICASSO DIGITAL MEDIA PVT.LTD. Through: Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus PICK-A-CENT CONSULATANCY SERVICE PVT.LTD. Through: Mr. Chirag Jamwal, Advocate. ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER1910.2016 % 1. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 1st July, 2009 was entered into between the... Petitioner and the Respondent at New Delhi in terms of which the... Petitioner agreed to grant the Respondent a franchisee of Picasso Animation College at Bangalore.2. The fact that the above MoU was entered into is not denied by the Respondent. The fact that it contains clause 8 in terms of which it was agreed that any dispute and difference between them arising from the Agreement would be referred to a sole Arbitrator is also not denied.3. However, the objection raised by learned counsel for the Respondent on the strength of the decision in N. Radhakrishnan v. M/s. Maestro Engineers & Ors. (2009)...
Sheeshpal @ Pale & Anr vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: August 10, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: October 19, 2016 CRL.A. 811/2000 SHEESHPAL @ PALE & ANR. ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.K.K.Manan, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ankush Narang, Ms. Anjali Rajput, Advs. STATE versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Ashok Kumar Garg, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Vide impugned judgment dated November 24, 2000, Sheeshpal alias Pale and Virender alias Kalu were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376/3IPC. Vide order on sentence dated November 26, 2000, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for period of six months and to pay a fine of `500/- for offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the prosecutrix has made several material improv...
Smt. Maharani Devi vs.municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.137/2012 + % SMT. MAHARANI DEVI19h October, 2016 ..... Appellant Through: None. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Through: None. To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This matter is on the Regular Board of this Court since 7.7.2016. No one appears for the parties although it is 12.40 P.M. I have therefore perused the record on my own and am proceeding to dispose of this second appeal.2. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was admitted by the Order dated 12.12.2013. Substantial question of law was framed by an earlier Order dated 13.2.2013 as under:-"Whether the finding of fact with regard to the alleged encroachment by the appellant in respect of the road in question is perverse, keeping in view the evidence which has been adduced by the parties?. RSA No.137/2012 Page 1 of 6 3....
Master Yash Shokeen (Minor) Through His Father Vikas Shokeen vs.apeeja ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 7974/2016 & CM No.33086/2016 (for interim directions) Judgment delivered on:19. 10.2016 ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS versus MASTER YASH SHOKEEN (MINOR) THROUGH HIS FATHER VIKAS SHOKEEN APEEJAY SCHOOL & ANR Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Shatrajit Banjerji, Advocate for Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advocate for respondent No.Mr Khagesh B. Jha, Advocate : JUDGMENT1910.2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of letters dated 12.04.2016 and 23.04.2016 whereby the admission of the petitioner has been cancelled and name of the petitioner has been struck off from the rolls of the school on the ground that income certificate furnished at the time of seeking admission was fake and forged.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends tha...
Ecotrust Capital Private Limited vs.talentgenie Consultants Private Li ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:19. 10. 2016 CO.PET. 323/2016 IN THE MATTER OF:-"ECOTRUST CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED .Petitioner No.1/Transferor Company AND CHEMICAL AND METALLURGICAL DESIGN COMPANY LIMITED ..Petitioner No.2/Transferee Company /Demerged Company AND UNISYSTEMS PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..Petitioner No.3/Resulting Co. No.1 AND TALENTGENIE CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED .Petitioner No.4/Resulting Co. No.2 Through: Mr. Deepak Diwan, Mr. Vinod Kumar and Ms. Himanshi Taneja, Advocates for the... Petitioners Ms. Aparna Mudiam, Assistant Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director CO.PET. 323/2016 Page 1 of 14 Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for the Official Liquidator CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J1 This Joint Petition has been filed under sections 391(2) & 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the... Petitioner Company Nos. 1 to 4 respectively seeking sanction of the Composite Scheme of Arrangement of Ecotrust Capital P...
Samay Singh vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:2. d August, 2016 Judgment Delivered on:19. h October, 2016 CRL.A. 86/2015 ..... Appellant SAMAY SINGH STATE Represented by: Mr.Chetan Lokur, Advocate. Versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with SI Uma Dutt, PS Mangol Puri. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Convicted for offences punishable under SectionIPC Samay Singh challenges the impugned judgment dated July 05, 2014 and the order on sentence dated July 15, 2014 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of `5000/- for offence punishable under SectionIPC.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that it appears from the testimony of the prosecutrix that the incident took place on the bed itself where the prosecutrix PW-1 slept on the side of the wall, her brother in the centre and PW-7, the second wife of the appellant near the door. Thus, it was not possib...
Ms. ‘X’ vs.n.c.t of Delhi and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:19. h September, 2016 CRL.REV.P. 623/2016 Represented by: Mr. Kamran Malik, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus Ms. X CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA N.C.T OF DELHI AND ANR Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP. ........ RESPONDENTS MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A. 14597/2016 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Crl.M.A. 14598/2016 For the reasons stated in the application 87 days delay in refilling the revision petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.REV.P. 623/2016 1. On the complaint of the petitioner FIR No.208/2011 under Section 354 IPC was lodged at PS Sunlight Colony.2. The learned Trial Court vide the judgment dated 12th March, 2015 acquitted the respondent No.2 of the charge. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the learned Additional CRL.REV.P. 623/2016 Page 1 of 5 Sessions Judge which was also dismissed vide the impugned Judgment dated 5th February, 2016. H...
Cephalon, Inc vs.maneesh Pharmaceutical Limited & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
$~17 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 106/2016 CEPHALON, INC ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr Chander M Lall, Advocate with Through : Mr Gaurav Gogia and Ms Bhavya ..... Defendants versus MANEESH PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED & ANR Ms Kripa Pandit, Advocate. Sethi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1910.2016 VIBHU BAKHRU, J IA Nos. 2094/2016 and 6074/2016 1. The plaintiff (hereafter Cephalon) has filed IA no 2094/2016 under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPC inter alia seeking an order restraining the defendants from using the trademark PROVIGIL. Defendant no 1 (hereafter MPL) has filed IA no 6074/2016 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of the interim order dated 12.02.2016 by virtue of which defendants were restrained from using the mark "PROVIGIL". Both the aforesaid applications were taken up and heard together.2. Cephalon has filed the above captioned suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of its trademark PROVIGIL, p...
Hari Om Sharma vs.kulachi Hansraj Model School & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
$~69 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on 19th October, 2016 W.P.(C) 8144/2010 HARI OM SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. J.S. Bakshi, Mr. A.S. Bakshi and Mr. Ankush Sharma, Advs. versus KULACHI HANSRAJ MODEL SCHOOL & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajinder Nischal and Mr. Asish Nischal, Advs. for R-1 & R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (ORAL) This petition impugns the order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the 1. the Inquiry Report dated Presiding Officer, Delhi School Tribunal, 05.02.2002 of the Enquiry Officer and the order of imposition of major penalty of removal from the service of the petitioner conveyed to him vide Order Ref. No.17682/2002 dated 14.08.2002. It is not in dispute that the inquiry was conducted by a retired District & Sessions Judge, a person with a trained legal mind. The petitioner contends that before a person so qualified and experienced in law, the petitioner should have been accorded the opportunity of being ass...
Dream Valley Farms Private Limited & Anr vs.religare Finvest Limited & ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
$~ * 65 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 635/2016 DREAM VALLEY FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli with Ms. Mansha Anand, Advocates. ........ Petitioners versus RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED & ORS Through: Mr. Niraj Singh, Advocate. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR % ORDER1910.2016 IA No.12845/2016 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Arb.P. 635/2016 2. This is a petition under Section 11 (6) and (8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) filed by the... Petitioners seeking the appointment of an independent impartial and qualified Arbitrator.3. Notice. Mr. Niraj Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the... RESPONDENTS. Although learned counsel for the... RESPONDENTS sought time for filing a reply, the Court does not consider it necessary for the reason that the facts brought to the notice of the Court, as a result of the statements of the Arbitrator himself, are self evident and beyond...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »