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.
Daya Sharma vs.union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
$~5. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION(C) No.8980/2016 Date of decision:19. h October, 2016 DAYA SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Rahul Sharma & Mr. C.K. Bhatt, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The impugned order dated 10th February, 2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in OA No.2943/2014, rejects the claim of the petitioner for grant of extraordinary pension under Rule 3A read with Rule 3(4) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules.2. Husband of the petitioner was an employee in the Instruments Research and Development Establishment of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Dehradun. He expired on 20th October, 2009 at 11 P.M. in Sharma Sadbhavna Medical Centre, Dehradun as a result of cardio-respiratory ar...
Nand Kishore Sonkar vs.ram Chameli Anand and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-2016
$~A-21 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: October 19, 2016 RC REV. 282/2016 NAND KISHORE SONKAR .....Petitioner Versus Through Mr.Kamal Sharma, Adv. RAM CHAMELI ANAND AND ANR. ....Respondent Through Mr.Abdesh Choudhary and Mr.S.Majumdar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This revision petition is filed under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as The DRC Act) seeking to impugn the eviction order dated 24.2.2016 whereby the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as The ARC) dismissed the application of the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend and passed an eviction order.2. The respondent/landlord filed the Eviction Petition for a shop bearing No.2678/12, Basti Punjabian, Purani Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. It was claimed that the petitioner had inducted a sub-tenant and had parted with possession of the premises. It was further stated that late Shri Nanak Chand Anand husba...
mohd.wasim @ Pappu @ Riaz vs.the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RESERVED ON :30. h SEPTEMBER, 2016 DECIDED ON :18. h OCTOBER, 2016 CRL.A.950/2015 MOHD.WASIM @ PAPPU @ RIAZ ..... Appellant Through : Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.The present appeal stands disposed of in terms of a detailed common judgment delivered today which is placed in the file of Crl.A.956/2015 titled Shri Balram vs. State. (S.P.GARG) JUDGE OCTOBER18 2016 / tr...
Izhar Siddiqui vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: August 23,2016 Judgment Delivered on:October18, 2016 CRL.A. 597/2015 IZHAR SIDDIQUI ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Vikas Padora, Advocate. * % + STATE Versus Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the ..... Respondent State with SI Mahesh Singh, PS Pandav Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Convicted for offences punishable under SectionsIPC Izhar Siddiqui challenges the impugned judgment of conviction dated January 30, 2013 and the order on sentence dated February 04, 2013 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Izhar Siddiqui contends that though the learned Trial Court observed that the prosecutrix had bee...
Shanteshwar Pal vs.vishwanath Sanyas Ashram Trust & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA222015 & CMs No.27266 & 27270/2016 1. SHANTESHWAR PAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Pradeep Aggarwal, Advocate versus VISHWANATH SANYAS ASHRAM TRUST & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through:Mr.Sonal Sinha and Ms.Tanvi Sapra, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % Learned counsel for the respondents states that the appellant had ORDER1810.2016 expired on 01.11.2015 which fact was duly brought to the notice of the court and recorded in the order dated 14.3.2016, but no steps have been taken till date by learned counsel for the appellant to bring on record his legal heirs. He clarifies that it is not as if the legal heirs of the deceased appellant are unaware of the pendency of the present appeal inasmuch as they have been appearing in a probate petition filed by the respondent No.1 in respect of the will dated 10.6.2013, executed by late Smt. Shanti Devi Thakur, wherein they have filed objections.2. Learned counsel for the appellant...
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited vs.gurgaon Cable Tv Series
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
$~03. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 988/2016 Judgment dated 18th October, 2016 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through : Ms.Prachi Agarwal and Mr.K.K. Khetan, Advs. versus GURGAON CABLE TV SERIES ..... Defendant Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, damages, rendition of accounts, etc.2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that summons in the suit and notice in the application for stay were issued vide order dated 24.11.2015, when an ex parte ad interim injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Counsel further submits that in the order dated 7.1.2016, the learned Joint Registrar had noticed that the defendant has been served through speed post, however, service through other modes was awaited. The plaintiff had also filed an affidavit of service. Counsel co...
Tek Chand vs.the State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :4. h OCTOBER, 2016 DECIDED ON :18. h OCTOBER, 2016 + CRL.A.523/2004 TEK CHAND ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 16.01.2004 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.arising out of FIR No.4PS Anand Vihar whereby the appellant Tek Chand was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 363/376/506 IPC. By an order dated 21.01.2004, he was awarded various prison terms with fine. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on 18.12.2001 at around 02.00 p.m. the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix X (changed name) aged around 14 years from the lawful guardianship of her father Kanhaiya Lal from House No.C-95, NSA Colony...
Sri Niwas Gupta vs.surender Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
* + % SRI NIWAS GUPTA IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.206/2015 18th October, 2016 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Subhasish Bhomick, Advocate with appellant in person. versus SURENDER KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA 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) impugns the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 26.9.2014. The First Appellate Court vide its Judgment dated 26.9.2014 has decreed the suit by setting aside the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.12.2011 which had dismissed the suit. The subject suit was a suit for possession, mesne profits and injunction with respect to the suit property admeasuring 100 sq. yards bearing No.A-699, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, situated in khasra No.409/274. RSA No.206/2015 Page 1 of 11 2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that he purchased owner...
Kishan Lal vs.mohd. Idrish, Deceased Through His Legal Heirs & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + % KISHAN LAL RSA No.132/2008 18th October, 2016 Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with ..... Appellant Mr. Rajender Aggarwal, Adv. versus MOHD. IDRISH, DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ORS. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Through: None. ........ RESPONDENTS 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 one of the legal heirs of the deceased defendant in the suit against the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 3.3.1984 and the First Appellate Court dated 29.3.2008; by which the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiff for recovery of rent of Rs.324/- was decreed. Original plaintiff in the suit was one Mohd. Noor Khan who died pendente lite and his legal heirs being the present respondents were thereafter substituted in his place. The original defendant was one Sh. Kund...
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland & Anr vs.sanjay Jain & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
$~03. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 197/2016 Judgment dated 18th October, 2016 BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB HOLDINGS IRELAND & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.Praveen Anand, Mr.Nischal Anand and Mr.Aman Taneja, Advs. versus CORAM: SANJAY JAIN & ANR Through ..... Defendants HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of their patent registered under No.203937, delivery up, damages etc. against the defendants.2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that summons in the suit and notice in the application for stay were directed to be issued vide order dated 8.10.2015, when an ex parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Counsel further submits that in the order dated 14.3.2016, the learned Joint Registrar had noticed that the defendants have been duly served, however, since the written statement was not filed, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »