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.
u.p. Hotels Ltd vs.meenakshi Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
$~2 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: October 18, 2016 FAO2432012 & C.Ms.10316/12, 131U.P. HOTELS LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi and Mr. Sumit Kumar Shukla, Advocates versus MEENAKSHI VERMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Chhabra and Mr. Nikhil Karwal, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % (ORAL) JUDGMENT C.M. 13181/2013 This application is disposed of in terms of order of 8th October, 2013. FAO2432012 & C.M.10316/2012 Impugned order of 12th April, 2012 rejects appellants application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside an ex parte decree of 26th March, 2012 passed on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC whereby possession of the suit property has been decreed in favour of respondent-plaintiff. Page 1 of 6 FAO2432012 The challenge to impugned order in this appeal by learned counsel for appellant is on the ground that it is quite evident from the order of 26th March, 2012 (Annexure A-37) that appellant-defendan...
Vijay Kumar Bansal & Anr. Vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
$~8. * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on:29. 09.2016 18.10.2016 + W.P.(CRL) 2741/2016 & Crl.M.A.No.14601/2016 VIJAY KUMAR BANSAL & ANR. ........ Petitioners STATE Through: Mr. Jitendra Sethi, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC for the State. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the setting aside of orders dated 09.01.2013 and 10.05.2016 passed by the learned ASJ, and the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the learned MM, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the application of the petitioners under Section 256 Cr PC was dismissed. Though the writ petition in its title invokes Article 226 with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, upon an objection being raised by the respondent that a writ petition under Article 226 would not lie to assail a judicial order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present...
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs.rohit and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
$~30. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION(C) No.6342/2015 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ........ Petitioner Date of decision:18. h October, 2016 Through Mr. U.N. Singh, Advocate. versus ROHIT AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal & Mr. Tenzing Thinlay Lecha, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Advocates for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The petioner-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in this writ petition impugns the order dated 11th February, 2015 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in OA No.1380/2013 holding that the first respondent-Rohit was eligible and should be appointed as a Primary Teacher with consequential benefits of fixation of pay and seniority commensurate with his position in the merit list. In case no vacancy is immediately available, the first respondent shall be app...
Brewton Consultants Private Limited vs.true Value Propmart Private Lim ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:18. 10.2016 CO. PET._No.169/2016 IN THE MATTER OF:-"BREWTON CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner /Transferor Company No.1. AND DACHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner /Transferor Company No.2. AND PINKCITY SALES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner /Transferor Company No.3. AND RIVER PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner/ Transferor Company No.4. AND RSS PETRO CHEM PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner/ Transferor Company No.5. AND SHIVAM PLASTOCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner/ Transferor Company No.6 WITH CO.PET.169/2016 Page 1 of 17 TRUE VALUE PROPMART PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner /Transferee Company Through: Mr Mukesh Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms Aparna Mudiam, Asst. ROC for RD. Mr Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for OL. CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.CO.APPL. 2847/2016_& CO.APPL. 3622/2016_(Condonation of delay) The delay which is stated to be of 99 days,...
Kamal Verma & Anr. Vs.state (Govt. Of Nct) of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 1572/2016 KAMAL VERMA & ANR. Date of Decision:October 18th, 2016 ........ Petitioners Through: Mr.Akhilesh Arora and Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advs. Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP. Mr.Dinesh Kumar Gaur and Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advs. for R-2. 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. Kamal Verma and Sh. Satya Prakash for quashing of FIR No.1160/2015 dated 23.09.2015 under Sections 420/467/468/4IPC registered at Police Station Burari on the basis of Compromise Deed executed between the petitioners and respondent No.2, namely, Sh. Naresh Kumar on 15.04.2016.2. respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2 present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant by SI Ashish Dahima.3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 24.11.2014, the compl...
Sharad Kumar @ Monty vs.state (Govt of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: August 22, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: October18, 2016 + CRL.A.128/2016 & Crl. M.A. No.2039/2016 MOHIT PAUL STATE Represented by: Mr. Subodh Kumar Pathak, Mr. ..... Appellant Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocates. versus Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with ..... Respondent Insp. Asha Sinha CAW Cell Nanakpura. + CRL.A.1179/2015 SHARAD KUMAR @ MONTY ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. V.K. Khurana, Advocate. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with Insp. Asha Sinha CAW Cell Nanakpura. + CRL.A.64/2016 AMIT YADAV STATE Represented by: Mr. Krishan Kumar, Ms. Sunita ..... Appellant Arora, Advocates versus Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with ..... Respondent Insp. Asha Sinha CAW Cell Nanakpura. Crl.A.Nos. 128/2016, 1179/2015 & 64/2016 Page 1 of 8 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Vide the impugned judgment dated September 11, ...
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs.umesh Tyagi & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
$~16 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:18. h October, 2016 MAC.APP. 638/2016 & CM No.29642/2016 (Stay) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate versus UMESH TYAGI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal 1. whereby compensation of Rs.5,24,930/- has been awarded to respondent No.1. The accident dated 3rd February 2014 resulted in fracture of 2. right elbow of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 underwent two surgeries for closed reduction and wire fixation with hematoma evacuation. Respondent No.1 remained hospitalized on 14th February 2014 and again from 11th August 2014 to 12th August 2014. Respondent No.1 suffered 10% disability with respect to right upper limb. awarded compensation of Rs.5,24,930/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. The Claims Tribunal has MA...
Mmtc Limited vs.m/s Kashish Associates & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2016
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CS(OS) 47/2013 MMTC LIMITED Judgment Dated:18. h October, 2016 ..... Plaintiff Through Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate versus M/S KASHISH ASSOCIATES & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Advocate for defendant no.1. Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Mr. Ranjith Ramesh Nair, Advocates for defendants no.2 and 3 along with Mr. Pawan Kumar, Chief Manager. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) (IA.10504/2013) under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC by defendant no.1) and IA.8128/2013 under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC by defendant no.2 and3) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present suit is based on two bank guarantees which were furnished by the defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a Government of India enterprise and claims to be one of the largest international trading company of India engaged inter alia in the manufacture, sale...
Aditya Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd & Ors vs.nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + CRL.M.C. 934/2016 Date of Decision: October 17th, 2016 ADITYA INFRADEVELOPERS PVT. LTD & ORS........ Petitioners Through Mr.Somesh Arora, Mr.Gulshan Sharma and Mr.S.K. Bharti, Advs. versus NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.G.M. Farooqui, APP. Respondent no.2 in person with Mr.Arun Vohra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.FIR No.159/2012 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, M/s. Aditya Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. through its duly authorized representative Sh. Satish Rai, M/s. Laiba IT Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through its duly authorized representative Sh. Harinder Lal Srivastava and M/s. Kaliber Associates Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized representative Sh. Harinder Lal Srivastava for quashing of Sections 406/409/418/420/468/471/477(A)/120B IPC registered at Police Station E.O.W. on the basis of Settlement Agreement executed between the petitioners and re...
Karishma Khosla vs.state of Delhi ( Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:17. h October, 2016 CRL.M.C. 2339/2016 & Crl.M.A. 9782/2016 (stay) KARISHMA KHOSLA Represented by: Mr. D. Hasija, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus STATE OF DELHI ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP with ..... Respondent ASI Sushila PS Patel Nagar. Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 25th May, 2016 the petitioner who is the complainant in FIR No.1062/2015 under Section 406/498A registered at PS Patel Nagar prefers the present petition. An application was filed by the respondent No.2 husband of the petitioner, an accused in the FIR, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking directions to the investigating officer to take possession of the articles of the complainant lying in the house of respondent No.2. The said application was opposed by the petitioner claiming that she was residing in the matrimonial h...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »