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.
Panalfa Automotive Private Limited vs.udayan Builders Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.APPL. (M) 146/2016 IN THE MATTER OF: PANALFA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED Applicant / Transferor Company UDAYAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED WITH Applicant/ Transferee Company Through: Mr. P. Srinivasan, Mr Sanjeev Jain and Mr Nikhil Swami, Advocates, for the Applicants. CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL ORDER0710.2016 1. The present is a first motion application filed jointly, under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 9 and 69 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 by the applicant companies seeking directions of this court to dispense with the requirement of convening the meetings of the equity shareholders, secured creditors and unsecured creditors to consider and approve, with or without modification, the proposed scheme of amalgamation-merger (hereinafter referred to as Scheme) of Panalfa Automotive Private Limited CO.APPL.(M) 146/2016 Page 1 of 6 (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company) with Udayan Buil...
Metal Closures Pvt Ltd & Ors vs.religare Finvest Limited & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:7th October, 2016 FAO(OS) (COMM) 50/2016, CM Nos.25219-25220/2016 METAL CLOSURES PVT LTD & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mrs. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, Mr. Sulabh Rewari, Advs. versus RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ajay Uppal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT INDIRA BANERJEE, J.(ORAL) 1. This appeal is against judgment and order dated 17.05.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the application being OMP (Comm.) No.112/2016 filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to 1996 Act) for setting aside an arbitral award dated 17th September, 2014 passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr.Lalit Kumar, in Arbitration Case No.RFL/Mortgage/LRN/L-4/748 between the appellants and the respondent.2. Religare Fi...
Vishal Varshney vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :7. h OCTOBER, 2016 + CRL.M.C.3736/2016 VISHAL VARSHNEY ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.Sujeet K.Mishra, Advocate. versus STATE & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr.Arun K.Sharma, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) CRL.M.A.No.16027/2016 (For restoration) 1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the petition dismissed in default vide order dated 04.10.2016 is restored in its original number.2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A.No.15612/2016 (Exemption) 1.2. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C.3736/2016 & CRL.M.A.No.15611/2016 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated Crl.M.C.3736/2016 Page 1 of 3 06.08.2016 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge by which anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 02.07.2015 was cancelled.2.... Petitioners co...
Rpg Cable Limited Now Merged With Kec International Limited vs.mahanag ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
$~11 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EX.P. 72/2015 & EA(OS) 621/2015 RPG CABLE LIMITED NOW MERGED WITH KEC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Decree Holder Through : Mr Abhishek Birthray and Mr Abhishek Verma, Advocates. versus MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Through : Mr Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate. ..... Judgement Debtor CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER0710.2016 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The Decree Holder (hereafter DH) has filed the present petition for enforcement of an arbitral award dated 02.09.2006. In terms of the said award, the Arbitrator had awarded a sum of `26,04,432/- in favour of the DH and further directed that Judgment Debtor (hereafter JD) will pay future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the said sum for a period from 03.09.2006 till the payment is made. It is not disputed that the JD has made the necessary payment in discharge of the aforesaid award. Thus, the award stands executed.2. Mr Kalra, the learned counsel for the JD states that the payments in te...
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd vs.chanda Kumari & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
$~5 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:07. h October, 2016 + MAC.APP. 887/2013 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ...... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate versus CHANDA KUMARI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ghanshyam, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1.2. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.5,17,920/- has been awarded to respondent No.1. The accident dated 09th November, 2009 resulted in the death of Madhuri Devi. The deceased was aged 37 years and was survived by a married daughter who was staying with her. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,17,920/- to respondent No.1.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged at the time of hearing of the appeal that respondent No.1 was not dependent MAC.APP.887/2013 Page 1 of 1 upon the deceased and is, therefore, not entitled t...
U Can Fly Limited, Trading as Lycafly vs.ava Spa Holidays (I) Pvt Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CS(COMM) No.1145/2016 & IA No.10192/2016 (under Order Date of decision:7. h October, 2016 XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPC) U CAN FLY LIMITED, TRADING AS LYCAFLY ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari & Ms. Kartika Sharma, Advs. Versus AVA SPA HOLIDAYS (I) PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sachin Dutta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaurav Chauhan and Mrs. Jasneet Kaur, Advs. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.12666/2016 (of D-1 u/S8of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996) 1. The applicant/defendant No.1, before filing first statement on the substance of the dispute, has filed this application for disposal of the suit by reference to arbitration.2. The counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant appears on advance notice and considering the nature of the application, need for reply is not felt and the counsels have been finally heard thereon.3. The plaintiff/non-applicant has instituted the suit for recovery of Great Britain Pounds (GB...
Santosh Sahay vs.hanuman Sahay
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: October 03, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: October 07, 2016 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 63/2016 SANTOSH SAHAY ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.A.K.Sharma & Mr.C.M. Sharma, Advocates. versus HANUMAN SAHAY ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Arunav Tiwari, Advocate with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. The appellant/wife is in appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated January 30, 2016 whereby the respondent/husband has been granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. For the sake of convenience we shall be referring the parties as the wife and the husband.2. HMA Petition No.(Old No.402/07) was filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The status of the parties at the time of marriage as pleaded in para 2 of the divorce petition was as under: (i) Husband (ii) Wife ...
Mange Ram Jain & Ors. Vs.jatinder Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3768/2012 Reserved on:29. h September, 2016 Decided on:7. h October, 2016 MANGE RAM JAIN & ORS. ........ Petitioners Represented by: Mr. Fanish K. Jain, Adv. versus JATINDER KUMAR JAIN ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Subhiksh Vasudev, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Aggrieved by the order dated 3rd August, 2012 summoning the petitioners Mange Ram Jain, Sanjiv Jain, Umesh Jain, Ashish Jain, Deepak Jain and Harish Chander Kaushik on the complaint of respondent for offences punishable under Sections 4IPC and petitioner No.2 Sanjiv Jain additionally for offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, the petitioners prefer the present petition.2. Respondent filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate stating that petitioner Harish Chander Kaushik had been appointed as Administrator of the Atma Vallabh Cooperative Group Housing Society (in short the Society) for the last six months and there were certain iss...
Rajya Sabha Recruitment Cell & Anr vs.jitender Yadav & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA6962015 % Judgment Reserved on:10. h RAJYA SABHA RECRUITMENT CELL & ANR .Appellants August, 2016 Date of Decision:7. h October, 2016 Through Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Zubeda Begum, Ms. Vanessa Singh, Ms.Sana Ansari & Ms.Manisha Mehta, Advocates. versus JITENDER YADAV & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate. Mr. Ankur Chhibber & Mr. Prashant Sivarajan, Advocates for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA SANJIV KHANNA, J.1. The Rajya Sabha Recruitment Cell and the Rajya Sabha Secretariat have filed the present intra-Court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act read with Rule 11 of the Delhi High Court Rules assailing the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2015, whereby Writ Petition (C) No.7500/2013 filed by the respondent No.1- Jitender Yadav has been allowed.2. The question raised is whether an Other Backward Class candidate or a reserved categ...
Corporate Capital Services (India) Private Limited vs.ayodhya Finlease ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.APPL. (M) 144/2016 IN THE MATTER OF: CORPORATE CAPITAL SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Transferor Company/Applicant No.1 WITH AYODHYA FINLEASE LIMITED Transferee Company/Applicant No.2 Through: Mr. Alok K Agarwal and Mr. Mayank Bughani Advocates for the Applicants CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL ORDER0710.2016 1. The present is a first motion application filed jointly, under Sections 391 & 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the applicant companies seeking directions of this Court to dispense with the requirement of convening the meetings of their equity shareholders, preference shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors to consider and approve, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of Corporate Capital Services (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Transferor Company) with CO.APPL.(M) 144/2016 Page 1 of 6 Ayodhya Finlease Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Transferee Company).2. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »