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.
Govt of Nct of Delhi vs.rosmerta Hsrp Ventures Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB. A. (COMM.) 33/2016 Reserved on:4. h October, 2016 Date of decision:7. h October, 2016 ..... Appellant GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Through: Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Additional Standing counsel (Civil), Ms. Sneha Iyar and Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocates. versus $~ * + ROSMERTA HSRP VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Paras Kuhad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishi Agarwal, Mr. Vivek Jain, Ms. Devika Mahan, Mr. Jatin Chaturvedi and Ms. Swati Vijayvirgiya, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0710.2016 % 1. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) filed by the Appellant, Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) against an interim order dated 21st May, 2016 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) in an application under Section 17 of the Act filed by the Respondent, Rosmerta HSRP Ventures Private Limited (RHVPL).2. The background to the present appeal is tha...
Times Publishing House Limited vs.the Financial Times Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of decision:7. h October, 2016 W.P.(C) No.3483/2012 TIMES PUBLISHING HOUSE LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Mr. K. Datta, Mr. Shashi P. Ojha and Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Advs. Versus THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. P.S. Raman, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aparajitha Vishwanath, Mr. Gaurav Mukherjee, Mr. J.V. Abhay, Mr. Raghav Pant, Mr. Avijit Deb, Ms. Ashima Obhan, Advs. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 For judgment see WP(C) No.2735/2012 titled The Financial Times Ltd. Vs. The Times Publishing House Ltd. OCTOBER7h, 2016 pp/bs/m.. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J W.P.(C) No 34Page 1 of 1...
Vijay Mahajan vs.akhil Bharatiya Mahajan Shriomani Sabha Thr Its Presi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
$~12, 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of hearing and order :7. h October, 2016 + CONT.CAS.(CRL) 6/2015 PUSHPINDER KUMAR MAHAJAN Through: Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate with petitioner in person. ........ Petitioner versus STATE ( CHIEF SECRETARY) & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Advocate for respondent No.4 to 10 Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. + CONT.CAS(C) 123/2016 VIJAY MAHAJAN Through: Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus AKHIL BHARATIYA MAHAJAN SHRIOMANI SABHA THR ITS PRESIDENT & ORS Through: Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate with respondent No.1 in person. ..... Respondent Cont. Case (C) No.123/2016 & Cont. Case (Crl.) 6/2015 Page 1 of 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI % GITA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) ORDER0710.2016 1. These two matters relate to elections to the respondent society the Akhil Bhartiya Mahajan Shriomani Sabha. The petitioner as well as the private respondents are mem...
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs.renu & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
$~19 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:07. h October, 2016 + FAO572012 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. versus RENU & ORS ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. M.K. Rathee and Mr. J.P. Sikka, Advs. for R1 to R6. Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Shiva Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner, Employees Compensation whereby compensation of Rs.3,94,120/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 6. The accident dated 01st February, 2009 resulted in the death of 2. Rajesh. The deceased was survived by his widow, four minor children and mother who filed the application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees Compensation. The appellant contested the claim petition on the ground that the 3. insurance policy of the offending vehicle was cancelled on account of dishonour of the cheque towards the premium. The...
State of Nct of Delhi vs.nazar Ali & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2016
$~8 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of hearing and order :7. h October, 2016 CRL.L.P. 551/2016 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State versus NAZAR ALI & ORS Through: ........ RESPONDENTS Sub-Inspector Shailendra Kumar Singh, Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI % ORDER0710.2016 GITA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.15981/2016 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 551/2016 & Crl. M.A. No.15980/2016 (condonation of delay) 1. By way of the present petition under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., the State seeks leave of this court to appeal against the judgment dated Crl. L.P. No.551/2016 Page 1 of 6 11th March 2016 whereby the respondents stand acquitted for commission of the offence with which they were charged in the case arising Section 147/148/427/186/353/307/323 read with Section...
Sharda Rani Chawla and Others Vs. Dr. P.K. Chawla and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Late Bhim Sain Chawla was the owner of property bearing municipal No.C-4/171, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and on his demise on October 02, 1969 his wife Manorama Rani Chawla and four sons : Pramod Kumar Chawla, Satish Chawla, Naresh Chawla and Vinod Kumar Chawla inherited the property as his legal heirs. Succession was by intestacy. Manorama Rani Chawla died on July 07, 1999 and willed her undivided share in the property to her four sons as per will dated April 03, 1979, in respect of which the learned Single Judge has correctly opined that he need not decide on the validity of the will for the reason whether succession to the estate of Manorama Rani Chawla was testamentary or by intestacy it made no difference because under either mode of succession the four sons would equally acquire her 1/5th share in the property. Thus, the four brothers became joint owners of the property each having 1/4th undivided share thereon. 2. The appellants are the suc...
M/s. P.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Bhagwati Lecto Veget ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellants are the plaintiffs. The respondents are the defendants. Suit is on an action for passing off of the trademarks India Salaam and Al Habib . The rival trademark is Al Salaam . Under the competingtrademarks same goods i.e. rice is being sold. 2. As per the plaintiffs the trademark India Salaam was adopted and put into use in the year 1985 by plaintiff No.2 who was carrying on business under the name and style M/s P.K.Enterprises, which trading name by him was changed to M/s Sun Rise Agro India, which was later on converted into a company M/s P.K.Agro Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. and thereafter name changed to M/s P.K.Overseas Pvt.Ltd. That with the consent of plaintiff No.2, the plaintiff No.1 has also been permitted to use the trademark India Salaam i.e. said trademarkis used both by plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 for sale of rice. As per the plaintiffs since the year 2009 they conceived of and adopted the trademark Al Habib for rice and registration of...
Private Investment Powai Ltd Vs. Supreme Housing And Hospitality Pvt L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia, praying for certain interim measures of protection including directing the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.1,88,60,96,559/- in this Court for securing the petitioner s claim. 2. The petitioner states that certain disputes have arisen in respect of an agreement dated 19.03.2015 captioned as Share Purchase Agreement . In terms of which the petitioner claims that it is entitled for consideration of a sum of Rs.1,62,00,00,000/- for sale of part of the Investor Securities . It is the petitioner s case that the respondents have failed and neglected to perform the said agreement. 3. The petitioner has also alleged that its affirmative rights in respect of the management and affairs of the company have also been violated. In the aforesaid context, this Court had passed an order dated, 27.05.2016, inter alia, directing as under:- 9. Till the next date o...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›