Delhi Court October 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 4 of about 298 results (0.020 seconds)United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.smi Fateh Alam and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-202 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: October 26, 2016 + MAC.APP. 68/2013 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Versus SMI FATEH ALAM AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Athar Alam, Mrs. Sumbu Athar, Mr. Azhar Alam & Ms. Kanchan Mala, Advocates for respondents No.1, 2 & 4 Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Advocate for respondent No.7 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Impugned Award of 26th October, 2012 grants compensation of `3,96,008/- along with interest @7.5% p.a. on account of death of a motor cycle pillion rider aged 33 years on 27th November, 2007, in vehicular accident in which pillion rider was crushed under the wheels of a DTC bus. MAC.APP682013 Page 1 of 5 2. The factual matrix, as noticed in the impugned Award, is as under:-"2. Brief facts as narrated in petition are that on 27.11.2007, the victim was travelling with Danish Raza (respondent No.1 herein) as pillion rider on a motorcycl...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Kumar Grover vs.anil Kumar
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :26. h OCTOBER, 2016 CRL.REV.P.30/2016 $~21 * + SURINDER KUMAR GROVER ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate with versus Mohd.Faraz, Advocate. ANIL KUMAR ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) CRL.M.A.No.673/2016 (Delay) 1. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, the delay is condoned.2. The application for condonation of delay is disposed of. CRL.REV.P.30/2016, CRL.M.A.No.14220/2016 & CRL.M.B. 86/2016 1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 15.09.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.14/2015 whereby judgment dated 08.05.2015 and sentence order dated 22.05.2015 of learned CMM under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act were upheld. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo SI for one year with compensation `7 la...
Tag this Judgment!Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd vs.haridwar Cables Network
Court: Delhi
$~1. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 74/2015 Judgment dated 26th October, 2016 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd ..... Plaintiff Through : Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Adv. versus Haridwar Cables Network CORAM: Through: None ..... Defendant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. The 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 were issued vide order dated 23.12.2015, when an ex parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Counsel further submits that summons was duly served on the defendant, however, none was present on behalf of the defendant on 08.02.2016 and 23.05.2016; accordingly on the second date, the defendant was proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff has also filed the ex parte evidence of Mr. S.K. Dutta, PW-1 and Mr. Mohit Sharma, PW-2.3. As...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority vs.sh. Ashok Kumar
Court: Delhi
* + % RSA No.20/2013 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI26h October, 2016 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent SH. ASHOK KUMAR CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Through: None. 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) is filed by the defendant/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in the suit impugning the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 28.7.2010 and the First Appellate Court dated 27.7.2012; by which the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed and the appellant/defendant was directed to allot an alternative plot to the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant/defendant was restrained from dispossessing the respondent/plaintiff from the suit property except with the due process of law. RSA No.20/2013 Page 1 of 4 2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Ratul Puri vs.state Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: Delhi
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10193/2016 & CMs No.40268, 40269 & 40270/2016 1. RATUL PURI ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rishi Agrawala, Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Ms.Niyati Kohli, Ms.Aayushi S.Khazanchi, Mr.Karan Luthra and Mr.Vaibhav Tyagi, Advocates versus STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR Through Ms.Kittu Bajaj, Advocate with Mr.Sunil Kumar, Law Officer of SBBJ ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia ORDER2610.2016 for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing/setting aside the letter dated 01.10.2016 issued by the respondent/Bank to the effect that if he has any grievance against the decision of the Bank for inclusion of his name in the list of Wilful Defaulters, he may send a reply in writing within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said letter.2. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that this is...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Samra & Ors. Vs.university of Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA5362016 & C.M.Nos. 36135/2016 & 36136/2016 Date of Decision: October 26, 2016 MASTER HARSHIL ANAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Rameeza Hakim, and Mr. Ashim Shridhar, Advs. Versus UOI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mrs.Bharathi Raju, CGSC with Ms.C. Rubavathi, Adv. for R-1 & R-6. Mr.K. K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Sonia Sharma, Mr.Rajiv Bakshi, Ms.Bhanita Patowary, Mr.Ayush Chourasia and Ms. Bhawana Gera, Advs. for R-3, R-4 & R-5. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Simran Jeet, Adv. for Mr.Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for Delhi University. Mr.T. Singhdev, Ms. Biakthansangi and Mr. Tarun Verma, Advs. for R-7/MCI. + LPA5392016 & C.M. Nos. 36159/2016 & 36163/2016 AMRIT SAMRA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate Versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Simran Jeet, Adv. for Mr.Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for Delhi University ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs.praveen Maheshwari
Court: Delhi
$~18 * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA3382015 & CM No.9054/2015 M/S ICICI BANK LTD ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Puneet Bhalla, Advocate versus Through : Mr. Sanjeev S. Chhabra, Advocate ..... Respondent PRAVEEN MAHESHWARI CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER2610.2016 Pursuant to the parties being referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, a Settlement Agreement dated 22.09.2016 has been placed on record, whereunder it has been recorded that the respondent has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3.30 lacs to the appellant in full and final settlement of all its claims.2. Counsel for the appellant states that out of the settlement amount of Rs.3.30 lacs, a sum of Rs.1.10 lacs has already been received by the appellant/Bank and the second instalment of Rs.1.10 lacs is now payable by the respondent by 27.11.2016.3. Counsel for the respondent hands over a demand draft bearing No.007145 dated 25.10.2016 drawn on Axis Bank, Ashoka Niketan, New Delhi i...
Tag this Judgment!Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd vs.param Hans City Cable Network
Court: Delhi
$~27. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 3292/2015 Judgment dated 26th October, 2016 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd ..... Plaintiff Through : Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Adv. CORAM: versus Param Hans City Cable Network Through: None ..... Defendant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. The 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 were issued vide order dated 22.01.2016, when an ex parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Counsel further submits that on the next date of hearing, i.e. 23.05.2016, since the defendant had refused to accept service and none was present on behalf of the defendant, the defendant was proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff has also filed the ex parte evidence of Mr. S.K. Dutta, PW-1 and Mr. Mohit Sharma, PW-2.3. As per t...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Thakur & Anr. Vs.sandeep Jain& Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~ * 28. + 34. + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Ex. P. 25/2016 RAKESH THAKUR & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena and Ms.Nameeta Chauhan, Advocates. versus SANDEEP JAIN & ANR. Through: Mr. L. C. Rajput, Advocate... RESPONDENTS 3 and 4. ........ RESPONDENTS for AND O.M.P. 53/2014 RAKESH THAKUR & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena and Ms.Nameeta Chauhan, Advocates. versus SANDEEP JAIN& ANR. Through: Mr. L. C. Rajput, Advocate... RESPONDENTS 3 and 4. ........ RESPONDENTS for CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER2610.2016 % Ex. P. 25/2016 & IA224592015 in O.M.P. 53/2014 1. The applicant Mr. Mohd. Rafiq seeks more or less the same relief in Ex. P. 25 of 2016 & IA224592015 in O.M.P. 53 of 2014 Page 1 of 5 Execution Petition No.25 of 2016 as well as IA No.22459/2015 in O.M.P. 53/2014.2. What the Applicant wants is enforcement of the order in his favour passed by this Court on 18th February, 2014 in O.M.P. 53/2014. At this juncture, it should be noted ...
Tag this Judgment!Su Estates Pvt Ltd vs.sunsine Realbuild Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.APPL. (M) 155/2016 IN THE MATTER OF: SU ESTATES PVT LTD IREO PVT LTD .APPLICANT/TRANSFEROR COMPANY AND ..APPLICANT/TRANSFEREE COMPANY AND SUNSINE REALBUILD PVT LTD APPLICANT/RESULTING COMPANY Through: Mr Rajeev K Goel Advocate for the Applicants. CORAM: HONBLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL ORDER2610.2016 1. The present is a first motion application filed jointly, under Sections 391 & 394, 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956, in connection with the Composite Scheme of Arrangement for (a) Amalgamation of Su Estates Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company) with Ireo Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Transferee Company); and (b) De-merger of Demerged Undertaking of Ireo Pvt Ltd into, Sunsine Realbuild Pvt Ltd (hereinafter CO.APPL.(M) 155/2016 Page 1 of 9 referred to as Resulting Company).2. The Transferor Company, Transferee Company and Resulting Company are hereinafter collectively referred to as Applicant Companies.3. The regist...
Tag this Judgment!