Delhi Court November 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 1 of about 505 results (0.009 seconds)Rakesh Kumar Meena vs.state (Govt of Nct Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 3393/2016 + Date of Hearing and Order: November 30th, 2016 RAKESH KUMAR MEENA ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Gaurav Mishra, Adv. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondent Through Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC for State with ASI Jaichand, PS Mukherjee Nagar. Respondent no.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI ORDER P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Meena for quashing of FIR No.178/2016 dated 05.02.2016, under Sections 354(A)/354(D) IPC registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on the basis of the settlement between the petitioner and respondent no.2 namely, Ms. Rajani Dahiya. respondent-State 2. submitted that the respondent no.2 present in the Court has been identified to be complainant/first-informant the in the FIR in question by ASI Jaichand.3. The factual matrix of the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Fiberfill Engineers vs.indian Oil Corporation Limited
Court: Delhi
$~ * 24 + 25 + 26 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 435/2015 FIBERFILL ENGINEERS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Gupta with Mr. Anant A. Pavgi and Ms. Mansi Kukreja, Advocates. versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.M. Kalra with Ms. Sonali Kumar, Advocates. With ARB.P. 436/2015 FIBERFILL ENGINEERS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Gupta with Mr. Anant A. Pavgi and Ms. Mansi Kukreja, Advocates. versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.M. Kalra with Ms. Sonali Kumar, Advocates. And ARB.P. 437/2015 FIBERFILL ENGINEERS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Gupta with Mr. Anant A. Pavgi and Ms. Mansi Kukreja, Advocates. versus Arb.P. Nos. 435, 436 & 437/2015 Page 1 of 8 % INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.M. Kalra with Ms. Sonali Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR ORDER3011.2016 1. These three petitions by, Fiberfill Engineers, under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Kumar Gupta vs.indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Ors.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + % AMIT KUMAR GUPTA W.P. (C) No.4233/2000 30th November, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. V.N. Kaura and Ms. Paramjeet Benipal, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/Sh. Amit Kumar Gupta seeking directions that the action of the respondent No.1/employer (and whose officers are respondent nos. 2 to 4 of this writ petition) be quashed whereby the petitioners resignation has been taken as accepted and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.9.1999.... Petitioner claims that he had withdrawn his resignation before acceptance thereof by the respondent no.1 W.P. (C) No.4233/2000 Page 1 of 16 and hence he cannot be said to have resigned from his ser...
Tag this Judgment!Icici Bank Ltd. Vs.amfah Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~50 to 66 (17 matters) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:30. h November, 2016 (1) + (2) + + (3) + (4) (5) + + (6) + (7) (8) + (9) + (10) + (11) + (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) + (16) + (17) + FAO2702015 FAO2732015 FAO3892015 & C.Ms.26339/2015 & 14072/2016 FAO12016 & C.M.105/2016 FAO52016 & C.M.120/2016 FAO62016 & C.M.123/2016 FAO82016 & C.M.162/2016 FAO92016 & C.M.165/2016 FAO722016 & C.M.5233/2016 FAO802016 & C.Ms.5729-31/2016 FAO1682016 & C.Ms.14485/16, 144FAO1692016 & C.Ms.14497/16, 144FAO1742016 & C.Ms.15071/16, 150FAO1792016 & C.Ms.15196/16, 151FAO1942016 & C.Ms.16171, 16173-FAO1952016 & C.Ms.16178-180/2016 FAO2002016 & C.Ms.16843/16, 16845/16, 168ICICI BANK LTD versus ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit Bhalla, Advocate P K GOSWAMI SONU BHADHANA & ANR (1) RAJESH KUMAR (2) (3) MOHINDER KUMAR GOYAL (4) (5) RAJU ARORA (6) (7) VIRENDER SINGH (8) (9) PRABHU DAYAL SANJOY SAHA POONAM SHARMA FAOs 270/2015 & other connected matters Page 1 of 5 (10) ANIL KUMAR (11) SON...
Tag this Judgment!Icici Bank Ltd. Vs.sonu Kr Sharma
Court: Delhi
$~50 to 66 (17 matters) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:30. h November, 2016 (1) + (2) + + (3) + (4) (5) + + (6) + (7) (8) + (9) + (10) + (11) + (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) + (16) + (17) + FAO2702015 FAO2732015 FAO3892015 & C.Ms.26339/2015 & 14072/2016 FAO12016 & C.M.105/2016 FAO52016 & C.M.120/2016 FAO62016 & C.M.123/2016 FAO82016 & C.M.162/2016 FAO92016 & C.M.165/2016 FAO722016 & C.M.5233/2016 FAO802016 & C.Ms.5729-31/2016 FAO1682016 & C.Ms.14485/16, 144FAO1692016 & C.Ms.14497/16, 144FAO1742016 & C.Ms.15071/16, 150FAO1792016 & C.Ms.15196/16, 151FAO1942016 & C.Ms.16171, 16173-FAO1952016 & C.Ms.16178-180/2016 FAO2002016 & C.Ms.16843/16, 16845/16, 168ICICI BANK LTD versus ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit Bhalla, Advocate P K GOSWAMI SONU BHADHANA & ANR (1) RAJESH KUMAR (2) (3) MOHINDER KUMAR GOYAL (4) (5) RAJU ARORA (6) (7) VIRENDER SINGH (8) (9) PRABHU DAYAL SANJOY SAHA POONAM SHARMA FAOs 270/2015 & other connected matters Page 1 of 5 (10) ANIL KUMAR (11) SON...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar Gupta vs.union of India and Anr
Court: Delhi
* + % SATISH KUMAR GUPTA versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.9879/2016 In person. 30th November, 2016 ........ Petitioner UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Sangita Rai, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Counsel does not appear for the petitioner, though petitioner is present in person. An adjournment is sought on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of illness of counsel for the petitioner, and which adjournment is opposed on behalf of the respondents stating that adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner by informing her of the difficulty of petitioners counsel but not of the illness of counsel for the petitioner.2. In the opinion of this Court, the request for adjournment is not justified and probably is an act of strategy to get the case adjourned in view W.P.(C) No.9879/2016 Page 1 of 3 of what is noted in the last order dated 25.11.2016 as ...
Tag this Judgment!Rishi Aggarwal vs.m/s Vipul Infrastructure Developer Ltd & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2309/2013 Decided on:30. 11.2016 RISHI AGGARWAL ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv with Ms Nidhi Mehrotra, Adv. versus M/S VIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPER LTD & ORS. Through: Mr Abhinav Agnihotri, Adv for D-1 Mr Abhishek and Mr Yashwardhan Tiwari, Adv. for D-2 ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA % IA No.8993/2014 (under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w S. 151 CPC by defendant No.2) 1. The present application is filed by defendant No.2 M/s Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC on the ground that suit does not disclose any cause of action against defendant No.2 and that the present suit is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action since the defendants are not the owners of the flat and also there is no such averment in plaint. The claim of the plaintiff does not rest on any agreement to sell, CS(OS) 2...
Tag this Judgment!Icici Bank Ltd. Vs.vijay Kumar Rai
Court: Delhi
$~50 to 66 (17 matters) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:30. h November, 2016 (1) + (2) + + (3) + (4) (5) + + (6) + (7) (8) + (9) + (10) + (11) + (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) + (16) + (17) + FAO2702015 FAO2732015 FAO3892015 & C.Ms.26339/2015 & 14072/2016 FAO12016 & C.M.105/2016 FAO52016 & C.M.120/2016 FAO62016 & C.M.123/2016 FAO82016 & C.M.162/2016 FAO92016 & C.M.165/2016 FAO722016 & C.M.5233/2016 FAO802016 & C.Ms.5729-31/2016 FAO1682016 & C.Ms.14485/16, 144FAO1692016 & C.Ms.14497/16, 144FAO1742016 & C.Ms.15071/16, 150FAO1792016 & C.Ms.15196/16, 151FAO1942016 & C.Ms.16171, 16173-FAO1952016 & C.Ms.16178-180/2016 FAO2002016 & C.Ms.16843/16, 16845/16, 168ICICI BANK LTD versus ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit Bhalla, Advocate P K GOSWAMI SONU BHADHANA & ANR (1) RAJESH KUMAR (2) (3) MOHINDER KUMAR GOYAL (4) (5) RAJU ARORA (6) (7) VIRENDER SINGH (8) (9) PRABHU DAYAL SANJOY SAHA POONAM SHARMA FAOs 270/2015 & other connected matters Page 1 of 5 (10) ANIL KUMAR (11) SON...
Tag this Judgment!Palika Youth Street Vendors Welfare Society (Regd.) vs.govt. Of Nct of ...
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $-15 * + W.P. (C) 11350/2016 % Date of Judgment:30. h November, 2016 PALIKA YOUTH STREET VENDORS WELFARE SOCIETY (REGD) ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula and Mr. Sunny Arora, Advocates. Versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mahua Kalra for Mr. Piyush Kalra, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar, Adv. for R-2. Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, Addl. Standing Counsel for NDMC with Mr. Mananjay Mishra, Mr. Shailja Nanda Mishra, and Ms. Vidhi Jain Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) CM No.44508/2016 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 11350/2016 1. This is a petition filed by petitioner, Palika Youth Street Vendors Welfare Society (Regd.), seeking a direction to the respondents to follow the due process of law as per Sections 103(2) and 225 of the WP (C) 11350/2016 Page 1 of 4 New Delhi Municipal Co...
Tag this Judgment!State vs.gurpreet Singh Walia
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:30. h November, 2016 CRL.M.C. 3867/2016 Represented by: Mr. Ranbir Singh Kundu, APP. ........ Petitioner versus STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) GURPREET SINGH WALIA Represented by: Mr. Manoranjan, Adv. ..... Respondent 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 9th June, 2016 dismissing the application of the State for sending memory chip of the spy camera to the CFSL, the petitioner prefers the present petition.2. Brief exposition of the fact is that one Parsuram Prasad, the complainant in FIR No.37/2010 under SectionPrevention of Corruption Act (POC Act) registered at PS Anti-Corruption Branch took video and audio of Gurpreet Singh Walia, the respondent herein allegedly taking bribe. The key chain spy camera with memory card was recovered and during the course of investigation, the memory card was sent to the FSL vide letter dated 13th October, 2010 seeking the following information- (a) Whether there is...
Tag this Judgment!