Delhi Court November 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.
Joint Commissioner of Police vs.constable Phool Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $-R-1B * + W.P. (C) 6874/2009 and CM No.2132/2009 % JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Date of Judgment:28. h November, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC with Ms. Hancy Wadhwa, Advocate versus CONSTABLE PHOOL SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Saahila Lamba, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J.(ORAL) 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 1st January, 2008 passed in RA No.76/2007 in OA No.2274/2004 as well as the order dated 11th October, 2006 in OA No.2274/2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for short as the Tribunal) by which the RA filed by the respondent was allowed.2. The respondent was working as a Constable in Delhi Police. A departmental inquiry against ASI Sube Singh, Constable Harminder Singh and the respondent herein was initiated by an order dated 10th September, 1998 under the provisions of Delhi Police ...
sh.ved Prakash vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C) No.6766/2016 28th November, 2016 SH.VED PRAKASH Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Adv. ........ Petitioner Through: versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC with Niharika, Adv. for GNCTD/R-1 to 3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks the relief of quashing of the order dated 25.7.2016 passed by the Directorate of Education and for seeking the benefit of re- employment to the petitioner/Yoga Teacher up to the age of 62 years.2.... Petitioner is admittedly in employment as a Yoga Teacher with Commercial Senior Secondary School/respondent no.4, and which school is not a government school but only a government aided school. W.P.(C) 6766/2016 Page 1 of 4 3. The issue is that whether the petitioner can get benefit of re- employment up to ...
Kiran Shoes Manufacturers vs.m/s Maruti Footwear Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:28. 11.2016 Review Petition No.515/2016 in CS(OS) 1067/2016 KIRAN SHOES MANUFACTURERS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Pranay Sarkar, Advocate. versus M/S MARUTI FOOTWEAR COMPANY .... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA % 1. The petitioner has filed this review petition for recalling of the order dated 21.11.2016 whereby this court had transferred the suit to Tis Hazari Court observing that this court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.2. It is submitted that the suit has been valued to a total sum of `20,00,050/- but inadvertently in the order, the valuation of the suit is reflected as `20 lacs. It is submitted that this court vide order dated 21.11.2016 in CS(OS) 1067/2016 has clearly resolved that if a suit is pending at the time when the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Act, 2015 had come into force, even if they are valued below `...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.abid Ali & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h November, 2016 $~22 * % + FAO1012013 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through: Mr.P. Acharya, Advocate for Mr.Sameer Nandwani, Advocate ..... Appellant Versus ABID ALI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.Pratima N. Chauhan, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 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.4,50,440/- has been awarded to respondents no.1 to 3. On 5th June, 2003, Wajid Ali was employed as a cleaner on 2. vehicle no.UP-21L-9711 when he fell down while boarding the truck after checking the tyres and was crushed under the wheel. The deceased was survived by his parents and minor sister who filed the application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees Compensation.3. The appellant contested the claim petition on various grounds inter alia of delay of more than 4 years in filing the cla...
National Highways Authority of India vs.hindustan Construction Co. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:28. 11.2016 + OMP. (COMM) 73/2016 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus ........ Petitioner HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Advocates who appeared in this case: .....Respondent For the... Petitioner For the Respondent CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU : Ms Gunjan Sinha Jain. : Mr Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Ms Malavika Lal. VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 The petitioner (hereafter NHAI) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act), inter alia, impugning the Arbitral Award dated 30.11.2015 (hereafter the impugned award) made by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by Mr. M.P. Singh, Mr. P Sridharan and Mr. R.P. Indoria (presiding) (hereafter 'the Arbitral Tribunal'). The impugned award was made by the Arbitral Tribunal in the context of certain disputes that had arisen between the parties in relation to the contract dated 21.10.2005 (hereafter 'th...
Mahitap Singh Bisht vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
$~12 & 13. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (C) Nos. 1384/2014 & 1385/2014 Date of decision :28. h November, 2016 MAHITAP SINGH BISHT ........ Petitioner Through Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj & Ms. Ankita Bhadauriya, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC & Mr. Krishanu Barua, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD & Mr. Deboshree Mukherjee, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The petitioner-Mahitap Singh Bisht was initially appointed as Sub- Inspector in Delhi Police on 7th April, 1977 and was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Police on 19th September, 2009. In 1986, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Central Bureau of Investigation where he had remained till 21st August, 2008.2. After the petitioner had rejoined his parent department and was working as Assistant Commissioner of Police, he was...
Dev Raj vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + DEV RAJ Reserved on :17. h November, 2016 Date of Decision:28. h November, 2016 CRL.A. 783/2000 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Adv. versus Through: Mr. Varun Goswami, APP for ..... Respondent STATE the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, J1 The appellant before us assails the judgment dated 29th September, 1999 passed by the Sessions Judge finding the appellant guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 with which he was charged in Sessions Case No.1arising out of FIR No.3registered by Police Station Seema Puri. The appellant also challenges the order of Crl.A. 783/2000 Page 1 of 22 sentence dated 30th September, 1999 passed by the learned trial judge sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5,000/- for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC...
Shri Rajinder Kumar Sethi vs.shri Sushil Kumar Sethi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
* % + HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on June 3rd , 2016 Judgment pronounced on 28th November,2016 CS(OS) 2134/2006 & CC No.990/2007 SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR SETHI Through: Mr.S.C.Singhal, Advocate ..... Plaintiff versus SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR SETHI CORAM: Through: Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.A.P.S.Gambhir & Mr.Dileep Mehra, Advocates ..... Defendant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J1 The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, damages and mesne profits. The parties are real brothers. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant (Sh.Sushil Kumar Sethi), died on 6.12.2010. His legal heirs being son and daughter have been brought on record. The subject matter of the present suit is an immovable property known by the number as A-8, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). As per the plaint, plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property; which was taken on lease from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide ...
Sanjay Singh & Ors vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-2016
$~R-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 5087/2015 & CM92082015 Judgment delivered on:28. 11.2016 SANJAY SINGH & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ....... Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners For the Respondent L&B/LAC CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE JAYANT NATH : Mr D.V. Khatri : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Ms Jyoti Tyagi JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) in respect of which Award No.6/2008-09 dated 20.06.2008 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners land comprised in Khas...
Monika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.rati Ram & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2016
$~ * 1. + 2. + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB. P. 233/2014 MONIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Smita Maan, Advocate. versus RATI RAM & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate. AND OMP5402014 & IA104542014 MONIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Smita Maan, Advocate. versus RATI RAM & ANR. Through: Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER2611.2016 1. These two petitions filed by Monika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (MIPL) against Shri Rati Ram, Respondent No.1 and Shri Chand Kiran, since deceased, who has been substituted by his legal representative Smt. Leela.2. Whereas the Arbitration Petition No.233 of 2014 is under Section 11 (6) ARB. P. 233/2014 & OMP5402014 Page 1 of 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), OMP No.540 of 2014 is under Section 9 of the Act.3. The background facts, according to the... Petitioner, are that an Agreement to Sel...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »