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.
Delhi Development Authority vs.prem Chand Sharma & Co
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
$~28 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EX.P. 123/2012 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Decree Holder Through Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate Standing Counsel for DDA. versus PREM CHAND SHARMA & CO ..... Judgement Debtor Through Mr Sandeep Sharma, Advocate with Mr Amit Choudhary, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER2211.2016 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The Delhi Development Authority (hereafter DDA) has filed the present petition for execution of the order dated 20.01.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court whereby the Judgment Debtor (hereafter 'JD') was directed to refund the excess amount paid by DDA in satisfaction of an arbitral award. The said order of the Division Bench was subsequently modified by an order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Supreme Court (in SLP (C) 8289/2009) and the time for making the payment was extended for a further period of eight weeks from the date of the order.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the JD is lia...
South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs.ghanshyam Dass & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2016
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment :22. 11.2016 + W.P.(C) 3088/2015 & C.M. No.5526/2015 SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION........ Petitioner Through Ms.Madhu Tewatia, Advocate. versus SHRI GHANSHYAM DASS SETH THROUGH LRS...... Respondent Through Mr.S.K.Jain, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(oral) 1... Petitioner before this Court is the SDMC. It is aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Municipal Taxation Tribunal. By this common order 9 appeals had been decided. 2 Facts at the outset disclose that this dispute relates to the determination of the annual value under the Unit Area system of the property tax which was for the Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2012-13. The averments in the petition disclose that the petitioner had been issued a show cause notice dated 03.10.2012 under Sections 123-D of W.P.(C) 3088/2015 Page 1 of 8 the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 notifying the respondent to produce releva...
Aresko Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs.indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:21. 11.2016 ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent + O.M.P. 5/2016 ARESKO ESTATES PVT. LTD. Versus INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE ARTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU : Mr B.P. Aggarwal. : Mr L. R. Khatana with Mr Siddharth Khatana. VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 Aresko Estates Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter 'Aresko') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 30.09.2015 (hereafter 'the impugned award') passed by the Sole Arbitrator in connection with the disputes that had arisen between Aresko and the respondent - Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (hereafter 'IGNCA').2. The disputes between the parties relate to a Memorandum of Understanding (hereafter 'the MOU') dated 01.07.2010 entered into between the parties for running a guest hous...
Sunita Devi vs.veerma Devi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
$~21. * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA8982016 SUNITA DEVI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None VEERMA DEVI & ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER2111.2016 The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the trial court in a suit for possession, damages and mesne profits instituted by the respondent No.1 (mother-in-law of the appellant and mother of the respondent No.2) in respect of the suit premises. Vide the impugned judgment, the trial court has decreed the suit for possession and permanent injunction in favour of the respondent No.1 and directed the appellant No.1 and the respondent No.2 to pay damages/mesne profits to the respondent No.1 @ 1,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the date of handing over possession alongwith interest @ 8% per annum.2. Counsel for the appellant has addressed arguments for some time ...
Uoi & Ors vs.s.d. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
$~R-10. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4101/2002 % Judgment dated 21st November, 2016 UOI & ORS Through : Mr.Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC, ........ Petitioners and Mr.Himansak Bhardwaj, Adv. versus CORAM: S.D. SHARMA Through : None. ..... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to quash the impugned order dated 15.3.2002 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in RA No.230/2011 in OA No.2153/1995 whereby the review application filed by the petitioners herein against the order dated 24.12.1999 was dismissed on the ground of limitation and as the same was outside the scope and ambit of Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may be no...
Ashok Kumar Ahluwalia vs.central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C.No.4445/2014 Date of Decision: November 21st, 2016 ASHOK KUMAR AHLUWALIA ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Prem B.Kshetri, Adv. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION...... Respondent Through Mr.Narender Mann, Spl.P.P. for CBI with Mr.Manoj Pant, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.02.2014 along with order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the Special Judge, CBI whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner in R.C.No.32(A)/94 dated 03.06.1994 under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. Crl.M.C.No.4445/2014 Page 1 of 8 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised grounds in the following petition in support of his case that the impugned order dated 22.02.2014 which is in continuation ...
Prakash Industries Ltd vs.space Capital Services Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (COMM) 34/2016 PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD ........ Petitioner Through Mr Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr Rikky Gupta, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent Through Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr Kirtiman Singh and Mr Waize Ali Noor, Mr Prateek Dhanda and Mr Pranav Agarwal, Advocates. SPACE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER2111.2016 VIBHU BAKHRU, J IA No.1767/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. The application stands disposed of. O.M.P. (COMM) 34/2016 & IA No.1840/2016 3. Prakash Industries Limited (hereafter PIL) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act) assailing the arbitral award dated 15.10.2015 (hereafter the impugned award) made by the sole arbitrator, Justice S.K. Mahajan (Retired), a former Judge of this Court. O.M.P. (COMM) 34/2016 Page 1 of 12 4. The parties had entered into a lease agre...
Global Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.reebok India Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
$~22 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM) 501/2016 GLOBAL FRAGRANCES PVT. LTD. & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr S. S. Ray and Mr Vaibhav Gulia, Advocates. versus REEBOK INDIA COMPANY ..... Respondent Through: Mr Abhinav Vashisht, Senior Advocate with Mr NIraj Singh and Mr Akshay, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER2111.2016 VIBHU BAKHRU, J IA No.14338/2016 1.2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. O.M.P. (COMM) 501/2016 3. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act), inter alia, impugning an Award dated 06.08.2016 passed by Justice M. L. Mehta (Retired), a former Judge of this Court.4. The main objection urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the disputes adjudicated by the Arbitrator are not arbitrable. He pointed out that certain disputes had arisen between the parties in respect of a O.M.P....
Veena Rani vs.surender Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
$~24 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA242016 VEENA RANI Through : Mr. J.P. Malviya, Advocate with appellant in person. ..... Appellant versus SURENDER SHARMA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Aabhas Parimal, Advocate with Ms. Rupali Sharma and Mr. Harshit Sharma in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER2111.2016 CMs No.37161/2016 (u/O XXII R-4 & 11 CPC) and 37162/2016 (for condonation of delay) Notice was issued on these applications on 5.10.2016, returnable on 1. 21.12.2016. In the meantime, the parties have filed a joint compromise application.2. Counsel for the respondent enters appearance and states that he appears for the legal heirs of Smt. Anju Sharma, who is stated to have expired on 19.12.2015. He states that apart from Ms. Rupali Sharma and Mr. Harshit Sharma, there is no other legal heirs left behind by Smt. Anju Sharma and the original respondent (defendant in the suit), Shri Surender Sharma had expired during the pendency of the suit. RFA242016 Pa...
Narender Singh vs.union of India & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
$~2 * + W.P.(C) 9275/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :21. t November, 2016 ........ Petitioner NARENDER SINGH Through: Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: None ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Narender Singh, in this writ petition, impugns the order dated 1. 24.05.2016, whereby OA No.1028/2013 has been partially allowed.2. For the sake of completeness, we would like to reproduce the reliefs sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal, which read: a) Quash the condition to have 25% minimum marks in interview/personality test for general candidates as being illegal and arbitrary. b) Declare fixing/allotting 100 marks out of total 500 marks, being 20% of total marks of the examination, for interview as excessive, unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, irrational, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quash ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »