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

Try free for 7 days Semantic AI Search

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Nov 30 2016

Pradeep Arora & Ors. Vs.samantha Kochhar

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Nov-30-2016

$~ * 28 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI OMP11932014 PRADEEP ARORA & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Shaunak Kashyap, Mr. Ravjyot Singh, Mr. Rahul Mukherjee and Ms. Sriyanka Gangopadhyay, Advocates. versus SAMANTHA KOCHHAR ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Ms. Gayatri Puri, Ms. Kalpana, Mr. Vaibhav Asthana and Mr. Gourav Singh, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER3011.2016 % 1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) is to an Award dated 8th August, 2014 passed by the sole Arbitrator.2. The background facts are that the four... Petitioners and the Respondent entered into a partnership agreement on 29th April, 2010 with a view to running a salon, spa and a health and fitness centre under the name and style of Urban Wellness Oasis. Under Clause 6 of the Partnership Deed, each of the parties i.e., the 4... Petitioners and the Respondent were to invest capital in accordance with their profi...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 30 2016

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs.virender Singh

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Nov-30-2016

$~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! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 30 2016

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs.raju Arora

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Nov-30-2016

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 30 2016

Atul Sood vs.delhi Police & Anr.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Nov-30-2016

$~26. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.11280/2016 ATUL SOOD ........ Petitioner Date of decision:30. h November, 2016 Through Mr. S.C. Sagar & Mr. Pradeep Sehrawat, Advocates. versus DELHI POLICE & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Sunil Goel & Ms. Supreet Bimbra, Advocates for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The petitioner's challenge to the penalty of censure, in OA No.487/2014 stands rejected vide impugned decision dated 22nd September, 2016 by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short).2. The petitioner who was working as SHO, Sarojini Nagar Police Station was issued show cause notice dated 16th April, 2013 to which a reply was filed. The disciplinary authority, after examining the factual matrix, vide order dated 30th April, 2013 had imposed punishment of censure. The petitioner had filed an appeal, which was dismissed...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 30 2016

Chitra Sharma vs.airline Allied Services Ltd. & Ors

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Nov-30-2016

* + % CHITRA SHARMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.4492/2015 30th November, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Advocate. versus AIRLINE ALLIED SERVICES LTD. & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate for R 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 issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondent No.1 to continue petitioners contractual employment beyond 1.12.2014.... Petitioner effectively claims that her contractual services which have existed from 7.11.1996 should not be brought to an end on a particular contractual period coming to an end on 1.12.2014. W.P.(C) No.4492/2015 Page 1 of 5 2. The case of the petitioner is that she had been diagnosed with Tuberculosis of bone as noted by the doctor on the...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 30 2016

Newtech Cinemas pvt.ltd vs.osr Cinemas and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Nov-30-2016

$~4 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 606/2016 NEWTECH CINEMAS PVT.LTD Through: Mr Yomesh Dutt Sharma, Advocate. versus ........ Petitioner OSR CINEMAS AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD Through: Mr G. S. Narula and Mr M. Sarwar, ..... Respondent Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER3011.2016 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner (hereafter 'Newtech') has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act), inter alia, praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to a Lease Deed dated 21.03.2013 executed between Vikas Promoters Private Limited (hereafter 'VPPL') and OSR Cinemas and Entertainment Private Limited (hereafter 'OSR').2. Admittedly, OSR, VPPL and Newtech had executed a Deed of Adherence dated 22.07.2014 whereby Newtech had agreed to accept all rights and obligations of the lessor, VPPL, under the Lease Deed. The learned coun...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 30 2016

Jai Kishan vs.jai Bhagwan

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Nov-30-2016

$~23 * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA9352016 & CMs No.44554-57/2016 JAI KISHAN Through : Mr. Chandrashekhar A.C., Advocate ..... Appellant versus JAI BHAGWAN Through : None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER3011.2016 The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2016 passed in a suit for recovery of possession and damages instituted by him against his younger brother in respect of the premises bearing No.G- 20, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi measuring 22.5 sq. yards. By the impugned judgment and decree, after examining ocular and documentary evidence produced by the parties, the trial court had held that possession of the defendant over the suit property had become hostile to the plaintiff in the year 1991 and if not in the year 1991, then in the year 1998 and an actionable cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiff at least on 13.12.1998. Reckoned from the said date, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 30 2016

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs.sonu Bhadhana & Anr.

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Nov-30-2016

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 30 2016

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs.anil Kumar

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Nov-30-2016

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 30 2016

Dcw Ltd. Vs.the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, Delhi

Court: Delhi

Decided on: Nov-30-2016

$~11 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:30. h November, 2016 ST.APPL. 46/2014 DCW LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. H. L. Taneja and Mr. Sunil Kumar Batra, Advocates. Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES, DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ms. Rakhi Singhal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(Oral) 1. The question of law framed on 04.10.2016 is as follows:-""Did the Appellate Tribunal fall into error in holding that the ST-1 forms used by the assessee were invalid and therefore could not be the basis of any benefit?." The assessee/appellant, a registered Sales Tax dealer in Delhi, had 2. entered into a transaction for purchase of goods, i.e., PVC resins. It sought to inter alia avail the benefit of Form ST-1 issued in respect of a transaction dated 23.11.1996; the sale was for `9,25,52,964/- and the selling dealer...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

‹ Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Next ›
Last »

Delhi Court November 2016 Judgments

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.