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.
M/S. Athulay Info Media (Pvt.) Limited vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 9040/2016 Judgment delivered on:03. 11.2016 M/S. ATHULAY INFO MEDIA (PVT.) LIMITED ........ Petitioner versus ....... RESPONDENTS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : : None. Mr Vikas Mahajan and Mr Amit Mehta, Advocates for Union of India. Mr Abhishek Malhotra and Mr Rijul Taneja, Advocates for the applicant. Mr Yashvardhan, Mr Himanshu Kulshreshtha and Mr Devender Singh, Advocates for Intervener. Mr Kirtiman Singh, Mr Waize Ali Noor and Mr Pranav Agrawal, Advocates for TRAI. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0311.2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) W.P.(C) 9040/2016 1. Notice was directed to be issued to the petitioner since this matter has been received on transfer from Supreme Court. Affidavit of service has been filed indicating that the notice has been duly served on the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.9040 /2016 Page 1 of 4 2. The petition has been ...
National Council of Educational Research and Training vs.m/s Skywing C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 03, 2016 + FAO3302016 & C.M.No.25864/2016 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Deepa Rai, Advocate versus M/S SKYWING CARRIERS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sushil Kabra and Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % (ORAL) JUDGMENT Impugned order of 31st March, 2016 rejects appellants objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while holding that respondent herein and M/s. Decent Transport of India (for short M/s. Decent Transport) are two separate legal entities and the outstanding amount qua M/s. Decent Transport (who is not a party before the Arbitrator) cannot be adjusted against the outstanding of respondent qua appellant herein. The factual backdrop is not in dispute and hence needs no reproduction. Page 1 of 3 FAO3302016 At the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for appellant contends that in vi...
Sagarika Das vs.ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
$~4 * + W.P.(C) 9276/2016 & CM374372016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SAGARIKA DAS Date of Decision:3. d November, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through Mr Abu Phukan and Mr Surya Prakash, Advs. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS versus Through Mr Rajesh Kumar, Adv. for R2 Mr Rajesh Katyal, Adv. for R3 & 4 ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA SANJIV KHANNA, J: (ORAL) 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sagarika Das and counsel for the respondents in this writ petition which impugns the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner that OA No.1006/2016 should be retained and decided by the Principal Bench at Delhi. The impugned order records that the disciplinary proceedings were held at Ranchi, the petitioner is posted at Ranchi and thus the Circuit Bench at Ranchi is the appropriate Bench to hear the OA as it would be c...
Kumar Gaurav Saini & Ors vs.state (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 1213/2016 Date of Decision: November 3rd, 2016 KUMAR GAURAV SAINI & ORS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Yomesh Dutt Sharma, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub-Inspector Ram Pal Singh, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi Mr. Karan Bir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Kumar Gaurav Saini, Smt. Kelash Devi and Smt. Nalni for quashing of FIR No.263/2013 dated 01.08.2013, under Sections 498-A/4IPC registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar on the basis of Settlement arrived at in the court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts (West) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Kiran Saini on 26.09.2014.2. respondent-State submitted that the respondent No...
Udai Shankar Shah @ Udai Shankar Shaw & Ors. Vs.manju
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DECIDED ON :3. d NOVEMBER, 2016 CRL.M.C. 1047/2016 UDAI SHANKAR SHAH @ UDAI SHANKAR SHAW & ORS. MANJU ........ Petitioners Through : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate along with petitioner No.1 in person. versus Through : Mr.Jatin Rajput, Advocate with ..... Respondent Mr.Vikram Mathur, Mr.Rajender Pratap & Mr.Atul Mishra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) 1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the Complaint Case No.455/2003 instituted under Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short DV Act) pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Petition is contested by the complainant/ respondent. Crl.M.C.1047/2016 Page 1 of 3 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Undisputedly, the parties had settled their disputes before Counselling Cell, Famil...
Maman Singh vs.state (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR Date of Decision: November 3rd, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Lenin Manocha, Advocate Versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub- Inspector Pankaj Kumar, Police Station Vasant Kunj (South), Delhi IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + CRL.M.C. 1268/2016 MAMAN SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Maman Singh for quashing of FIR No.203/2012 dated 06.07.2012 under Sections 406/420/506 IPC registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj (South) on the basis of Mediation Report of Delhi Mediation Centre, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Sujeet Kumar on 15.09.2015.2. submitted that respondent No.2 present identified to be the complainant/first informant by SI Pankaj Kumar. The factual matrix of th...
Kedar Nath (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs vs.rajinder Tiwari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA Nos. 188/2010 + % KEDAR NATH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS3d November, 2016 Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent RAJINDER TIWARI CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Through: 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 appellant who was the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction impugning the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 26.7.2010 affirming the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 1.2.2010 whereby the suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed against the appellant/defendant who was pleaded to be a tenant of the respondent/plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff by the suit sought a decree of permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant from selling etc the RSA No.188/2010 Page 1 of 10 suit ...
Panchajanya Media Private Limited vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:03. 11.2016 PANCHAJANYA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus ........ Petitioner ....... RESPONDENTS $~13 * % + W.P.(C) 7192/2016 Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : : None. Mr Vikas Mahajan and Mr Amit Mehta, Advocates for Union of India. Mr Abhishek Malhotra and Mr Rijul Taneja, Advocates for the applicant. Mr Yashvardhan, Mr Himanshu Kulshreshtha and Mr Devender Singh, Advocates for Intervener. Mr Kirtiman Singh, Mr Waize Ali Noor and Mr Pranav Agrawal, Advocates for TRAI. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0311.2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) W.P.(C) 7192/2016 1. Notice was directed to be issued to the petitioner since this matter has been received on transfer from Supreme Court. Affidavit of service has been filed indicating that the notice has been duly served on the petitioner.2. The petition has been filed seeking grant of three months time...
Mohd Naseer vs.mohd Zaheer and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
$~A-35 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:03. 11.2016 RC.REV. 267/2016 & CM Nos.18475/2016 (stay), 18587/2016 & CM No.40732/2016 MOHD NASEER ........ Petitioner Through Mr.R.K.Raizada, Sr.Adv.with Ms.Rekha Rani Dey and Mr.Siddharth Kumar, Advocates versus MOHD ZAHEER AND ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH Through Mr.Aly Mirza, Advocate ..... Respondent JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. The present Revision Petition is filed under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) seeking to impugn the order dated 16.2.2016 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend and passing an eviction order against the petitioner in respect of premises being portion of ground floor of property No.435, Chitla Gate, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006.2. The respondents as landlords filed an Eviction Petition against the petitioner under section 14(1)(e) read with section ...
d.v. Singh & Anr. Vs.municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on 05.08.2016 Judgment delivered on 03.11.2016. + CS(OS) 2984/2011 & IA36652016 D.V. SINGH & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Anand Yadav, Adv. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .... Defendants Through: Ms Shyel Trehan with Ms. Manjira Dasgupta, Advs. for MCD/ D-1. Mr. Ravi Kant Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Mansi Chadha, Adv. for D-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J1 By this judgment, the Court shall adjudicate upon Issue No.(i) which was treated as the preliminary issue out of the 10 issues framed on 29.05.2013. The preliminary issue read as under: (i) Whether the present suit is barred by res judicata or otherwise on account of the order dated 27.07.2000 of the Supreme Court in CA No.4246/2000 titled Poonam v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. ?. OPD-1 2. The plaintiff claims the following reliefs in the suit: (a) Pass a decree of declaration declaring that plaintiffs and Dr. Malti Garg are owners...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »