Delhi Court December 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 5 of about 517 results (0.020 seconds)Chanderkanta Private Iti vs.directorate General of Training and Anr
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: December 01 , 2016 Judgment delivered on: December 22, 2016 + W.P.(C) 10754/2016 CHANDERKANTA PRIVATE ITI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat & Mr. Ratish Kumar, Advs. Versus DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, Adv. for DGT/R-1 Mr. Vikas Chopra, Adv. for R-2/QCI CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: (a) Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the Respondent no.2 to grant accreditation and sent the application of the petitioner along with accreditation report to the respondent no.1; and (b) Consequently issue a writ of mandamus and direct the Respondent No.1 to grant affiliation to the petitioner for academic session 2016-2017; and (c) Pass an appropriate order and permit the petitioner to admit students and commence the course from academic sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Engineering Ltd vs.ntpc Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~8 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EX.P. 270/2015 & EA (OS) Nos. 632-633/2015, 1172/2015 & 867/2016 PATEL ENGINEERING LTD ..... Decree Holder Through: Mr D. S. Chadha with Ms Jaskirat Kaur, Advocates. versus NTPC LTD. ..... Judgement Debtor Through: Mr Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr Onkar Nath, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER2212.2016 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 Patel Engineering Ltd (hereafter 'PEL') has filed the present petition for enforcing the arbitral award dated 26.03.2013 (hereafter 'the arbitral award').2. The learned counsel appearing for PEL states that a sum of `34,61,77,870/- was received by PEL from NTPC Ltd. (hereafter NTPC) in accordance with the joint reconciliation of the amounts due, which was carried out by the accountants of both the parties. He submits that at the time of joint reconciliation, PEL had agreed that the sum as paid by NTPC would discharge the arbitral award, however, an error has crept into the said calculation inasmuch ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad vs.state
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d December, 2016. TEST.CAS.4/2007 JAGDISH PRASAD ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Rai and Mr. Rishi Kumar, Advs. STATE Versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr. Surendra Bhati, Advs. for objector Pujya Sadhvi Shantanand Smarak Samiti. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This petition under Sections 276 & 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was filed seeking probate of a document dated 9th February, 1982 stated to be the validly executed last Will of Mata Shantanand who died on 13th November, 1984.2. It was inter alia pleaded in the petition (i) that Mata Shantanand was in occupation of property bearing No.204, Block No.7, Jheel Khureji Geeta Colony, Delhi since 1950; in the year 1951-52, she constructed a residence for herself and also on the ground floor constructed a temple; (ii) that transfer of the said property was made in favour of Mata Shantanand by Government of India, Minis...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Devi Dayal Manjhi vs.national Bank for Agricultural and Rural Dev ...
Court: Delhi
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P(C) No.11697/2016 22nd December, 2016 SHRI DEVI DAYAL MANJHI Through: Mr. Kabir Dixit and Mr. Waheb Hussaini, Advs. ........ Petitioner NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS versus Through: 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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/Sh. Devi Dayal Manjhi impugns the appointment of respondent no.2/Sh.Manjit Siwan as a Driver in the respondent no.1/National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) on 30.12.2005.2.... Petitioner pleads and argues that respondent no.2 could not have been appointed as a Driver of the respondent no.1 inasmuch as the qualifications required for appointment as a Driver in the respondent no.1 was to be maximum ninth class pass only but the respondent no.2 had W.P.(C) No.11697/2016 Page 1 of 6 passed Senior Se...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Bhan & Anr. Vs.central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. No.514/2000 Date of Decision :22. d December, 2016 SURAJ BHAN & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS Through Mr.M.L. Yadav, Adv. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT Through Mr.Narender Mann, Spl.P.P. with Mr.Manoj Pant, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J1 Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 7th August, 2000 convicting the appellants finding them guilty under Sectionsof the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, 1985) and order on sentence dated 9th August, 2000 vide which the sentence was passed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, in default of payment of fine, convict was to undergo further simple imprisonment for three years, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.2. The facts in brief are that on the basis of the Source ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Shakti Cylinders Thr. Its Proprietor vs.indian Oil Corporation Lt ...
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: December 02, 2016 Judgment delivered on: December 22, 2016 + LPA1422016 SHIV SHAKTI CYLINDERS THR. ITS PROPRIETOR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Khatri and Ms. Manorama, Advs. versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Mala Narayan with Mr. Siddharth Menon, Advs. for IOCL. CORAM:-"HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 4th February, 2016 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5572/2014 whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed. The challenge in the writ petition was primarily to the letter dated 20th February, 2014 issued by respondent no.2 forfeiting the earnest money of Rs.9,18,000/- of the appellant. Consequential relief was also sought for the refund of the same with interest.2. The case of the appellant in the w...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Malhotra vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.12511/2009 22nd December, 2016 PREM MALHOTRA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. C.S. Parashar, Advocate with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate and Mr. S.K. Badal, Advocate. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for respondent No.1. 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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 7.3.2008 whereby the petitioner has been imposed the penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the case on merits, confines his arguments to challenge the impugned order dated 7.3.2008 on the ground of doctrine of proportionality pleading that merely because on one day petitioner accompanied the Head of the School to the W.P.(C) No.12...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurnace Co. Ltd. Vs.smar Jahan & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:22. d December, 2016 THE NEW INDIA ASSURNACE CO. LTD...... Appellant Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. + MAC.APP. 131/2008 versus SMAR JAHAN & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R1 to R7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,88,800/- to respondents No.1 to 6.2. The accident dated 04th February, 2007 resulted in the death of Intazar @ Naneh. The deceased was aged 33 years at the time of the accident and was survived by his widow, three minor children and parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3300/-, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 17 to compute the loss of dependency as Rs.4,48,800/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanvantri Medical College & Hospital & Research Centre Gandhi Natha R ...
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: December 06, 2016 Judgment delivered on: December 22, 2016 + W.P.(C) 10098/2016, CM No.39981/2016 + W.P.(C) 10100/2016, CM No.39985/2016 DHANVANTRI MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE GANDHI NATHA RANGJI HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE ........ Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Joginder Sukhija and Mr.Nikunj Saluja, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms.L.Gangmei, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Kundan Kr. Mishra, Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J As these two petitions involve identical issues for consideration, same are being decided by this common order. Facts in W.P.(C) 10098/2016 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: - W.P.(C) 10098/2016 and connected matters Page 1 of 33 to It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Honble issue an appropriate Court may kindly be ple...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority vs.m/s Manohar Singh Sahny & Co.
Court: Delhi
$~4. * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA10142016 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate with Ms. Jasvin Dhama, Advocate versus ..... Respondent Through: None M/S MANOHAR SINGH SAHNY & CO. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % The appellant/DDA is aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.9.2016, ORDER2212.2016 passed by the learned trial court dismissing a suit for recovery of Rs.27,46,075/- instituted by it against the respondent/contractor, who was awarded a contract vide Agreement dated 13.7.1981, on the ground of limitation.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 13.7.1981, the appellant/DDA had awarded a contract in favour of the respondent/defendant. Under the said contract, the work was to commence on 23.7.1981 and completed before 22.4.1982.3. Some disputes arose between the parties with regard to the time period for completion of the work, amongst others, which were referred to arbitration on 13.1.1986. By an Awar...
Tag this Judgment!