Delhi Court December 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.
Krishan Radhu vs.the Emmar Mgf Construction pvt.ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
$ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:22. d November, 2016 Pronounced on:21. t December, 2016 CS(OS) 3281/2014 and IA No.7709/2015 (under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act) and OA No.210/2015 KRISHAN RADHU ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Alok Kumar, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Mr. Abhishek Paruthi and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocates Versus THE EMMAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. .... Defendant Through: Ms. Manmeet Arora and Ms. Chand Chopra, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 JUDGMENT This suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant company seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.1,07,65,250/- (Rupees One Crore Seven Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand two hundred and fifty only) as damages alongwith pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 10% from the date of filing of the suit till realization alongwith costs, pleading cause of action to have arisen mainly on the averment that the defendant had caused losses to the plaintiff by having fail...
Bheru Lal vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + RESERVED ON :23. d SEPTEMBER, 2016 DECIDED ON :21. t DECEMBER, 2016 CRL.A.572/2014 BHERU LAL ..... Appellant STATE Through : Mr.Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Advocate with versus Ms.Rupi Sagar, Advocate. ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP. CRL.A.565/2014 NARAYAN ..... Appellant STATE Through : Mr.Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Advocate with versus Ms.Rupi Sagar, Advocate. ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG AND + S.P.GARG, J.1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 26.02.2014 of learned Special Judge (NDPS)/Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.arising out of FIR No.2PS Crime Branch by which the appellants Bheru Lal (A-1) and Narayan (A-2) were convicted for committing offences punishable Crl.A.572/2014 & connected matter. Page 1 of 15 under Section 18(b) and 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act'); they have preferred the instant appeals. By an order dat...
Vinod Kumar Chauhan vs.state Thr. Cbi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
$~34. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. 12.2016 * + % TR.P.(CRL.) 88/2016 VINOD KUMAR CHAUHAN ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Bhavook Chauhaan, Mr. Harsh Bora, Mr. Ratna Appender & Mr. Nikhil Ahuja, Advocates. versus STATE THR. CBI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP for CBI Mr. Vishal Gosain & Ms. Rudrani Tyagi, Advocates for respondents No.4 to 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present transfer petition under Section 407 Cr PC. The petitioner is accused no.3 in the case titled CBI v. R.N. Rastogi & Ors., RC DAI-OO45A/2000, PS CBI/ACB/Delhi. The case is presently pending in the court of Sh. Jitender Kumar Mishra, Special Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and the petitioner seeks transfer of the said case to another competent court. TR.P.(CRL.) 88/2016 Page 1 of 35 2. The reason given by the petitioner to seek transf...
Pepsico Inc & Anr. Vs.m/s. Sagarnil Enterprise & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
$ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. h November, 2016 Pronounced on:21. t December, 2016 CS (COMM) 960/2016 PEPSICO INC & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Kunal Mimani, Advocate Versus M/S. SAGARNIL ENTERPRISE & ORS. .... Defendants Through: Ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 JUDGMENT This suit was filed in November, 2014 seeking reliefs in the nature of permanent injunction against the violation and infringement of the rights of the plaintiffs in the trademark/logo/label/name/packaging style of AQUAFINA, passing off, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc., inter alia, alleging that the adoption and use by the defendants of a visually similar and phonetically identical trademark/name/logo/label/packaging AQUALINA for identical products, viz., packaged drinking water is patently illegal and unlawful, mala fide as intended to ride on the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs well known trademark/name so as to gain wrongfully, it being designed...
Intec Corporation Private Limited vs.the Registrar of Companies, n.c.t ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:27. 10.2016 Judgment pronounced on:21.12.2016 CO.PET. 191/2016 IN THE MATTER OF:-"INTEC CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED ........ Petitioner Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, N.C.T. OF DELHI & HARYANA .... Respondent Through: Mr. Bharat Beriwal, Advocate for... Petitioner. Ms.Sunieta Ojha, Advocate for ROC/Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by M/s Intec Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Company) praying for restoration of the name of the... Petitioner Company in the Register CO.PET. 191/2016 Page 1 of 8 of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent).2. The... Petitioner Company was incorporated under the Act, vide certificate of incorporation dated 27.12....
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd and Anr. Vs.narendra Kumar N
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11946/2016 Date of decision:21. t December, 2016 MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD AND ANR. ....... Petitioner Through Mr. Sarfaraz Khan and Mr. Saiful Islam, Advocates. Versus NARENDRA KUMAR N CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Through ..... Respondent SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Learned counsel appearing for the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. has drawn our attention to order dated 25th May, 2016 passed in W.P. (C) No.4757/2016, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Anr. Vs. T.R.K.R. Kumhar and Ors. and submits that an order of remand was passed for a fresh decision in the original application.2. We are afraid and would record that there are distinct and striking dissimilarities and the argument fails to notice the distinguishing factors in the two cases. In T.R.K.R Kumhar (supra), the order of the Tribunal dated 5th May, 2014 was made subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No.6539/2015, which wa...
Sh. Surjan Singh vs.presiding Officer, Delhi School Tribunal and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SH. SURJAN SINGH W.P.(C) No.1654/2002 21st December, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Mittal, Advocate. versus PRESIDING OFFICER, DELHI SCHOOL TRIBUNAL AND ORS. Through: None. ........ RESPONDENTS 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 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner impugns the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 18.10.2001 whereby Delhi School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and has held that petitioner, who was working as a driver with the respondent No.2/Tagore School, had abandoned the services with the said School.2. The issue in the present case is that whether petitioner had abandoned his services or the respondent No.2/School did not allow the W.P.(C) No.1654/2002 Page 1 of 7 petitioner to perform his services. The Delhi School Tribunal has held that the pe...
Narayan vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :23. d SEPTEMBER, 2016 DECIDED ON :21. t DECEMBER, 2016 + CRL.A.565/2014 NARAYAN ..... Appellant STATE Through : Mr.Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Advocate with versus Ms.Rupi Sagar, Advocate. ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.The present appeal is disposed of in terms of a detailed common judgment delivered today which is placed in the file of Crl.A.572/2014 titled Bheru Lal vs. State . (S.P.GARG) JUDGE DECEMBER21 2016 / tr...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd and Anr. Vs.shashi Bhushan Sahay
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2016
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11931/2016 Date of decision:21. t December, 2016 MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD AND ANR. ....... Petitioner Through Mr. Sarfaraz Khan and Mr. Saiful Islam, Advocates. Versus SHASHI BHUSHAN SAHAY CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Through ..... Respondent SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) Learned counsel appearing for the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. has drawn our attention to order dated 25th May, 2016 passed in W.P. (C) No.4757/2016, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Anr. Vs. T.R.K.R. Kumhar and Ors. and submits that an order of remand was passed for a fresh decision in the original application.2. We are afraid and would record that there are distinct and striking dissimilarities and the argument fails to notice the distinguishing factors in the two cases. In T.R.K.R Kumhar (supra), the order of the Tribunal dated 5th May, 2014 was made subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No.6539/2015, whic...
Smt. Minakshi Bharti vs.the Manager S D Bankey Bihari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11939/2016 and C.M. Appl. No.47076/2016 (for directions) % SMT. MINAKSHI BHARTI20h December, 2016 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate. versus THE MANAGER S D BANKEY BIHARI (AIDED SCHOOL) AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for R- 2 and 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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an employee of the respondent No.1/School seeks relief with respect to benefit of retrospective employment from 6.2.2010 instead of 25.1.2011 when the petitioner was appointed.2.... Petitioner, as also three other persons, was selected by the Selection Committee for appointment as teachers in the respondent No.1/School as per the Resolution dated 18.12.2009. With respect to three other W.P. (C) No.11939/2016 Page 1 of 5 persons, namely, Smt. Alka Shar...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »