Delhi Court March 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
N.M. Vs. B.S.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'HMA') assails the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2009 passed in HMA 572/06 by Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi, whereby the learned ADJ, while allowing the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, has passed a decree of dissolution of marriage in favour of the respondent/husband, and against the appellant/wife. 2. The parties were married on 18.02.2001, in Haryana. A girl child was born out of the wedlock on 10.04.2002. The respondent/husband alleged that from the beginning of the marriage, the behaviour of the appellant/wife was strange and dominating. She did not want to live with the parents of the respondent and pressurised him to move out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, in September 2002, the parties along with the child shifted to a separate residence in Rohini, Delhi. It was alleged that the behaviour of the appellant did not change even after separat...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Izhar Ahmad an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
Oral: 1. On 13.03.2011, Raisuddin Ansari @ Rais Ansari alongwith his friend Izhar Ahmad were moving on a scooter bearing registration no.DL-7AU-2036 (the scooter) which met with an accident at about 04:30 PM in the area opposite ITI Dheerpur, Burari, Outer Ring Road, Delhi on account of collision against bus bearing registration no.HR-67-5872 (the offending vehicle). While both of them suffered injuries, Raisuddin Ansari @ Rais Ansari died in the consequence. 2. Two claim petitions were brought before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal), one by the widow, children and father of Raisuddin Ansari @ Rais Ansari (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), it being registered as suit no.196/2011 and other by Izhar Ahmad, it being registered as suit no.195/2011. In both the claim petitions presented under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act), the claimants impleaded the driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle in addition to Bajaj Allia...
Sajid Ali Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
Crl.M.A. No.2759/2016 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 355/2016 1. Petitioner seeks bail in an offence registered as FIR No. 457/2015 under Section 307/397 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) at Police Station Malviya Vihar, Delhi by filing the present bail application under Section 439 read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.). 2. The present case is registered at the instance of one Anshul Agrawal (complainant herein), who informed that on 10.03.2015 at about 3.30 PM, he received a called from his friend Nidhi Agrawal informing him that a boy had mercilessly beaten her in her house and blood is oozing from her head. She called him immediately and thereafter, he rushed to Panchsheel Vihar, where he saw his friend Nidhi in an injured condition and blood was oozing from her head. It was further informed by the complainant that a boy was cau...
Navayuga Engineering Co. P Ltd. Vs. Public Works Department and Anothe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Navayuga Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. (in short Navayuga ), the appellant herein was awarded a contract to construct a bridge across river Yamuna, near Geeta Colony, Delhi vide Agreement No.10EE/PBEF/PWD/2004-2005. Due to delay in construction of the bridge disputes arose, which were referred to an Arbitrator. Navayuga raised seven claims of which claim Nos.2, 5 and 7 were rejected. Public Works Department (in short PWD ) raised a counter claim which was also rejected. For claim No.1 Rs. 8,92,00,294/-, claim Nos.3(a) to 3(f) Rs. 2,90,39,805/- and for claim No.4 Rs. 2,12,83,367/- was awarded by the Arbitrator. Vide claim No.6 interest was awarded. PWD raised objections to the award in OMP No.420/2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act ) before the learned Single Judge. The challenge in the OMP was against allowing claim Nos.1 and 4. PWD raised no challenge to either claim No.3 being allowed in favour of Navayuga or rejection o...
Hotel Taj Palace Vs. Ravi Rohilla and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
1. The present petitioner, i.e., Hotel Taj Palace (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-management ) has preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 19.12.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator ) in O.P. No. 568/1993. 2. The brief facts stated are that the respondent-workman, i.e., Shri Ravi Rohilla, was appointed as General Tradesman w.e.f. 02.07.1985 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2631.50 per month with the petitioner-management. The petitioner-management on finding him absent from his duty for a period of 84 days on 43 occasions which is violative of service condition rules clause 31 (i) (42), i.e., Habitual absence without leave and absence without leave for more than seven consecutive days, issued a show cause notice dated 07.09.1992 to the respondent-workman. ...
Piccadily Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Narwal and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2016
Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. By this order, I proceed to deal with the submission of the defendant that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain or deal with the present suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendants are engaged in the common field of manufacturing and marketing of liquor, including country liquor. The plaintiff claims to be an old and established player in the field since 2007. The plaintiff claims to be occupying number one position having more than 35% market share in the country liquor segment in the State of Haryana. 3. The plaintiff states that in the year 2007, it applied for an excise license for manufacturing and marketing country liquor under the trademark/artistic label "MALTA" prefixed with the expression 'Masti'. Since then, the plaintiff claims to be continuously and extensively selling the said product throughout the State of Haryana. The plaintiff claims to have made a total sale of Rs. 1130 crores for the s...
Jasmohan Singh and Others Vs. Freeze King Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
CO.A(SB) 4/2014 and CA 207/2014 CO.A(SB) 69/2014 and CA 3025/2014 and 3062/2015 1. The captioned appeals raise a common question of law, which is, whether appellants can be given inspection of the statutory records of the concerned companies in which they hold shares, without any fetter. In CO.A.(SB) 4/2014, the appellants impugn the order dated 13.01.2014, passed by the Company Law Board (in short the CLB), while in CO.A.(SB) 69/2014, the challenge is laid by the appellant to order dated 18.09.2014, once again, passed by the CLB. 2. Therefore, let me first articulate the facts, briefly, in each of the appeals. 2.1 Before, I proceed further, I must indicate that the three appellants in CO.A. (SB) 4/2014 and the appellant in CO.A.(SB) 69/2014, will be collectively referred to hereafter as appellants . CO.A.(SB) 4/2014 3. The appellants herein had filed a petition under Section 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short the 1956 Act), alleging oppression and mismanagement by t...
Rajneesh Guglani Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Rajneesh Guglani for quashing of FIR No.1345/2014 dated, 11.08.2014under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mehrauli on the basis of the mediation report, Delhi Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2, namely, Priyanka Dua Guglani on 22.09.2013. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between petitioner and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 20.02.2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals. During the first few months of the marriage, the petitioner used to taunt the complainant over the engagement ceremony and the wedding function as they were not to his liking...
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2016
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Tata Power Distribution Limited ( TPDL ) [earlier known as North Delhi Power Limited ( NDPL )] under Section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ( CST Act ) read with Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ( DVAT Act ) is directed against the impugned order dated 14th July 2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal ( AT ) dismissing the appeal of the Appellant. The AT upheld the order dated 30th November 2006 of the Objection Hearing Authority ( OHA ) which in turn upheld the order dated 7th July 2006 of the Sales Tax Officer/VAT Officer, (Ward 63) declining to issue C forms to the Appellant for the year (for Rs. 98,21,612), 2003-04 (for Rs. 1,33,96,344) and 2005-06 (for Rs. 1,01,53,180). 2. TPDL is a registered dealer under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 ( DST Act ) [now under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004] as well as the CST Act. It took some equipment viz., , an LT Load Management System, on lease basis from M/s. RMS Automa...
Sukhbir Singh and Others Vs. Kiranjit Kaur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, Smt. Prambeer Kaur and Smt. Rajbeer Kaur for quashing of FIR No. 422/2007 dated 28.08.2007, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) arrived at in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.1, namely, Smt. Kiranjit Kaur on 13.10.2014. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.1, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1 was solemnized on 02.04.2006 as per Hindu (Sikh) rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, it was disclosed to the complainant that petitioner no.1 has solemnized three marriages an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »