Delhi Court April 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.
Vivek Singhal and Others Vs. Manali Singhal and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The judgment debtor appeals an order of the learned Single Judge who declined his objections to the attachment and sale of land. 2. This case has a complicated and chequered litigation history, recounted hereafter. The respondent (hereafter called "decree holder" and individually as "Manali" and "the daughter"-to describe the first and second respondents in the course of this judgment) applied for execution of the interim order dated 28.10.1998 of this Court (in I.A. Nos.11261/1997, 2634 and 2635/1998 in Suit No.2583/1997) The order directed, the appellant inter alia, to provide a residence to the respondent/decree holder in accordance with the family settlement agreement dated 04.11.1994 ( the settlement ) entered into between the parties. In terms of the settlement, a direction was made to deposit school fee and other charges in connection with studies of Decree Holder No.2 (hereafter the daughter ) and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Extrac...
Om Parkash Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
1. The petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns (i) the order dated 10th April, 2013 of the respondent South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC), in exercise of powers under Section 349 r/w Section 491 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (MCD Act), directing the petitioner to vacate shop no.3 known as Shakuntalam Beauty Parlor in Block-2, Subhash Nagar, Delhi for the reason of the said shop having been constructed over land earmarked for public purpose and the petitioner having unauthorisedly encroached and constructed upon the same; and, (ii) the order dated 28th October, 2013 of the Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (ATMCD) of dismissal as not maintainable of appeal under Section 347 B of the MCD Act preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10th April, 2013 of the respondent SDMC. 2. The petition came up first before this Court on 30th May, 2014 i.e. after nearly six months from the order of the ATMCD and though no ...
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Xiaomi Technology
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
V. Kameswar Rao, J. IA 3074/2015 (filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2/applicants. 1. By this order, I shall decide the ground of concealment (amongst other grounds) taken by the applicants (the defendants Nos. 1 and 2) in their application filed under Order 39, Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC seeking vacation of the interim order dated December 8, 2014 of this Court. 2. It is averred by the applicants-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that this application has been preferred pursuant to and in terms of an order dated December 16, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in FAO (OS) 522/2014. The said appeal was filed by the applicants against the order dated December 8, 2014, whereby this Court had inter-alia, restrained the applicants directly or indirectly or through their agents, distributors etc. from manufacturing, assembling, importing, selling, offering for sale or advertising, including their and third party, websites, products (telephone instruments, mobile handsets, tablets, hand held...
Ishwar Chand Jain Vs. Punjab National Bank and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. Oral: CM No.26642/2015 Allowed. Additional documents are taken on record. W.P.(C) No.726/2015 and CM No.26643/2015 1. We have heard the petitioner who appears in person as also learned counsel for the respondents. 2. OA No.249/2001 filed by respondent No.1 against Kashmiri Lal Babbar, carrying on business as sole proprietor of M/s.Chinu Plast (the principal debtor) and Vilas Babbar, who was the guarantor and had created an equitable mortgage of the first floor of the property I-4 and 5, Laxmi Nagar, Main Bazar, Delhi was allowed and to recover the dues the mortgaged property was put to auction. 3. The sale proclamation dated March 04, 2005 settled by the Recovery Officer DRT-I clearly indicated that the sale was on AS IS WHERE IS BASIS. Under the caption SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY, the property put up for auction was described as under:- Residential building (first floor) on a plot measuring 66 square yards having a covered area of 598.50 square feet is available at I-4...
Amita Agarwal Vs. National Law University Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2016
1. The petition was filed impugning the list of provisionally selected candidates for admission to Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Programme 2012-13 published at the respondent no.1 National Law University s website on 1st October, 2012 and 12th October, 2012 and seeking mandamus to the respondent no.1 University to cancel/modify the result, with the averments: (i) that the petitioner was a candidate for admission to the Ph.D. course 2012 conducted by the respondent no.1 University; (ii) that the admission was to be through a written test conducted by the respondent no.1 University, with the candidates who have qualified for University Grants Commission National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET)/Junior Research Fellowship (JRF)/State Level Eligibility Test (SLET)/Master of Philosophy (M. Phil.) being exempt from taking the admission test and on the basis of a presentation by the qualifying candidates before the Doctoral Committee on the proposed topic of research; (iii) that the petitioner submi...
M/s. Transway Cargo Lifters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2016
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2005 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi decreeing Suit No.331/03 filed by the respondents for recovery of Rs.19,81,280/- with costs and interest at 9% per annum from 29th March, 2000 till realization against the appellant. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and subject to the appellant depositing 50% of the decretal amount execution was stayed. The appeal on 6th October, 2006 was admitted for hearing and the maturity value of the fixed deposited created of the amount deposited by the appellant ordered to be released in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff subject to ultimate result of the appeal. The appeal, on 5th November, 2009 was dismissed in default of appearance of the appellant but notice of the application made by the appellant for restoration of the appeal was issued and remained pending for service of the respondent no.2 ...
Dr. Shekhar Shah Vs. Government of Maharashtra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2016
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the show cause notice dated 23rd June, 2014 of the respondent to the petitioner under Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) with respect to Kum Kum Bungalow and the open portion of land appurtenant thereto at the north-east corner of Sirmur plot, forming part of and within the boundaries of New Maharashtra Sadan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, 7, Faridkot House Lane, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi and seeks quashing thereof. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 2nd July, 2014, the impugned notice stayed. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent; though the petitioner availed of opportunity to file rejoinder but no rejoinder was filed. None appeared for the respondent when the matter came up on 24th August, 2015. However considering that ordinarily writ petitions at the show cause notice stage are not entertained and that...
Madan Singh Vs. Phoolwati and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2016
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 impugns the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 2007 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi decreeing Suit No.236/03/2002 filed by the deceased respondent no.1/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.6,50,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization against the appellant. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and vide ex parte order dated 5th November, 2007, subject to the appellant depositing Rs.7.50 lacs in this Court, execution was stayed. The appellant filed CM No.16999/2007 for modification of the order dated 5th November, 2007, seeking stay of execution subject to deposit of Rs.2 lacs only instead of Rs. 7.50 lacs, as ordered. The said application came up before this Court on 12th December, 2007 when the same was dismissed and it was made clear that the stay earlier granted stood vacated. The appeal, on 19th Februar...
Raj Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Battered and tormented, Gudia has been held to have suffered a homicidal death in the afternoon of May 13, 2014 at the hands of her husband Raj Kumar resulting in his conviction under Section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment dated October 14, 2015 and a sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned order dated November 16, 2015. 2. Gudia, working as a maid in different houses and Raj Kumar selling kachories as a mobile vendor were blessed with two sons aged 4 and 5 years respectively at the time when the unfortunate incident took place. Ordeal for Gudia started on the eve of May 12, 2014 when at around 8.00-9.00 PM a quarrel took place between Hemraj and Raj Kumar, resulting in Hemraj showing his photograph with Gudia to Raj Kumar. Shanti PW-4 a local resident of the jhuggi cluster, who witnessed the quarrel, kept Gudia at her Jhuggi that night but on the next day at about 1.30 pm found her unconscious. Shanti along with her husband and Raj Kumar took Gudia to the ho...
Dr. Shikhar Jain and Others Vs. National Neonatology Forum and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2016
I.A. No. 25235/2015 1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit to seek the following reliefs: i. Pass a decree of Declaration declaring the Minutes of Meeting of Constitutional Committee of Defendant no.1 dated 27.09.2015 and the recommendations of Constitution Committee dated 27/ 29.09.2015 as void, illegal and are declared as null and void and set aside; ii. Pass a decree of declaration declaring the Minutes of Meeting of Governing Body dated 30.11.2015 of Defendant no.1 are void and are set aside: iii. Pass a decree of declaration declaring that amended MOA as approved in General Body Meeting dated 17.12.2011 at Chennai and consequent approval of Minutes at the General Body Meeting held in Delhi are valid and that the Defendant no.1 shall be governed in terms thereof. (Emphasis supplied) 2. While dealing with the preliminary objection of the defendant with regard to the evaluation of the suit and affixation of Court Fees on the plaint by the plaintiffs, this Court on 28.01.2016 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »