Delhi Court August 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.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Through: Its Regional Manager an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Oral: 1. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,97,650/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to Ranjeet Kumar, in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident dated 17th /18th May, 2010. The appellant in MAC. APP. 472/2014 is seeking reduction whereas the appellant in MAC. APP. 872/2015 is seeking enhancement of the award amount. 2. On 17th/18th May, 2010, Ranjeet Kumar, hereinafter referred to as injured , was going to Badaun in bus No.UP-14-AB-9302. At about 02.00 A.M. in the night, the aforesaid bus met with an accident with another bus No.UP25T-7587 which resulted in grievous injuries including the fracture of right arm of the injured. The injured was initially taken to Babu Banarasi Dass Rajkiya Chikitsalaya, Bulandshahar, U.P. and thereafter, to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. The injured remain hospitalised from 18th May, 2010 to 18th June, 2010. He underwent two surgeries, first surgery on 22nd May, 2010, for the external fixation of fracture shaft of Humeru...
Sudesh Vs. Suresh Solanki
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. By this common order we intend to dispose of the two matrimonial appeals filed by the appellant/wife challenging the order dismissing HMA Petition No.154/2012 filed by her under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and granting the decree of dissolution of marriage in Counter Claim bearing HMA No.232/2013 filed by the respondent/husband alongwith the written statement to HMA Petition No.154/2012. 2. The undisputed case of the parties is that they got married on April 20, 1994 as per the Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was consummated and a female child was born to the parties on February 17, 1999. At that time the appellant/wife was at her parental home. 3. There is some dispute on the issue as to whether the respondent/husband and his family visited her parental home to see the child or not. While the appellant/wife claims that none came to see the child as they were not happy on birth of a female child, the respondent/husband claims that he along with ...
V.K. Sood Engineers And Contractors Vs. Northern Railway
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), wherein the following reliefs were sought by the petitioner:- (i) Stay the order dated 31.03.2016 by which the amounts payable to the petitioner are being kept in a miscellaneous account. (ii) Stay the implementation of the letter dated 20.01.2015 qua M/s V.K.Sood Engineers and Contractors;direct the respondent to release the admitted payments. 2. The petitioner M/s V.K.Sood Engineers and Contractors is a registered partnership firm of Mr.Puneet Kumar Sood and Mr.Pramod Kumar Bhatia. The petitioner was awarded the work of Construction of Road Bridges in lieu of Level Crossing No.52-C at Km.75/6-7 at Garhmukteshwar on Moradabad-Ghaziabad section over Moradabad Division on 3rd January, 2012, and a contract Agreement dated 30th March, 2012 was executed between the parties. 3. The contract was awarded to the partnership fi...
Gurvinder Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
S.P. Garg, J. 1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.89/2013 registered under Sections 354/509 IPC at Police Station Amar Colony and consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petition is contested by the respondents. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 20.02.2013, the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a complaint at Police Station Patel Nagar alleging receipt of missed calls on her mobile from Mobile Nos.9811950000 and 9811114733 for the last one month. On enquiry, the petitioner informed the police that he had been receiving message from the complainant s mobile. The complainant denied to have any acquaintance with the petitioner. On 21.02.2013, the complainant and the petitioner were called at Police Station Patel Nagar. The petitioner filed a written complaint vide DD No.67B at Police Station Patel Nagar informing that on receipt of SMSs on his mobile No.9811114733 on 16th , 18th and 19th February, 201...
Vipin Kumar Jain and Others Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Vipin Kumar Jain, Smt. Lalita Devi, Ms. Renu and Mr. Neeraj for quashing of FIR No.186/2013 dated 01.05.2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Krishan Nagar on the basis of the Mediation report of Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, executed between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Ekta Jain on 08.08.2013. 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 was solemnized between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 on 14.02.2009 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is the case of the complainant that the accused persons used to taunt and beat her on account of bringing in insufficient dowry. ...
Dr. Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Jasmohan Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
IA No. 7969/2015 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC) and IA No. 10155/2016 (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) and CS (OS) No. 665 of 2015 1. IA No. 7969 of 2015 is an application filed by Defendants 1 to 4 seeking rejection of the plaint. IA No. 10155 of 2016 is an application filed by the Plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. 2. The background to both these applications is that the above suit was filed by the Plaintiff Dr. Jang Bahadur Singh for a decree against Mr. Jagmohan Singh (Defendant No. 1), Ms. Gurleen Kaur (Defendant No. 2), Mr. Gurmohan Singh (Defendant No. 3), Ms. Jasleen Kaur (Defendant No. 4), Mrs. Pamela Manmohan Singh (Defendant No. 5), Mr. Gurmit Singh (Defendant No. 6) and Mr. Jagmit Singh (Defendant No. 7) for: (i) a declaration that the Plaintiff continues to be the absolute owner of the 2,40,002 shares of Frick India Limited ( FIL )purchased by him on 25th August, 1982; (ii) a declaration that the term transfer in the agreement dated 22ndDecember, 2011 means transfer in ...
Natrip Implementation Society Vs. IVRCL Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The appellant (hereafter NATRIP ) has filed the present appeal underSection 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act') impugning the order dated 21.05.2016 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter 'the impugned order'). 2. By the impugned order, the Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal ) hadrejected NATRIP's application dated 22.04.2016 whereby it had prayed that the amounts claimed by it in its counter claim be secured by way of sufficient security or by bank guarantee. 3. NATRIP had invited bids for construction of Automotive Test Tracks at Natrax - Pithampur and GARC - Chennai (hereafter 'the project'). The tracks at GARC - Chennai and Natrax -Pithampur were to be completed by September 2011 and September 2012 respectively. 4. The respondent (hereafter IVRCL ) was successful in the biddingprocess and was accordingly awarded the contract for execution of the project. The negotiated value of the contract was Rs.525,97,06,879/-....
S.A. Infrastructure Consultants Pvt. Ltd Vs. National Highway Authorit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition has been filed in respect of the Request for Proposal ( RFP ) for procurement of Independent Engineer Services for 8-Laning of a Section of NH-1 (new NH-44) from Mukarba Chowk at km 15.500 to Panipat at km 86.000 on BOT (Toll) basis in the state of Haryana. 2. The petitioner participated in the bidding process pursuant to the said RFP. However, the respondent decided to open the financial bids by excluding the petitioner. The methodology of the evaluation process was that there would be two stages. The first stage would be the technical evaluation stage and the next would be the opening of the financial bids. A marking system was devised whereby marks were to be awarded at the technical evaluation stage as well as at the financial evaluation stage. The bidders, who got the top five highest marks at the technical evaluation stage, would be the only bidders whose financial bids would be opened. Thereafter marks would be awarded to these...
Gulf Dth Fz Llc Vs. Dishtv India Limited and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
IA No. 4896/2016 1. This is an application for recall of the order dated 19th April, 2016 passed by the Court whereby it was noted that the statutory period for filing the written statement by Defendant No. 1 had expired in terms of proviso to Order V Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC )as amended by the Schedule to the Commercial Courts and Commercial Appellate Divisions of the High Courts Act 2015 ('the Commercial Courts Act'). 2. It is stated in the application by Defendant No.1 that the present suit was filed on 6th November, 2015 and came up for hearing on 16th November, 2015 on which date the Court issued summons in the suit and notice on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC (IA No.23637/2015) to the Defendants. 3. According to Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Defendant No. 1, when the suit was filed on 6th November, 2015 the Commercial Division of this Court had not been notified. She further submits that the suit,...
Arbind Modi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral) 1. At the outset, we may notice that after notice was issued in W.P.(C)8235/2015, W.P.(C) 10228/2015 and W.P.(C) 8960/2015 were filed by the separate petitioners, wherein almost identical questions were raised. 2. Since the pleadings in W.P.(C)8235/2015, which is the lead matter, are complete, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, all the three writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in the case of W.P.(C)8235/2015 are being noticed. 4. Present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge the order dated 12.8.2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in O.A.No.487/2015. The petitioners also seek to quash and set aside the letter dated 20.1.2015 issued by respondent no.1 to the Secretary, UPSC, whereby the respondents proposed to revert the petitioners from the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Director Genera...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »