Delhi Court August 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.
Sandeep Kumar and Others Vs. Sri Pal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed with delay of as many as 263 days in filing and 181 days in re-filing the second appeal. By the applications being C.M. Appl. Nos.19844/2016 and 19846/2016 condonation of the delays is sought. The only reason given in C.M. Appl. No.19844/2016 for filing of the second appeal with delay is that the delay is on account of mother of petitioner no.1 being seriously ill for a long time and which averment is made in paragraph 2 of C.M. Appl. No. 19844/2016 and the same reads as under:- 2. That the mother of the petitioner No.1 was seriously ill from long time. All the members of his family were disturbed. At last she died on 263 and due to this reasons the petitioner no.1 was disturbed. This is the reason for delay in filing this 2nd appeal. 2. In the application for condonation of delay in re-filing the second appeal the ground given was that appellant no. 1 was su...
Fatima Sultana (Since Deceased Through Her Legal Heir Vs. Mohd. Usman ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the plaintiff in the suit. Reference to the plaintiff will include reference to the legal heirs of the plaintiff Fatima Sultana who has expired and is now represented by the appellant who is her legal heir. Fatima Sultana filed the subject suit seeking recovery of possession and mesne profits with respect to the property bearing no. 740 Kabadi Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi (situated on a plot of land admeasuring approximately 83 sq. yds) from the defendant Mohd. Usman, who has also expired pendente lite and is now represented by his legal heirs being the respondents herein. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that she had purchased the suit property from the Union of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation for a sum of Rs.9873/- vide a registered Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed dated 31.12.1963, Ex.PW5/1. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant was in unauthorized ...
Surender Gupta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
Siddharth Mridul, J. 1. The present criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) assails the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.01.2014 and order on sentence dated 13.01.2014, passed by the Ld. ASJ-01 (West), Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 22/12, in FIR No. 20/2012, registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar, whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and payment of a fine of Rs.5000/- with a stipulation that in default of payment of fine, the appellant would further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The gravamen of the charge, for which the appellant has been convicted, is, for having committed rape on the prosecutrix, a girl aged about 7 years (at the time of commission of the offence) on 18.01.2012. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as ar...
M/s Bright Enterprises Private Limited and Another Vs. MJ Bizcraft Llp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
1. The two plaintiffs viz. M/s Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s AKM Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. have instituted this suit for permanent injunction to restrain the two defendants viz. MJ Bizcraft LLP and Shangri-La s ErosHotel from using for any of their business activities the trademark PRIVEE or any other trademark or logo / device which is identical to or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark MBD PRIVE and PRIVE or which incorporates the word PRIVE or any other trademark or logo or device which is identical to or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark and for ancillary reliefs. 2. Being of a prima facie view that the plaintiffs have not made out any case, the counsel for the plaintiffs was on 22nd July, 2016 heard at length on admission and orders reserved. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs: (i) that the plaintiff companies form part of the MBD Group; (ii) that the plaintiff no.1 and the plaintiff no.2 have made foray into premium and luxury mixed used developments...
Neeraj Kumar Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
S.P. Garg, J. 1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 11.08.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.69/1/14 arising out of FIR No.550/2003 registered at Police Station Moti Nagar by which appellantNeeraj Kumar Singh was convicted under Sections 392 IPC, he has filed the instant appeal. By an order dated 25.08.2014, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine Rs.2,000/-. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on 18.10.2003 the appellant along with his associates Karan Singh, Ganga Prasad @ Tinkoo and Vijay Kumar @ Radhey @ Shyam @ Pandit Ji hatched conspiracy to commit robbery at Smt.Nisha Goel s house at A-240, Sudershan Park, Moti Nagar, Delhi. On 22.10.2003 at about 4.30 p.m. pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy, they committed robbery at her house using deadly weapons. The incident was reported to the police vide Daily Diary (DD) No.16/A (Ex.PW21/A) on 22.10.2003 at 5.10 p.m. The Investigatin...
Nisha Arya Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. (Oral) Crl.M.A. 12053/2016 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.C. 2829/2016 1. Pooja and Jyoti accused in FIR No. 854/2014 under Sections 146/148/323/308/341/342/427/452/34 IPC registered at PS Adarsh Nagar were granted regular bail by the impugned order dated 9th June, 2016 challenging which the petitioner/complainant in the above-noted FIR prefers the present petition seeking cancellation of bail. At the outset, it may be noted that though the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail of Pooja and Jyoti, however they have not been impleaded as parties in the present petition. 2. The order dated 9th June, 2016 reads as under:- These are two separate applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail moved on behalf of applicants/accused persons. Both these applications are being disposed off together vide this common order, as they arise out of same FIR. Arguments on both the bail applications heard. Replies perused. Before dealing with the ri...
Ishwar Prakash Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Ishwar Prakash for quashing of FIR No.313/2014 dated 03.07.2014, under Sections 417/419/420/423/465/467/468/471/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Palam Village on the basis of settlement report of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, New Delhi arrived at between the petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 3, namely, Sh. Saurabh Gupta and Sh. Mahesh Aggarwal on 27.07.2015. 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 and respondent no. 3 has been identified to be the victim in the FIR in question by Inspt. B. S. Gulia. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner came to the office of the complainant/respondent no. 2 and offered him property bearing no. WZ-674, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi, hereinafter ...
Surender Singh Dalal and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The petitioners are working as Sub-Inspectors under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). 2. As amended in the year 1997 the CISF Recruitment Rules, 1969 stipulated four sources of appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant in CISF as under:- i. by promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation - 50% ii. by transfer from Public Sector Undertakings, failing which by promotion - 20%, iii. by transfer on deputation/re-employment - 10% iv. by direct recruitment through the IAS examination conducted by the UPSC - 20% 3. In the year 1988 the Rules were amended. 20% appointment by transfer from public sector undertakings was reduced to 10% and appointment by direct recruitment through examination was enhanced to 30%. 4. The Rules were further amended in the year 2009. The mode of appointment was as under:- i. Promotion - 33% ii. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) failing which by promotion - 17%, iii. Absorption from Public Sector Und...
BPI (India) Pvt Ltd and Others Vs. Creation For Children International ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Record of the suit has been perused. 2. Respondent sued the appellants claiming decree in sum of Rs.1,32,85,240/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Two Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Forty only). Approximate value being US$ 2,85,653.15 (US Dollars Two Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Three and Cents Fifteen only). As per the plaint, the first appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act and appellants 2 and 3 are its directors. They were impleaded as defendants No.1 to 3. It is pleaded that through the Directors, appellant No.1 placed purchase orders upon the respondent for books and vide four agreements dated June 22, 2007, October 17, 2007, April 14, 2008 and October 22, 2008 the respondent supplied books to the first appellant. As per purchase orders payment had to be made after 120 days FOB (a plea which learned counsel for the respondent cannot explain for the reason FOB means freight ...
Azad Singh Hooda Vs. Delhi Technological University and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral) 1. The challenge in this petition is to the communication dated June 25, 2015 whereby the petitioner was informed as under:- To, Sh. Azad Singh Hooda, Senior Mechanic (on contractual basis), Department of Mechanical Engg., DTU. Sir, It is to inform you that your deployment period as Senior Mechanic on contractual basis is going to expire on 30.06.2015 and you have attained the age more than 60 years. Therefore, as per the University policy and on the recommendations of the concerned HoD, the Competent Authority has decided that your contractual period will not be extended beyond 30.06.2015. You are also requested to submit the No Dues Certificate from the concerned Departments/Branches, so that your remuneration for the month of June 2015 may be disbursed,. This is for your kind information please. 2. Some of the relevant facts are, on December 29, 2010 the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Junior Technical Assistant in the Automobile Enginee...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »