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.
Gopal Krishan Dua Vs. Rajni Dua and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 22.08.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari. The learned Judge allowed the wife s petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter the Act ) and dismissed the husband s counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. 2. The facts relevant to decide the case are that the wife ( respondent ) married the appellant on 09.08.1989 in New Delhi; two sons were born from the wedlock on 26.10.1992 and 17.06.1996. The wife, in her petition before the learned Judge alleged various acts of mental as well as physical cruelty to which she was subjected by the appellant husband. In her petition she alleged that the appellant used to constantly taunt her for getting insufficient dowry and would, at times, lock her up in a room. It is also alleged that the appellant is highly aggressive and a...
In the Matter of: Jindal Polymer Products Private Limited and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J. 1. This joint application has been filed under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 by the applicant companies seeking directions of this court to dispense with the requirement of convening the meetings of their equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors to consider and approve, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Arrangement between Jindal Polymer Products Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 1) and Shatabdi Paper Mills Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 2) and Annapurna Steels Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company). 2. The registered offices of the transferor and transferee companies are situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The transferor company no. 1 was originally incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 21st April, 1980 with the Registrar of Companies, Uttar Pradesh at Kanpur. The company shif...
K.C. Bhargava Vs. Sanatan Dharam Sabha Lakshmi Narain Temple Trust (Re ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) Caveat No.673/2016 1. Counsel appears for the caveator and thus the caveat stands discharged. C.M. No.27672/2016 (exemption) 2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + RSA No.202/2016 and C.M. No.27671/2016 (stay) 3. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the legal heir of the original defendant in the suit impugning the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 17.4.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 23.4.2016; by which judgments the courts below have decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/temple trust for possession of the suit premises viz quarter no.9, Birla Mandir, Mandir Marg, New Delhi. 4. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff/temple trust filed the subject suit pleading that with respect to employees who are employed in the temple, the respondent/plaintiff gave them quarters and the original defendant in...
Reena Jain and Another Vs. Rajiv Kumar Saxena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the two defendants in the suit, impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 6.4.2009 and the First Appellate Court dated 7.6.2014; by which the courts below have decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration that the Family Settlement Deed dated 18.12.2000 (Ex.DW1/1) and the Relinquishment Deed dated 3.2.1998 (Ex.DW3/1) are declared null and void. Respondent/plaintiff has also been held entitled to possession of the first floor and second floor of the suit property bearing H.No. 408, Gagan Vihar, Delhi-110051 on a plot of land admeasuring 272 sq. yds. By the relinquishment deed the respondent/plaintiff had declared that the suit property belonged to his mother, and which deed was prayed to be cancelled on the ground that when this relinquishment deed was executed, he was not aware of the Will dated 28.4.1995, Ex.PW1/1, executed...
Gulvinder Khatri Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
S.P. Garg, J. 1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.675/2013 registered under Sections 354A/506 IPC at Police Station Mehrauli. The petition is contested by the respondent/complainant. 2. The petitioner urged that the instant FIR has been lodged by the complainant to pressurize him to settle the criminal prosecution instituted by him against her vide Complaint Case No.261/1/11 titled Gulvinder Khatri vs.State and Ors. in which complainant s son along with others has been summoned to face trial under Sections 323/452/506/147/149/34 IPC vide order dated 19.12.2011. Allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. Allegations leveled by the complainant cannot be taken on its face value. The Investigating Officer did not offer any reasonable opportunity to the pe...
M/s. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the Decree Holder (hereafter 'JNL') to enforce an arbitration award dated 09.10.2002. According to the Judgment Debtors (hereafter 'the railways'), an excess payment of Rs.12,483/- has been made which is required to be recovered from JNL. JNL disputes this and claims that as on 11.02.2015, a sum of Rs.2,53,481/- was outstanding after adjustment of the amounts paid by the railways and this amount is payable along with further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of payment. 2. The central controversy relates to the manner in which payments already made by the railways are to be adjusted; the railways claim that the amounts paid by it are to be appropriated partly towards the award of claim no.1 - which the railways terms as the principal amount- and partly towards interest in terms of the calculation sheet forwarded to JNL at the time of making the remittance. JNL, on the other hand, claims that the amounts paid by the railways are to ...
Exide Technologies Vs. Exide Industries Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 05.09.2012 of a Learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby CS(OS) No. 812/1997 (hereafter the suit ) filed by Exide India/ the first plaintiff (hereafter called the plaintiff or Exide India ) against the Appellants, - (hereafter referred to as the defendant or Exide US ), was decreed and Exide US s counterclaim wasdismissed. The impugned judgment held: a) Exide India is the registered proprietor of the trademark EXIDE ; b) Exide India is also the prior user of the trademark in India and, therefore, owner of the trademark EXIDE in India inasmuch asExide US failed to plead and prove existence of special circumstances. c) Exide US- the first two defendants were injuncted from selling their goods using their trade name with the trademark EXIDE of ExideIndia or any other name/mark deceptively similar thereto. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first defendant, Exide Technologies (earlier known as Exide Corporatio...
Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of Technology and Others Vs. All India Coun ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
CM No.15761/2016 in WP(C) 3684/2016 1. The Petitioners in this Writ Petition seek the following reliefs:- (i) quash/set aside the impugned letters dated 19.04.2016, issued to Petitioner No.1 and 3, by All India Council for Technical Education, categorizing the petitioner no.1 and 3 in NO ADMISSION category and; (ii) further direct for entitling the Petitioner No.1 and 3 to be included in the process of admission for the academic session 2016-17, by granting extension of approval. 2. The petitioner No.1 is Guru Teg Bahadur Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Institute ) and the petitioner No.3 is Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic Institute (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Polytechnic ). The petitioner No.1/Petitioner Institute operates from G-8 Area, Rajouri Garden, Opposite Swarg Ashram Mandir, Delhi. The petitioner No.3/Polytechnic operates from Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Both the petitioners 1 and 3 are governed by the petitioner No.2 i.e. Delhi Sikh Gurdwa...
Jagdish Prasad Gupta (Deceased) Through His Lrs and Others Vs. Union o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit impugning the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 28.7.2014, by which the first appellate court has set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 25.7.2011. Trial court by its judgment had decreed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs and allowed appellants/plaintiffs to use the passage in property no.39, Civil Lines, Delhi. The first appellate court by its impugned judgment has held that the passage in question is part of the private property no.39 belonging to the Government/Union of India, and therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs can claim no right in the private passage/land. The right was claimed by the appellants/plaintiffs in the passage as an easement of necessity. 2. At the outset, I would like to observe that the first appellate court has, very thoroughly, exhaustively, analytically and with appropriate r...
Bhajan Lal Sharma Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to seek the quashing of FIR No. 619/2015 dated 25.12.2015 registered at PS New Friends Colony under Sections 288/337/304A IPC and the proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a building contractor. He was engaged to carry out construction work on Plot No. D-1093, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The aforesaid FIR came to be registered in pursuance of DD No. 8A dated 25.12.2015 recorded at Police Station New Friends Colony regarding collapse of a building at New Friends Colony, resulting in people getting buried under the debris. 3. The case of the prosecution is that after reaching the spot, on investigation by the police it was revealed that during excavation of basement in a dangerous manner, debris and soil fell on the labourers. On search in the debris, one of the labourer Badri Prasad, son of Keram, aged 65 years, was removed. He was removed to the hospital. H...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »