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.
Staar Surgical Company Vs. Care Group India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
IA No. 22150 of 2015 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) and IA No. 24468/2015 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) 1. IA No. 22150 of 2015 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ) is by the Plaintiff and IA No. 24468/2015under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC is by Defendant No.1. The background to these applications is that the Plaintiff, Staar Surgical Company, is a company duly organised and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware having its registered office in California, USA. The Plaintiff states that it has been carrying on trade and business of manufacturing, worldwide marketing and sales of implantable lenses for eyes and delivery systems. The plaintiff claims to be solely dedicated to ophthalmic surgery for over 25 years and the designs, develops and manufactures and markets implantable lenses for the eye and delivery systems. The Plaintiff claims to have patented and licensed the first foldable intraocular lens (IOL) for cataract surger...
CT/GD Narendra Kumar Vs. N.K. Raghupathi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
Manmohan, J. (Oral) 1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 13th February, 2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.256/2013, whereby the respondents were directed to keep one vacancy in the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) in one of the Central Police Organizations reserved for the OBC category for being filled by the petitioner in the event of his being ultimately cleared in the pending investigation within three months. 2. In the present contempt petition, it is the petitioner s case that he has not received any communication with regard to his appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) in one of the Central Police Organizations or any communication in pursuance to the aforesaid order passed by this Court. 3. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner had opted only for two post preferences as B and C i.e. the CISF and CRPF. It is also stated that the marks of the last selected OBC candidates in CISF and CRPF were 271 and 262 respect...
Mukesh Kumar and Another Vs. Pavitra and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 21.12.2013 and the First Appellate Court dated 16.9.2015; by which the courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs/sons for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 executed by their father/defendant no.2/respondent no.2 in favour of their mother defendant no.1/respondent no.1. The courts below have dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation which was the subject matter of issue no.2 by holding that the Sale Deed which is sought to be cancelled is dated 15.12.2004, and the suit is filed on 24.2.2009, i.e after a period of three years and hence the suit is barred by limitation. Since the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 was registered on 4.1.2005, the courts below have held that there is deemed notice of this registered sale deed to the plaintiffs/...
APPL Polymers Private Limited and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
1. This joint application has been filed under Sections 391 and 394 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 Amalgamation of APPL Polymers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) with APPL Industries 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 was originally incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 4 th June, 2007 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana at New Delhi under the name and style of Sanskriti Callnet Private Limited. The company changed its name to APPL Polymers Private Limited and obtained the fresh certifica...
Tribhuvan Enterprises and Another Vs. Thakar Petrochemicals Ltd. and A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
1. Impugned order of 4th January, 2005 decrees the suit of respondents for a sum of Rs.3,44,769/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and dismisses the counter-claim of appellants-defendants. The factual background of this case, as noted in the impugned order, is that appellantsdefendants were appointed as Clearing and Forwarding Agents and Stockists of respondents-plaintiffs and on account of appellants-defendants withholding the stock of lubricants, out of outstanding amount of Rs.5 lacs odd, security deposit of Rs.3 lacs was adjusted and thereafter, suit for recovery of the principal amount of Rs.2,32,730/- was instituted on ledger account and interest thereon was also claimed. The stand of appellants- defendants before the trial court was that the lubricants were of substandard quality and were not saleable and the counter-claim was made for refund of security amount with interest and for commission of goods as well as loading and unloading charges. Both the sides had led evi...
Rajpal Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred as Cr.P.C.) for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.2 (Darshan Kumar) and respondent no.3 (Karan Singh) by the Court below vide order dated 07.10.2013 in FIR No.4/2012, under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC, Police Station Dwarka Sector-23 and also for setting aside of order dated 07.10.2013. 2. The facts in brief are that the instant FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by one Smt.Bhanwati, mother of the petitioner-herein with the allegations that the plot no.160, Sector- 16, Dwarka, New Delhi belonging to the father of the petitioner was sold by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 by playing fraud and making forgery in the documents. Several civil suits were also filed by the petitioner against the respondent nos.2 and 3 which were pending. During the pendency of civil suits, the Investigating Officer moved an applic...
Gaurav Malik and Another Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Gaurav Malik and Sh. Ankur Kohli for quashing of FIR No.744/2013 dated 27.11.2013, under Section 324/325/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden on the basis of the compromise deed executed between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Dr. Yogesh Kumar on 18.02.2016. 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 his counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is on the allegation that on 26.11.2013, at around 9.15 pm, the complainant s neighbour requested him to park their scooter inside the premises. The complainant upon having done so was further directed by his neighbour to keep the keys in the lift and send them up to the 2nd floor of the residential building. The complainant instead said that he ...
Clyde Bergemann Beekay India Private Limited and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
1. This joint petition has been filed under Sections 391(2) to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the petitioner companies seeking sanction of the Scheme of Merger of Clyde Bergemann Beekay India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) with Clyde Bergemann India 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 was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 15 th December, 2009 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana at New Delhi. 4. The transferee company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 23rd April, 2007 with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana at New Delhi. 5. The present authorized share capital of the transferor company is Rs.50,00,000/- divided into 5,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid-up ...
Krishan Kumar Garg and Another Vs. Ram Niwas Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) 1. The sole issue which is required for consideration in these second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is as to whether the jurisdiction of the civil court for entertaining the suits for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants/tenants is barred as the premises in question are governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and thus proceedings would have to be initiated before the revenue authorities specified in this Act and not in the civil court. These two second appeals filed by the appellants/tenants concern two shops bearing private shop no.3 at the ground floor of the property no.114, Kavita Colony, Nangloi, New Delhi (tenant is appellant in RSA No.14/2016) and private shop no.1 at the ground floor of the property no.114, Kavita Colony, Nangloi, New Delhi (tenant is appellant in RSA No.19/2016). 2. The Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Ta...
East Delhi Leasing Private Limited and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
1. This joint application has been filed under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 6, 9 and 67 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 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 Amalgamation of East Delhi Leasing Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 1); King Merchandise Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 2); SR Vincom Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 3); RS Vincom Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 4) and B G S Credit Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company no. 5) with Leading Estates Limited (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company). 2. The registered offices of the transferor and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »