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.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd and Another Vs. Gillete India Ltd an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
Ashutosh Kumar, J. CM No.24688/2016 in FAO (OS) No.185/2016andCM No.25348/2016 in FAO (OS) No.206/2016 (Exemption) Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Caveat No.580/2016 in FAO(OS) No.206/2016 Since the counsel for the caveator has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. CM No.25347/2016 in FAO (OS) No.206/2016 (condonation of delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. This application stands disposed of. FAO(OS) 185/2016 and CM 23298/2016 (Stay) and FAO (OS) No.206/2016 1. Both the appeals which arise out of the order dated 01.06.2016 passed in IA No. 6420/2016, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in CS(OS) No. 251/2016, preferred by the defendant and the plaintiff respectively have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. For easy reference, the description of the parties would be referred to, in this order, in terms of the array of parties in CS (...
Shijauddin and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Shijauddin, Sh. Sultan Salauddin, Ms. Shahnaaz Begum and Ms. Nazia for quashing of FIR No. 95/2012 dated 24.06.2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Chandni Mahal on the basis of the Mediation Report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dated 10.03.2014 between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Lubna and Divorce deed dated 03.06.2014. 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 the complainant/respondent no.2 on 06.04.2011 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies. In just a few days of their marriage, the in-laws and husband of the complainant start...
R.K. Rametra and Another Vs. Prakash Chand Kaushik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) C.M. Appl. No. 30508/2016 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. REVIEW PETITION No. 373/2016 1. This Review Petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/defendants/tenants pursuant to the Order passed by the Supreme Court on 29.6.2016 in two Special Leave Petitions ( SLPs ), the relevant SLP in the present case admittedly being SLP (C) No. 13229/2016. The Order of the Supreme Court dated 29.6.2016 reads as under:- ITEM NO. 47 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).12776/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/03/2016 in RFA No.163/1986 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) M/S VISHAL TIMBER TRADERS AND ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS PRAKASH CHAND KAUSHIK Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No.13229/2016 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) D...
S.K. Mukherjee and Another Vs. Harvinder Pal Singh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. CS (OS) No.572/2006 filed by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Singhs) and CS (OS) No.380/2009 filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Mukherjees) have been disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated August 12, 2015. Whereas CS(OS) No.572/2006 has been decreed, CS(OS) No.380/2009 has been dismissed. 2. Claim in CS(OS) No.572/2006 was to pass a decree requiring Mukherjees to execute a sale-deed in favour of the Singhs pertaining to the ground and the first floor of property bearing Municipal No.8/70, Punjabi Bagh, West, New Delhi in terms of the agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/1 dated October 21, 2004; as per which the sale consideration was agreed in sum of Rs. 91,51,000/-, (Rupees Ninety One Lacs Fifty One Thousand only) out of which the Mukherjees had received a sum of Rs. 65,51,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lacs Fifty One Thousand only) on various dates disclosed in the plaint, with further relief that the Mukherjees should remove t...
Baij Nath Vs. Murti Bhagwan Jagannathji Maharaj and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
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 8.9.2014 and the First Appellate Court dated 11.5.2016; by which the suit for mandatory injunction etc of the respondent no.1/idol of the temple has been decreed against the appellant/defendant/licensee. The following decree has been passed by the trial court:- It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. The plaintiffs are held entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction and the defendant is directed to remove himself and his goods from the suit property i.e. tin shed covered with plastic tirpal and the back portion of the garage as shown in red and yellow colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint i.e. Ex.PW1/4. The plaintiffs are held entitled to decree of perpetual injunction and the defendant and his representatives are hereby restrained from making...
Swati Vs. Ravish Kashyap
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. A fair amount of cacophony has been created by the appellant in an appeal spanning 46 pages. The result is all and sundry directions issued from time to time in the appeal. 2. Vide impugned order dated October 28, 2013 the learned Judge, Family Court has decided the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by granting her maintenance in sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month. The order notes that the appellant is maintaining an infant daughter born to the parties during the subsistence of the wedlock. 3. Salary of the respondent has been accepted to be Rs.9000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) per month. 4. Case pleaded by the appellant in her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was that the respondent was working as a Regional Manager with M/s Horizons Lamkraft Pvt.Ltd., D-4, DSIDC Complex, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015, at a monthly salary of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)....
Shikher Jain Vs. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
P.S. Teji, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Shikher Jain for quashing of FIR No.11/2012 dated 15.01.2012, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Bhajan Pura on the basis of the Settlement deed executed before the Counseling Cell, Family Court, North East District, Viswas Nagar between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Shivani Jain on 12.03.2015. 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 of the FIR in question by her counsel. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent no.2 on 16.02.2010. Out of the said wedlock, a female child was born on 04.01.2012. The in-laws and husband of the complainant used to torture her for dowry and would ask her to bring Rs.10 Lacs from her parental home. On...
Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Ashutosh Kumar, J. CM No.25885/2016 in W.P.(C) 6314/2016 (Exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 4296/2016 and CM 18104/2016 (stay) and W.P.(C) 6314/2016 and CM 25884/2016 1. The petitioner, Orion Security Solutions Pvt Ltd through its Managing Director in W.P(C) No.4296/2016, has approached this Court seeking quashing of a decision dated 23.03.2016 [recorded as minutes of the meeting held on 02.03.2016 passed by the Tender Opening Committee of respondent No.2, Directorate of Education, GNCTD (Caretaking branch)], Government of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi whereby the financial bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the same was non responsive to the terms of the tender document. 2. In W.P(C) No.6314/2016, the petitioner, by way of abundant caution, has also challenged the order dated 25.04.2016 whereby the e-tender (I.D No.2015_DE_75441_1) of the petitioner regarding providing of security services to Government schools, stadia an...
Javed and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
S.P. Garg, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is a judgment dated 25.02.2016 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.112/12 arising out of FIR No.450/11 registered at Police Station Welcome by which the appellants Javed (A-1), Shahid (A-2), Shakir (A-3) and Rashid (A-4) were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 452/307/341/34 IPC. By an order dated 27.02.2016 they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine Rs.1,000/- each under Section 307 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine Rs.500/- each under Section 452 IPC; and Simple Imprisonment for one month each under Section 341 IPC. All the sentences were to operate concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 05.12.2011 in between 9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. at House No.B- 213, Gali No.5, Kabir Nagar, Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of their common intention inflicted injuries to Kishan Veer and Rajbir in an ...
Ircon International Limited Vs. Simplex Projects Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. M/s Ircon International Limited (hereafter 'Ircon') - a Government of India undertaking - has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act') impugning an order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Sole Arbitrator (hereafter 'the impugned order') under Section 17 of the Act. 2. By the impugned order, the Arbitrator has held that the encashment of the Bank Guarantee (hereafter 'BG') in the sum of Rs.1,74,83,608/- relating to the mobilisation advance, was not justified to the extent of Rs.1,30,66,840/-. Consequently, the Arbitrator has directed the release of Rs.1 crore lying with the Registrar General of this Court to the respondent (hereafter Simplex ) along with interest accrued thereon within a period of30 days and has further directed Ircon to refund a sum of Rs.30,66,840/- after adjusting any outstanding interest computed at the rate of 13.75% per annum. 3. Ircon has challenged the aforesaid order mainly on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »