Delhi Court January 2017 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.
Sahi Ram vs.satpal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
$~A-20 * % + RC.REV. 415/2013 Date of decision:19. 01.2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SAHI RAM SATPAL Through Mr.Sunil Fernandes, Advocate with ........ Petitioner Mr.Puneeth, K.G. versus Through Mr.P.D.Gupta, Sr.Adv. with Mr. ..... Respondent Abhishek Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. The present Revision Petition is filed under section 25-B (8) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as The DRC Act) seeking to challenge the order dated 26.9.2013 by which order the Eviction Petition filed by the petitioner under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act was dismissed.2. The petitioner/landlord filed an Eviction Petition against the respondent/tenant in respect of shop No.378/1, Ground Floor, Hanuman Market, Munirka, New Delhi. It was averred in the petition that the petitioner is a senior citizen of 82 years of age. He is unable to undertake any work to earn his livelihood by himself and his family comprises of 12 ...
Sunrise Overseas vs.commissioner of Value Added Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
2-110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:17. 12.2016 (2 to87) 19.12.2017 (88 to95) 11.01.2017 (96 to102) 17.01.2017 (103 to110) Pronounced on:19. 01.2017 + W.P.(C) 10807/2016 M/S MUNSHI RAM RAM PARKASH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR. ........ Petitioner versus ........ RESPONDENTS MANGLA ENTERPRISES COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES & ANR......... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus MANGLA ENTERPRISES COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES & ANR......... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus + W.P.(C) 10856/2016 + W.P.(C) 10858/2016 + W.P.(C) 10859/2016 + W.P.(C) 10911/2016 + W.P.(C) 10947/2016 MANGLA ENTERPRISES COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES & ANR......... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus DHANJAL ENGG. WORKS COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES & ANR......... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus M/S MUNSHI RAM RAM PARKASH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR. ........ Petitioner versus + W.P.(C) 11008/2016 ........ RESPONDENTS W.P.(C)10807/2016 & connected cases...
Kurex Electronics vs.commissioner Trade and Taxes and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
2-110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:17. 12.2016 (2 to87) 19.12.2017 (88 to95) 11.01.2017 (96 to102) 17.01.2017 (103 to110) Pronounced on:19. 01.2017 + W.P.(C) 10807/2016 M/S MUNSHI RAM RAM PARKASH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR. ........ Petitioner versus ........ RESPONDENTS MANGLA ENTERPRISES COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES & ANR......... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus MANGLA ENTERPRISES COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES & ANR......... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus + W.P.(C) 10856/2016 + W.P.(C) 10858/2016 + W.P.(C) 10859/2016 + W.P.(C) 10911/2016 + W.P.(C) 10947/2016 MANGLA ENTERPRISES COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES & ANR......... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus DHANJAL ENGG. WORKS COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES & ANR......... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus M/S MUNSHI RAM RAM PARKASH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR. ........ Petitioner versus + W.P.(C) 11008/2016 ........ RESPONDENTS W.P.(C)10807/2016 & connected cases...
Srm Infracon Pvt Ltd & Anr vs.an Elegant Hospitality & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of decision:19. h January, 2017 EX.P. No.3/2017 SRM INFRACON PVT LTD & ANR .... Decree Holders Through: Mr. Dinesh Garg with Ms. Rachna Agrawal, Advs. Versus AN ELEGANT HOSPITALITY & ANR ..... Judgment Debtors Through: None. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 Execution is sought of a decree dated 7th December, 2016 of ejectment from immoveable property.2. The counsel for the decree holders on enquiry states that there is no stay of execution and that the site plan of the property, of which possession is to be recovered, accompanying this execution petition is the same as the site plan filed with the suit.3. Issue warrants for recovery of possession of basement, ground floor, first floor (excepting one small office room), second floor and third floor (excepting one office / room) and all other portions in occupation of the defendants of property No.2105, Ward No.XVI, Khasra Nos.425&426, Nai Wala Estate, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road...
Madan Singh & Ors vs.ram Karan Yadav & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2017
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:19. h January, 2017 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate 51 + MAC.APP. 527/2014 versus MADAN SINGH & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Behl, Advocate for respondents No.1to 4 MADAN SINGH & ORS55+ MAC.APP. 152/2016 & C.M. Appl. 5574/2016 RAM KARAN YADAV & ORS. versus Through: Mr. Sanjeev Behl, Advocate ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The parties have challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.5,35,620/- has been awarded to the legal representatives of Bahader Singh.2. The accident dated 03rd December, 2010, resulted in the death of Bahader Singh. The deceased was aged 52 years at the time of the accident and was an agriculturist. The deceased was survived by one son and three daughters who filed the claim petition before the Cla...
Kiran Shoes Manufacturers vs.m/s Welcome Shoes Pvt Ltd & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
$~5 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 1723/2011 KIRAN SHOES MANUFACTURERS ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pranay Sarkar, Advocate. versus M/S WELCOME SHOES PVT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. N.K.Kantawala and Mr. P. Sharma, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % VIBHU BAKHRU, J ORDER1801.2017 The disputes involved in the present suit fall under the definition of 1. Commercial Dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to re-number the present suit as CS (Commercial) and while allotting the new number, the Registry shall also indicate on the file, the old registration number of the case. IA No.11400/2016 2. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter the CPC) for amendment of the plaint. Mr N. K. Kantawala, learned counsel appear...
Malckom N Desai & Ors. Vs.govt of Nct of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
$~7. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + % W.P.(CRL) 3267/2016 MALCKOM N DESAI & ORS Date of Decision:18. 01.2017 ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Nikhil Goel, Mr. Ashutosh Ghade & Ms. Surya Rajappan, Advocates. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC and Ms.Mallika Parmar & Ms.Seema Patnaha, Advocates along with Inspector Parveen Kumar, Cyber Cell/EOW, for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The present petition has been filed to seek quashing of FIR No.87/2016 dated 10.06.2016 under Sections 420/ 120-B/ 34 IPC and Sections 4/ 5/ 6 of PC & MCSB Act, registered by EOW Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom, and in the alternative, compound the offence as against the petitioners. W.P.(CRL) 3267/2016 Page 1 of 20 2. The case concerns what is claimed to be, a Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) Company called Vihaan Direct Selling Private Lim...
Vijay Prakash vs.union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~27 * + W.P.(C) 391/2017 & CM18192017 VIJAY PRAKASH Date of Decision :18. h January, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Mamta Chandra, Advocate versus 1. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC ........ RESPONDENTS Vijay Prakash, in this writ petition, impugns the order dated 20.7.2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal for short), New Delhi, whereby his OA, challenging the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 27.4.2011, affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.10.2011 and the Revisional Authority vide order dated 28.6.2012, has been rejected.2. The contention is that the factual findings are perverse and incorrect and the charges were never established and proved as most of the prosecution witnesses did not make affirmative statements, implicating the pe...
Surinder Singh Arora vs.rajeev Dhingra & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: January 18, 2017 FAO(OS) (COMM) 13/2017 SURINDER SINGH ARORA ..... Appellant Represented by: Dr.Sarbjit Sharma, Advocate with Ms.Archana Maharaj, Ms.Devika Bhagat, Advocates versus RAJEEV DHINGRA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Represented by: Ms.Mani Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Rohit Mehra, Ms.Aishwarya Nabh, Mr.Rajat Kumar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. We note the admitted facts and then the controversial ones projected by the appellant.2. The admitted facts are that respondents No.1 and 2, Rajiv Dhingra and Atul Dhingra are brothers and are owners of the first, second and third floor of property bearing municipal No.G-3, Pushkar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, which they let out to M/s Mind & Soul Fitness Pvt.Ltd. by a registered lease-deed dated September 29, 2014 for a period of nine years. Rent for first three years is `2.7 lacs per month. ...
Chandni Madaan @ Mehta vs.state & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: January 18, 2017 TR.P.(CRL.) 83/2016 and Crl. M.A. No.16317/2016 (Stay) CHANDNI MADAAN @ MEHTA ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Narinder Safaya and Mr. Ujjawal Gautam, Advocates. versus STATE & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Represented by: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with W/PSI Sunita Yadav, PS North Rohini. Mr. Shubham Asri and Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocates for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of Sessions Case No.13/2016 in case FIR No.957/2015 under SectionsIPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act) registered at PS North Rohini to another Court preferably to a lady judicial officer and expeditious disposal of the trial preferably within six months.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner filed an application before the learned Tri...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »