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.
M/S Radijkal Foods Ltd & Ors vs.state Bank of Patiala & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13/2017 & CM1222017 M/S RADIJKAL FOODS LTD & ORS ........ Petitioners Through : Ms. Manisha Dhir with Ms. Jayashree Shukla and Mr. Aseem Swaroop, Advocates versus STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ANR Through : Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate for R-1. Mr. K.S. Parihar, Advocate for R-2. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER1701.2017 1. Counsel for the respondent No.1/Bank states on instructions that to meet the arguments raised by the petitioners that the impugned notices dated 6.2.2016 issued to them for declaring the borrowers and their Directors as wilful defaulters, does not contain material particulars, without prejudice to its rights, the Bank is ready and willing to issue fresh notices to each of the petitioners. He states that needful shall be done within two weeks from today.2. Accordingly, the impugned notices dated 06.2.2016 are quashed and set aside. The respondent/Bank shall issue fresh notices to the pe...
Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd vs.shashi Gulati & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
$~8 & 25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (i) Date of Decision: January 17, 2017 + MAC.APP. 1012/2013 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Akshay Bhandari and Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocates versus SHASHI GULATI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kaushik, Advocate for (ii) + MAC.APP. 53/2017 respondents No.1 to 3 SHASHI GULATI & ORS .....Appellants1 Through: Mr. Rajesh Kaushik, Advocate versus TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Bhandari and Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocates respondent-insurer CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % (ORAL) JUDGMENT MAC.APPs. 1012/2013 & 53/2017 Page 1 of 6 C.M.42720/2016 (delay) & MAC.APP. 53/2017 There is delay of 1114 days in filing the accompanying application to place on record the cross-objections. Notice. Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of insurer. Upon hearing, I find that averments made in paragraph No.1 of the instant application, which is d...
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs.master Sorab Dhama & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
$~42 & 43 * % + MAC.APP. 445/2015 42 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Mridul Jain, Advocate versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:17. h January, 2017 MASTER SORAB DHAMA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Peeush Sharma and Mr. Kartikey Nayyar, Advocates for R-1 to 3. + MAC.APP. 727/2015 43 MASTER SORAB DHARMA & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Peeush Sharma and Mr. Kartikey Nayyar, Advocates versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD & ORS........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Mridul Jain, Advocate 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.12,47,832/- has been awarded to the legal heirs of deceased, Dharmender Dhama.2. The appellant in MAC.APP.445/2015 is seeking reduction of award amount whereas the appellant in MAC.APP.727/2015 is MAC. APP.445/2015 & 727/2015 Page 1 of 9 seeking enhancement of award amount.3. The accident dated 4th October, 20...
Mukesh Arora vs.dinesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
$~A-59 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * % Date of decision:17. 01.2017 + RC REV.1/2017 and CM Nos.51-52/2017 MUKESH ARORA ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Sacchin Puri,Sr.Adv. with Mr.Mayank Wadhwa, Advocate versus DINESH KUMAR Through ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This revision petition is filed under section 25(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as The DRC Act) seeking to impugn the eviction order dated 12.8.2016 by which the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order was passed under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.2. The respondent/landlord filed the Eviction Petition against the petitioner stating that the property being House No.219-220 Gali Loharan, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi being a godown was let out @ Rs.250 per month. On the RC REV.1/2017 Page 1 issue of the contention of the respondent of being the landlord it is the case of the respondent that...
Union of India vs.sh. Rajender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.7689/2015 17th January, 2017 .....Petitioner None. Through: versus + % UNION OF INDIA SH. RAJENDER SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Union of India by the present writ petition impugns the order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Chief Commissioner acting under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protecting of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the Deputy Chief Commissioner has passed a judgment like a court of law and issued directions for appointment of the respondent/Sh. Rajender Singh Para 19 of the impugned order dated 31.12.2014 reads as under:-"19. From the advertisement and notification, it is observed that the Engineering Services were indicated as identified for persons with disabilities in both legs...
India Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs.indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
$~ * 10. + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM) 49/2016 INDIA CARRIERS PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Anup Banerjee, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa and Mr. Vipul Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER1701.2017 % IA No.2479 of 2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the petition) 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 125 days in re- filing the petition.2. The Award under challenge is dated 24th July, 2015. According to the... Petitioner, the signed copy of the Award was received in the Chamber of learned counsel for the... Petitioner on 28th July, 2015.3. In the present application, it is stated that the petition was filed on 22nd September, 2015 within the prescribed time under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act).4. In order to ascertain the dates on which the case papers were returned to the counsel for the... Petitioner...
Department of Customs vs.arvind Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. h January, 2017 Decided on:17. h January, 2017 CRL.M.C. 1004/2010 DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Satish Aggarwala with Mr. Anish Aggarwala, Advs. versus ARVIND KUMAR CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Represented by: Dr. Ashutosh, Adv. ..... Respondent 1. Aggrieved by two orders dated 8th December, 2009 and 21st December, 2009, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is two folds, firstly unwarranted remarks against the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the two orders and secondly, dropping the proceedings against the respondent on his application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.2. Brief factual matrix of the case is that on 1st September, 1997 officers of the Customs Preventive, New Delhi intercepted one Mahender Goyal at the exit gate of domestic airport hall of Delhi Airport on his arrival fr...
Sonal Madan vs.punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
$~15 & 16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5004/2016 and CM APPL. 20900/2016 BIJAY MADAN THR POWER OF ATTORNEY SONAL MADAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Dattatray Vyas, Advocate with Ms. Sonal Madan in person. versus + W.P.(C) 5012/2016 and CM APPL. 20917/2016 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Through: Mr. S.N. Relan, Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Thareja, Advocate ..... Respondent 1. SONAL MADAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Dattatray Vyas, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Through: Mr. S.N. Relan, Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Thareja, Advocate ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % The petitioners herein (husband and wife) who are Directors of M/s ORDER1701.2017 Skan Cables & Wires Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) have filed these petitions praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus, for quashing the letter dated 15.01.2016, issued by the W.P.(C) 5004 & 5012//2016 Page 1 of 13 respondent/Bank, calling ...
Tara Chand & Anr vs.chander Pal & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
$~26. * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA4772015 and CM APPL. 12727/2015 TARA CHAND & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate with appellants No.1 and 2 in person. versus CHANDER PAL & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh and Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocates with R-1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % Pursuant to the order dated 16.01.2017, counsel for the appellants ORDER1701.2017 states that he has obtained instructions from his clients to the effect that they do not wish to contest the present appeal on merits, whereunder the learned trial court has decreed the suit for possession, mesne profits and consequential relief instituted by the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs against them. Instead, he states that the appellants may be granted a reasonable time of one year to vacate the suit premises.2. Counsel for the respondents states on instructions that one year would be too long a period as the impugned judgment w...
Ram Pratap vs.purshottam@lala Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: January 17, 2017 RAM PRATAP RSA1092016 Through: Mr.Ram Kishan Saini, Advocate ..... Appellant versus PURSHOTTAM@LALA RAM ..... Respondent Through: Mr.K.R.Rana, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT (Oral) RSA1092016 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff impugning the judgment dated 19th December, 2015 passed in RCA No.31/2015 whereby the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/defendant under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure and reversed the judgment and decree dated 10th March, 2015 passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No.177/2014.2. The Learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 10th March, 2015 has decreed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of rent/damages. As a result of the judgment impugned of the First Appellate Court, the suit of the appellant/plaintiff...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »