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 Model Artician vs.satvir
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 8448/2014 Date of Decision:31. t January, 2017 M/S MODEL ARTICIAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamran Malik and Mr. Syed Shakeel Hussain, Advocates SATVIR versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27th February, 2014 whereby the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.7,884/- towards arrears of minimum wages along with compensation of Rs.86,724/-.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear before the Authority on account of being held up in a traffic jam on 22nd January, 2014 and being out of town on 13th February, 2014.3. After hearing the parties for some time, this Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order subject to cost Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the...
Kaushal Kumar vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 273/2002. Decided on:31. t January, 2017 KAUSHAL KUMAR Represented by: Mr. S.H. Ansari, Adv. with appellant in person. ..... Appellant STATE versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. Non-bailable warrants have not been executed, however the appellant is present in Court with counsel.2. Arguments have been addressed in the appeal by learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for State.3. Kaushal Kumar challenges the impugned judgment dated 9th October, 2001 convicting him for offences punishable under SectionIPC and the order on sentence dated 12th October, 2001 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.4. ...
Col. Pravesh Kumar Malhotra vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
$~20 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :30. h JANUARY, 2017 CRL.M.C. 5211/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.18775/2015 COL. PRAVESH KUMAR MALHOTRA ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.Vikram Singh Panwar, Advocate with Mr.Jenis Francis, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI Sandeep, PS V.K.N. Complainant in person. S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) 1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 20.08.2015 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR No.667/2014 PS Vasant Kunj (North) whereby he has been summoned to face trial. Status report is on record.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties; complainant in person and have examined the file.3. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was put in column No.12 as the investigating agency did not find any sufficient material to charge-sheet him. I have enquired from ...
Harishankar vs.state (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 252/2017 Date of Hearing & Order: January 30th, 2017 HARISHANKAR Through: Mr. Tripurari Prasad Tripathi, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub-Inspector Manish Kumar, Police Station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by 1. the petitioner, namely, Sh. Harishankar for quashing of FIR No.181/2011 dated 20.05.2011, under Section 354/341/323/506/457 IPC registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi on the basis of an agreement/settlement executed between petitioner and respondent Crl.M.C. 252/2017 Page 1 of 7 for the accused/petitioner Learned Additional Public Prosecutor no.2 namely, Smt. Manju.2. respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2 present in...
Ritesh Gupta vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BAIL APPLN. 111/2017 & Crl.M.A. No.1100/2017 Date of Decision:30. h January, 2017 RITESH GUPTA STATE ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr.A.K. Vali, Adv. & Mr.Achin Mittal, Adv. Versus ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ashish Dutta, APP for the State with Mr.Rishi Pal, DCP, Outer District, Mr.Arvind Kumar, SHO & SI Amit. Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sidharth Chopra, Adv. & Mr.Dinesh Jindal, Complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S. TEJI, J1 The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the applicant in a case arising out of FIR No.17lodged on 30th September, 2014 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mangolpuri. Bail Application No.111/2017 Page 1 of 8 2. The facts as emerge from the records, are that the complainant Saroj Jindal lodged an FIR against the applicant Ritesh Gupta,...
Laxmi Narain Gupta vs.delhi Development Authority & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
$~97 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 6320/2014 & CM152502014, 18111/2014 Judgment delivered on:30. 01.2017 LAXMI NARAIN GUPTA ........ Petitioner versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent LAC/L&B For the Respondent DDA : Mr Gaurav Sarin with Ms Charu Sarin : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi : Mr Dhanesh Relan CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAYANT NATH BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) JUDGMENT1 By way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) and in res...
Dr. Saurabh Kumar Gupta @ Saurabh Gupta vs.new India Assurance Co. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (i) + MAC.APP. 573/2008 Date of decision: January 30, 2017 DR.SAURABH KUMAR GUPTA @ SAURABH GUPTA Through: Mr. S.P. Singh Chaudhary & Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocates ..... Appellant Versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Akhilesh Kr. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3 (ii) + MAC.APP. 600/2008 Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate ..... Appellant THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD (iii) + MAC.APP. 602/2008 & C.M.5157/2009 DR. SAURABH KUMAR GUPTA @ SAURABH GUPTA AND ORS. Versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.P. Singh Chaudhary & Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr. Akhilesh Kr. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3 MAC.APP.573, 600 & 602 of 2008 Page 1 of 7 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % ORAL1 JUDGMENT The above captioned three appeals are directed against common impugned Award of 2nd August, 2008 vide which compensation of `15,90,000/- and `2,75,000/- wi...
Anshu Sharma and Ors. Vs.director of Education
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.10153-55/2005 + % ANSHU SHARMA AND ORS. 30th January, 2017 ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Vimal Kumar, Advocate for petitioner Nos.2 and 3 with petitioner no.2 in person. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the three petitioners impugn the order of the Director of Education dated 11.5.2004 and seek directions that they should be paid their complete salaries and for which purpose they had filed the earlier writ petition being CWP No.2882/2002, and which was disposed of in terms of the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15.12.2003. This order dated 15.12.2003 reads as under:-"1. Rule W.P.(C) No.10153-55/2005 Page 1 of 7 With the consent of the parties, matter is being heard for 2. dispo...
Jindal Polymer Products Private Limited vs.annapurna Steels Private Li ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On:08. 12.2016 Judgment Pronounced On:30. 01.2017 CO.PET.692/2016 JINDAL POLYMER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..Petitioner/Transferor Company No.1 AND SHATABDI PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED ..Petitioner/Transferor Company No.2 AND ANNAPURNA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED ..Petitioner/Transferee Company Through: Mr. Rajeev K. Goel, Advocate for... Petitioners. Ms. Aparna Mudiam, Assistant ROC. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present petition has been filed jointly under Sections 391 and 394 & sections 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Jindal Polymer Products Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as CO.PET.692/2016 Page 1 of 1 Transferor Company No.1), Shatabdi Paper Mills Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company No.2) and Annapurna Steels Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferee Company) seeking sanction of the sche...
Ravi Gupta vs.deepak Kumar & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2017
$~23. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA1092017 & CM APPL. Nos. 3654-56/2017 RAVI GUPTA Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar with Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocates. ..... Appellants versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None. DEEPAK KUMAR & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER3001.2017 1. The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2016 passed by the learned trial court dismissing a suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell and permanent injunction instituted against the respondents/defendants in respect of shop No.6, Ground Floor, Masjid Moth Extension, Phase-I, CSCLSC, DDA Market, Uday Park, New Delhi.2. It may be noted at the outset that the impugned judgment is a common judgment whereunder, the learned trial court has decided two suits, one instituted by the appellant herein against Deepak Kumar & DDA and the other instituted by one Mr. Brij Pal Bhati against the appellant herein for a decree of possession and permanent injunction in res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »