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.
Sidhartha Tayal vs.dinesh Goel and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2017
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA6962016 & CM334122016 SIDHARTHA TAYAL ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Sandeep Garg, Advocate versus DINESH GOEL AND ANR Through : None. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER1601.2017 1. The appellant/defendant has assailed the judgment dated 19.5.2016 passed by the learned trial court dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- instituted against the respondents/defendants on the ground that he had failed to fulfil the terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 5.4.2010 in respect of a commercial space bearing No.S-15, Second Floor, Cross River Mall, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the shop) and therefore, he is entitled to claim double of the earnest money from them.2. A brief recapitulation of the relevant facts of the case is necessary. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery against the respondents/defendants, through his father, Shri Sham Tayal, described as his power o...
Axiom Commodeal Private Limited vs.cartel Finance & Investments Privat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order reserved on:02. 12.2016 Order delivered on:16.01.2017 CO. APPL. (M) 145/2016 IN THE MATTER OF: AXIOM COMMODEAL PRIVATE LIMITED ...Transferor Company/Applicant No.1 AND DANIEL TRADEX LIMITED WITH ...Transferor Company/Applicant No.2 CARTEL FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ...Transferee Company/Applicant No.3 Through: Mr. P.K.Mittal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present is an application filed jointly, under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Axiom Commodeal Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company No.1) and Daniel Tradex Limited (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company No.2) with Cartel Finance & Investments Private Limited CO.APPL.(M) 145/2016 Page 1 of 1 (hereinafter referred to as Transferee Company), in connection with the Scheme of Amalgamation (hereinafter referred to as proposed scheme) between Tran...
B Braun Medical ( India ) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.state ( Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2017
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : JANUARY16 2017. + CRL.M.C. 1557/2016 & Crl.M.A.6669/2016 B BRAUN MEDICAL ( INDIA ) PVT. LTD. ....... Petitioner Through : Mr.Saif Khan with Mr.R.Kamath and Mr.Aditya Gupta, Advocates. versus STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ....... RESPONDENTS Through : Mr.Akshai Malik, APP. Mr.Mohit Mathur, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Vaibhav Vatts and Ms.Aamna Hasan, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG 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 22.09.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Rev.P.No.132/2014 by which order dated 01.07.2014 of Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No.78/1/2012 was set aside and the complaint case was remanded with the directions to pass a well reasoned and speaking order. The petition is contested by the respondent. Crl.M.C.1557/2016 Page 1 of 3 2. It is a matter of record...
Chunnu Fashions & Ors. Vs.edelweiss Asset Reconstruction co.ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16. 01.2017 + W.P.(C) 10589/2016 and CM Nos. 41568/2016 (stay), 41569/2016 (additional documents) and 44831/2016 (u/O1R10CPC) CHUNNU FASHIONS & ORS. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. S.S. Sandhu and Ms. Divija Rajkhowa, advocates. Versus EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO.LTD. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Priyadarshini Verma, Advocate for respondentNo.1. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA JUDGMENT INDIRA BANERJEE, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 27.11.2015, passed by the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi in IA No.811/2015 in Appeal No.6015/2015, whereby the learned DRAT dismissed an appeal against an order dated WP(C). 10589/2016 1 20.08.2013, of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) II, Delhi, under Section 17 of the Securitizat...
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs.monika Sekhon & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2017
$~37 * % + MAC.APP.1139/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:16. h January, 2017 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, Adv. versus MONIKA SEKHON & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Atul Rathi and Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.13,12,000/- has been awarded to respondents No.1 to 3.2. The accident dated 05th July, 2005 resulted in the death of Vikram Singh. The deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident and was survived by his widow and two minor daughters who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was self employed in the business of sale and purchase of automobiles. It was claimed that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, Claims Tribunal took income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- on the basis of income tax returns, added 50% towards ...
Mukesh Kumar Singh vs.satish Chnadra Mishra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2017
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA252017 & CM5432017 MUKESH KUMAR SINGH ..... Appellant Through : Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate. versus SATISH CHNADRA MISHRA Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER1601.2017 1. The appellant/defendant has assailed an order dated 01.10.2016, passed by the learned trial court dismissing his leave to defend application in a suit for recovery of Rs.1,40,00,000/- instituted by the respondent/plaintiff against him along with pendente lite interest.2. Holding that the appellant/defendant had not made out any defence to the suit and had concocted a false story to avoid payment of money to the respondent/plaintiff, the learned trial court dismissed the appellants leave to defend application on the ground that no triable issue was raised by him.3. The version of the respondent/plaintiff in the summary suit instituted by him under Order XXXVII CPC is that the appellant/defendant had approached him to purchase a plot...
Neena Dugal vs.inder Pal Singh Anand and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. 12.2016 Decided on:16. 01.2017 CS(OS) 1334/2013, I.A. 15534/2013 NEENA DUGAL ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate along with Mr. Kulees and Mr. Gautam Gupta, Advocates. versus INDER PAL SINGH ANAND AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Kamaldeep Dayal and Mr. Anish Kapur, Advocate for defendant No.1. Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Advocate along with Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Advocate for defendant no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT I.A.18297/2013 (for condonation of delay in filing O.A. against Order dated 27.09.2013) & O.A.143/2013 (against Order dated 27.09.2013) 1. The present suit had been filed by Ms. Neena Dugal against her siblings defendants no.1 and 2 for partition, mandatory and permanent injunction. She had given her residential address as 10A, Bellfield Avenue, Harrow, HA3, 6SX, London. An interim stay was granted in her favour vide order dated 10...
Kishan Verma @ Gullu vs.the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2017
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DECIDED ON : JANUARY16 2017 BAIL APPLN. 1031/2016 KISHAN VERMA @ GULLU ........ Petitioner THE STATE Through : Mr.Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate along with petitioner present in person. versus ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP. Mr.M.Shamikh, Advocate for the complainant. SI Ranvir Singh, PS Burari. S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.340/2014 under Section 420/468/471/120B IPC registered at Police Station Burari. Status report is on record.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.3. By an order dated 5.8.2016, at the request of petitioners counsel to explore possibility of amicable settlement and to arrange certain amount to be given to the complainant without prejudice and subject to Bail Appl.1031/2016 Page 1 of 3 future adjustment, two weeks interim bail was granted to the petitioner. On 24.08.2016,...
Anurag Sood vs.state (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2017
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 169/2017 ANURAG SOOD Judgment dated:16. h January, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Ms.Sumita Kapil, Adv. with Ms.Poojaswami, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for State Inspector Divesh Kumar, Police Station- Kanjhawala CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA I.S.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.786/2017 Exemption granted, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 169/2017 & CRL.M.A.787/2017 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging the impugned order dated 3rd November, 2016 passed by learned ASJ-II, North-West, Rohini, Delhi in case title State versus Anurag Sood FIR No.1042/2014, under Sections 397/3IPC, registered at Police Station- Kanjhawala dismissing the application filed by petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 3rd November, 2016 is bad in law. She has s...
Kailash Nath Bhardwaj vs.d Vijayalakshmi & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2017
29 $~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CONT.CAS(C) 251/2011 KAILASH NATH BHARDWAJ Through:... Petitioner in person. ........ Petitioner versus D VIJAYALAKSHMI & ORS Through: Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate. ........ RESPONDENTS Date of Decision:16. h January, 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. At the outset, the petitioner who appears in person, prays for an adjournment on the ground that his counsel who was available before lunch, is not available now.2. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently objects to the adjournment. He points out that on the last two dates also, either the petitioner or his counsel had taken an adjournment.3. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, this Court was inclined to admit the matter on the ground that the petitioner was not showing any urgency to argue the case. At that stage, petitioner stated that he wishes to argue his CONT. CAS (C) 251/2011 Page 1 of 5 own case.4. Consequently, petitioner has been heard at ...
- ‹ Prev
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- Next ›
- Last »