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.
Amit Mittal vs.mohd. Tahir & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:12. h January, 2017 + MAC.APP. 647/2015 AMIT MITTAL Through: Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. along ..... Appellant versus with appellant in person. MOHD. TAHIR & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rohit Dhingra, Mohd. Nadeem, Advs. for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.(appearance Adv. for respondent No.4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mittal, respondent No.5 in person. given), not 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.7,72,308/- has been awarded to respondents no.1 and 2.2. On 19th July, 2009 at 8 pm, Mohd. Akram was parking his rickshaw when he was hit by offending vehicle bearing No.DL7 AE5608which resulted in fatal injuries. The deceased was aged 21 years and was survived by his parents who filed the claim before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of Rs.3,934/-, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 50% t...
Sumit Gupta vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : JANUARY12 2017 CRL.M.C.2302/2016 + SUMIT GUPTA Through : Puneet Goel, Advocate. ........ Petitioner VERSUS STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG Through : Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP. ..... Respondent S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality of order dated 22.04.2016 of learned ACMM, Karkardooma Courts, by which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the file. The petitioner has filed a complaint case under Section 190 Cr.P.C. against the respondents therein for commission of offences under Sections 384/406/420 IPC. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed for directions to the SHO/DCP of Police Station Preet Vihar for registration of the FIR. The Trial Court for detailed reasons declined to Cr...
Avnish Kumar & Associates vs.northern Railway Thr. Its General Manager ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
$~1 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 219/2016 AVNISH KUMAR & ASSOCIATES ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. M.K.Ghosh and Ms. Tina Garg, Advocates. versus NORTHERN RAILWAY THR. ITS GENERAL MANAGER & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh and Mr. Preet Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % VIBHU BAKHRU, J ORDER1201.2017 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act), inter alia, praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties. The respondent No.1, Northern Railway, had invited tenders for 2. execution of interior and exterior walls finish and floor finishing works in station building including Construction of 90-bed dormitory accommodation at first floor and construction of 20-bed running room complex including related ancillary works at the proposed Katra Station on UHP-Katra section.3. The petition...
M/S Rajan Electricals Private Limited vs.ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
$~17 * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA7672016 & CM360012016 M/S RAJAN ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED..... Appellant Through : None. versus ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR Through : None. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % The appeal was passed over on the first call as none was present for ORDER1201.2017 the appellant. Position remains the same on the second call.2. 3. On the last date of hearing also, none had appeared for the appellant. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed in default and for non- prosecution, along with the pending application. JANUARY12 2017 sk HIMA KOHLI, J...
Spml Infra Limited vs.ntpc Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 394/2016 & IA No.396/2017 $~ * + SPML INFRA LIMITED ........ Petitioner NTPC LIMITED Through: Mr. Prateek Jalan, Mr. Rakesh Sinha, Mr. Samrat Sengupta, Mr. Ankit Yadav & Mr. Rahul Kripalani, Advocates. versus Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sangal, Ms. Vernika Tomar, Mr. Kapish Seth, Ms. Anindita Deka & Ms. Deepika Kalia, Advocates. ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR % 1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, ORDER1201.2017 1996 (Act), filed by M/s. SPML Infra Limited (SPML) seeking to restrain the Respondent/National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) from invoking and encashing four Bank Guarantees (BGs) one being a Performance BG, one against mobilisation advance and two against security deposits, all issued by Canara Bank.2. An interim order was passed by this Court on 4th October, 2016 directing NTPC to maintain status quo. That interim order ha...
Ravinder Kaur Maidh vs.guru Harkishan Public School & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.11314/2015 11th January, 2017 RAVINDER KAUR MAIDH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Goshwami, Advocate with Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate. GURU HARKISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS versus Through: Mr. Srivats Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate with Mr. Raghvendra Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.4. 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 petitioner who superannuated from the respondent no.1/school on 31.12.2013 seeks the relief of being granted monetary benefits including the terminal benefits by applying the 6th Pay Commission Report and which became applicable to the schools by virtue of the order of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.2. The writ petition is within the limitation of three years because the writ petition is file...
Directorate of Education & Anr vs.mr. Karam Vir Singh Rangi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.15226/2004 11th January, 2017 Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate. ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR MR. KARAM VIR SINGH RANGI & ORS. Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA versus To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners, including petitioner No.1/Directorate of Education impugns the order of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities dated 2.7.2003 by which the Commissioner of Disabilities has passed various directions against the present petitioners. Directions were passed against the present petitioners in view of a complaint filed by six complainants before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and which persons have been arrayed as respondent nos. 1 to 6 in this petition. W.P.(C) No.15226/2004 Page 1 of 5 2. The operative pa...
Ritu Gulati vs.delh Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
#14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * + W.P.(C) 9383/2014 & CM APPL. 21209/2014 RITU GULATI ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sahiba Pantel, Advocate % versus DELH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel ..... Respondent Date of Decision :11. h January, 2017. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 4211/2013. The prayer clause of the said writ petition is reproduced herienbelow:-"a. b. A Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case for perusal; A Writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by DDA communicated vide letter dated 22.01.2013 whereby the representation of the petitioner for restoration of allotment of the plot No.455 Pocket-2, Block-C, Sector 32, Rohini or any similarly placed plot has been rejected without any valid W.P.(C) 9383/2014 Page 1 of 5 c. d. e. reason for ground in violation of the rules Regu...
Mahender Chauhan vs.the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 4863/2016 Date of Hearing & Order: January 11th, 2017 MAHENDER CHAUHAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Kumar Sushobhan, Adv. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.M.S. Oberoi, APP with SI Alok Bjapai, PS Kashmere Gate. Respondent no.2 in person with Mr.Sanjeev Sarkar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Mahendra Chauhan for quashing of FIR No.330/2013 Section 323/354/354A/354D/356/379/411 IPC registered at Police Station Kashmere Gate on the basis of the settlement deed executed between petitioner and respondent no.2 namely, Smt. Naina after an amicable settlement.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 20.11.2013, for respondent-State dated under Crl.M.C. 4863/2016 Page 1 of 7 submitted that the respondent No.2 present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informan...
Rajender Singh @ Monu vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2017
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:17. h October, 2016 Decided on:11. h January, 2017 CRL.A. 866/2012 RAJENDER SINGH @ MONU ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. A.K. Dubey, Mr. Divyanshu Pratap, Advs. STATE CRL.A. 932/2012 VIJAY STATE versus Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with ASI Devender Kumar, PS Uttam Nagar. ..... Respondent ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Neelam Singh, Adv. versus Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with ASI Devender Kumar, PS Uttam Nagar. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By the common impugned judgment dated May 18, 2012 Rajender Singh, Naresh and Vijay have been held guilty for offence punishable under Sections 3IPC besides Rajender Singh was also held guilty for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated May 25, 2012 Rajender Singh has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years besides imposing a fine of `10,000/- in default whereof...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Next ›
- Last »