Delhi Court October 2017 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2017 Page 26 of about 590 results (0.010 seconds)Court on Its Own Motion vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~3 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.REF. 1/2017 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr.Trideep Pais, Mr.Akhand Pratap, Mr.Sanjeevi and Ms.Aakashi Lodha, Advs. STATE versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for State with Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for State CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA ORDER2410.2017 % Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. The present reference to this Court under Section 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC) was made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by an order dated 1st March, 2017. The order making the reference is in two parts. In the first part, the learned MM inter alia has noted as under: On factual score, the counsel wanted to project his defence theory to suggest that no case was made out. This apparently cannot be appreciated at the investigation stage. Prima facie, I am satisfied that the...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sarjit Singh Awla vs.mr. Kuldeep Singh Awla
Court: Delhi
$~OS-3 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 574/2014 Dr. SARJIT SINGH AWLA Date of Decision:24. 10.2017 ..... Plaintiff Mr. KULDEEP SINGH AWLA Through Mr.Arjun Singh Bhati, Mr. Kshitij Kumar and Mr.Abhishek Bansal, Advs. versus ..... Defendant Through Mr. Ashim Vachher and Mr.Sumit, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) IA82882016 1. This application is filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and damages against the defendant in respect of the suit property being D-44, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi.2. Some of the admitted facts are that the property was owned by the mother who executed a will on 07.05.1993. The mother expired on 05.11.1993. By virtue of the Will of the mother, the plaintiff states that he is legatee of the first floor and also has exclusive rights in respect of Barsati and a garage. Further, as per the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited vs.new Okhla Industrial Development ...
Court: Delhi
$~31 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P.449/2017 Date of decision :24. h October, 2017 NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Lynn Perera and Mr.Chaitanya Kaushik, Advs. versus NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) This is a petition under Section 11(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the said Act) seeking direction for appointment of an arbitrator by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, the respondents herein. The parties had entered into a Concession Agreement dated 12.11.1997 with respect to the Delhi-Noida Bridge Project. Clause 26.1 of the said agreement provides that in the event of any dispute, controversy or claim arising ARB.P4492017 Page 1 between the parties in connection with the said agreement, the same shall be settled by a panel of arbitrators i...
Tag this Judgment!Pramila Sahu & Ors. Vs.madiya Dangi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:24. h October, 2017 + MACA APP6412016 PRAMILA SAHU & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. C.M Patel, Adv. versus MADIYA DANGI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. On 30th May, 2012, an accident took place in village Vaishali within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Dahej of district Bharuch, Gujarat which became the subject matter of the investigation of the First Information Report (FIR) No.43/2012 under sections 279 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It is stated that the accident involved two motor vehicles, one described as a truck bearing registration No.GJ06VV8574(the truck) and the other a dumper make Ashoka Leyland bearing registration No.GJ06TT5608(the dumper). It is alleged that it was the driver of the truck who was guilty of negligence, his vehicle having collided against the stationary dumper, this resulting in injuries being suffere...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Giri vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 256/2017 Order reserved on :15. h September, 2017 Order pronounced on :24. h October, 2017 SANTOSH GIRI ..Petitioner Through: Mr. Aklank Jain, Advocate. STATE Versus ..Respondent Through : Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with W/SI Ekta from PS Nangloi. Mr. Zakir Husain, Advocate for victim/complainant. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL1 By way of the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No.787/2014 under Sections 376/323/506/34/354/354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO') registered at P.S Nangloi, Delhi. The petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody since 21.03.2016. Status report is on record.2. It is the case of the complainant tha...
Tag this Judgment!Jeet Singh & Ors vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:24. h October, 2017 + W.P. (C.) No.11538/2015 JEET SINGH & ORS Through versus CORAM: UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through ........ Petitioners None. ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Mr. Anshuman Nayak, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for LAC/L&B. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. None is present on behalf of the petitioners despite the matter being passed over once and called a second time.2.... Petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other direction to quash the impugned award No.30/1911-1912 of village Malcha, New Delhi and notification No.775 dated 21.12.1911 issued under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. W.P...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co Ltd vs.inder Kumar Jha & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~5 & 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:24. h October, 2017 + MAC.APP. 1034/2016 and CM452912016 & 22943/2017 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arihant Jain for Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate versus INDER KUMAR JHA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R-1 & 2 Mr. Prashant Kumar for Mr. M.M. Singh, Adv. for R-3 & 4 + MAC.APP. 571/2017 INDER KUMAR JHA & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Arihant Jain for Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MACA NOs.10& 571/2017 Page 1 of 6 JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Pinki Jha, an unmarried girl, aged 19 years, then pursuing the course leading to the degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) in the first year, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 28.10.2014 and died in the consequence. Her parents (appellants in MACA5712017) inst...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Chand Thakur vs.oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-352 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:24. h October, 2017 + MAC APPEAL No.521/2011 DEV CHAND THAKUR ..... Appellant Through: None. versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. Through: Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma, Adv. ........ RESPONDENTS for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 22.07.2009 due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as DL1 0148 admittedly insured against third party risk with the first respondent (insurer) for the period in question. On his accident claim case (suit No.500/2009), by judgment dated 28.02.2011, the tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs. 1,23,351/-, fastening the liability on the insurer to pay.2. The appeal seeking enhancement was brought on the ground that the loss of income for seven months should have been compensated as the claimant had remained under treatment for such period. The tribunal has calculate...
Tag this Judgment!Shefali Varma vs.meenakshi Varma & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on:12. h October, 2017 Pronounced on:24. h October, 2017 + CS(OS) 1781/2014 & CCP (O) No.149/2014, IA Nos.11156- 57/2014, 11159/2014, 11490/2014, 11492/2014, 11566/2014, 11568/2014, 11570/2014, 13471/2014, 13791/2014, 17342/2014, 18301/2014, 18890/2014, 5174/2015, 13184/2015, 16153/2015, 19601/2015, 7533/2016, 7644/2016, 13231/2016, 3852/2017, 8145/2017 SHEFALI VARMA ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr.Sacchin Puri, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Namitha Mathews, Adv. MEENAKSHI VARMA & ORS versus ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with and Mr.Mohit Mr.B.Shekhar Sharma, Adv. Mr.Gautam Gupta, Adv. applicant in IA No.5174/2015 Mr.Rishabh Sharma, Adv. in IA No.18890/2014 for CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.IA Nos.13066/2016, 5748/2017, 9530/2017 1. This order be read in continuation of the orders dated 26th May, 2017 and 31st May, 2017 whereby the defendants No.1 and 2 were required to complete certain formalitie...
Tag this Judgment!Romesh Kumar vs.rakesh Kumar & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % ROMESH KUMAR RFA No.888/2017 24th October, 2017 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate. versus RAKESH KUMAR & ANR. ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.37694/2017 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.37692/2017 (for condonation of delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 83 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.888/2017 and C.M. No.37693/2017 (stay) 3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit RFA No.888/2017 Page 1 of 14 impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 28.1.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for possession filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff. The suit property is one room with attached latrine bathroom and ...
Tag this Judgment!