Delhi Court October 2017 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2017 Page 33 of about 590 results (0.021 seconds)Deutsche Trustee Company Ltd vs.tulip Telecom Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h September, 2017 Pronounced on:17. h October, 2017 CO.PET. 329/2013, CA Nos.36/2016, 419/2016, 931/2016, 1622/2016, 2119/2016, 2421/2016, 2423/2016, 3733-3735/2016, 4075/2016, 1071/2017, 1456/2017, OLR Nos. 134/2016, 220/2016, 254/2016, 160/2017 1065/2017, 4623/2016, 38/2017, DEUTSCHE TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.L.K. Bhushan, and Ms.Raashi Beri, Advocates. versus TULIP TELECOM LTD. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Ms.Diya Kapur, Mr.Rishabh ex- for for for Singh, service Jain Advocate Sharma, Advocate management. Mr.Harpreet Senior Advocate with Ms.Namrata Bharti, advocate tax department. Ms.Nidhi respondent no.2. Ms.Usha Singh advocate in CA No.1071/2017. Mr.Anil K Batra, Mr.Lakhi Singh, Advocate in CA No.419/2016. Mr.John Mathew, Advocate in CA No.1456/2017. Mr.Sahil, Advocate for Bank of Baroda. Mr.Vipin Jai, Advocate for PNB. Mr.Avnnish Kumar, Advocate for Andhra Bank. CO.PET. No.329/2013 Page 1...
Tag this Judgment!Roma Henny Security Service Private Limited vs.commissioner of Service ...
Court: Delhi
$~2 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SERTA32017 & CM19834of 2017 ROMA HENNY SECURITY SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED Through: Mr. J.K. Mittal with Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocates. ..... Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH % ORDER1710.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. This is an appeal by the Assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (FA) challenging an order dated 2nd March 2017 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).2. Admit. The following substantial questions of law are framed for consideration: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 2nd March 2017 passed by the CESTAT is perverse and SERTA32017 Page 1 of 13 without application of mind?. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of th...
Tag this Judgment!Riviera Apts., o.c.h.s. Ltd vs.sanjay Chiripal and Ors
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9165/2017 & C.M. Nos. 37481-82/2017 RIVIERA APTS., O.C.H.S. LTD., Through: Mr. Harish Pandey, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus SANJAY CHIRIPAL AND ORS. Through: None. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA % ORDER1710.2017 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an interim order dated 14.9.2017, passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal, on an application filed by the respondent No.2/Bank alongwith its appeal assailing an award dated 25.2.2017, passed in an arbitration case filed by the respondent No.1 herein.2. After addressing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition while reserving the right of his client to approach the court if aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2/Bank. He requests that the Tribunal be directed to dispose of the pending appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Satish Kumar vs.smt. Kusum
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SH. SATISH KUMAR SMT. KUSUM RSA No.247/2017 17th October, 2017 ..... Appellant Mr. N.K. Singh, Advocate. Through: versus Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Rai, ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Advocate. To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 31.3.2017 and the First Appellate Court dated 7.9.2017; by which the courts below have decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant with respect to one shop in property bearing no.487/38, National Market, Peera Garhi, Delhi. RSA No.247/2017 Page 1 of 5 2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff are that the suit property was owned by her late husband Sh. Khem Cha...
Tag this Judgment!Ahluwalia Contract (India) Limited vs.the Union of India
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. 07.2017 Pronounced on:17. 10.2017 FAO (OS) (COMM) 143/2017, C.M. APPL.25112/2017 AHLUWALIA CONTRACT (INDIA) LIMITED ..... Appellant Through : Sh. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Sh. S.K. Maniktala and Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. versus THE UNION OF INDIA... RESPONDENTS ..... Through : Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. Ahluwalia Contract (India) Ltd (the appellant, hereafter Ahluwalia) appeals the decision of a learned Single Judge, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (the Act), declining to set aside the award of an arbitral tribunal, under Section 34.2. The facts are that Ahluwalia was awarded the contract for 'Package III, Electrical Services at AIIMS, Raipur entered into on 11.08.2011 FAO (OS) (COMM) 143/2017 Page 1 of 7 (hereafter 'the Agreement') after it successfully bid in a tender process floated by t...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam R Morarka vs.union of India and Anr
Court: Delhi
$~9 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C)No.10867/2016 GAUTAM R MORARKA Date of decision :17. h October, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Pravin H. Parekh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sumit Goel, Ms. Ritika Sethi and Ms. Rashi Gupta, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Ms. Sanjna Dua and Ms. Alinda Bhdwal, Advs. for R- 1&2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 The petitioner contends that song Vande Mataram has been given a equal status as the Jana Gana Mana by the Constituent Assembly of India which met to sign the Constitution on the 24th of January 1950. It is submitted before us by Mr. Pravin H. Parekh, ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner that even the Constituent Assembly acknowledged that the song Vande Mataram had played a historic part in the struggle for Indias freedom movement and has to be honoured equally as t...
Tag this Judgment!Microsoft Corporation & Anr vs.rajesh Kumar & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:27. h September, 2017 Pronounced on:17. h October, 2017 CS(COMM) 444/2016 & IA No.14114/2014 MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR Through : Ms.Sajia Said, Adv. ..... Plaintiffs versus RAJESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Defendants Through : Mr.Rakesh Kumar and Mr.Anil CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA Kumar Sahu, Advs. YOGESH KHANNA, J.IA No.5518/2016 1. This application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is moved by the defendants. It is alleged that in the entire plaint there is no averment of plaintiffs copyright violation within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and rather per averments made in the plaint, the cause of action has arisen only at Gurugram, Haryana and in Hyderabad, Telangana at which places the plaintiffs have their offices and are also carrying its business, therefore, it is alleged this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit and the plaint be returned. IA No.5518/2016 in CS(COMM) No.444/2016 Page...
Tag this Judgment!The Singer Company Limitd s.a.r..l. And Anr. Vs.ms. Anshu Singh
Court: Delhi
$~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 1584/2016 THE SINGER COMPANY LIMITD S.A.R..L. AND ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Advocate with Mr. Yatin Grover, Advocate. versus ..... Defendant MS. ANSHU SINGH Through: None. Date of Decision:17. h October, 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) I.A. 11105/2017 1. Present application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC.2. It is pertinent to mention that the present suit has been filed for permanent injunction, infringement of trade mark, account of profits and declaration. The prayer clause in the present suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-"(a) A decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant, her franchisees, servants, agents, successors, licencees, CS (COMM) 1584/2016 Page 1 of 8 3. the from using representatives, assignees and any one acting for and / or on her behalf trade name SINGER AGENCIES and / or any other trade name / trade mark i...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs.nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2918/2017 MANISH KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Kunal Malik, Advocate. versus NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Kamna Vohra, ASC for the State with SI Virender Kumar, PS K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi. Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ORDER1710.2017 1. Notice. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, who appears on an advance copy having been served, accepts notice.2. Respondent No.2 appears in person. She is being represented by her counsel. She is duly identified by IO SI Virender Kumar.3. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.PC) for quashing of the FIR bearing No.0013/2017, registered against them on 09.01.2017 with Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, Rohini Delhi, under Sections 498A/4IPC on the complaint of res...
Tag this Judgment!Dayawati vs.yogesh Kumar Gosain
Court: Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CRL.REF.No.1/2016 Reserved on :28. h February 2017 Date of decision :17. h October 2017 DAYAWATI Through: Mr. Gautam Pal, Adv. for the ........ Petitioner versus complainant YOGESH KUMAR GOSAIN ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Adv. for the respondent Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Veena Ralli alongwith Mr. Ravin Kapur and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advs. as Amici Curiae. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 The legal permissibility of referring a complaint cases under Section 138 of the NI Act for amicable settlement through mediation; procedure to be followed upon settlement and the legal implications of breach of the mediation settlement is the subject matter of this judgment. Shri Bharat Chugh, as the concerned Metropolitan Crl.Ref.No.1/2016 Page 1 of 89 Magistrate (NI Act) Central - 01/THC/ Delhi, when seized of Complaint Case Nos.519662/2016 and 5...
Tag this Judgment!