Delhi Court October 2017 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2017 Page 35 of about 590 results (0.019 seconds)d.d.pradhan & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs.umak Educational Trust
Court: Delhi
$~OS-7 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 224/2017 Date of decision:16. 10.2017 D.D.PRADHAN & CO. PVT. LTD ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Vikram Kumar and Ms.Poonam Kumar, Advs. versus UMAK EDUCATIONAL TRUST ..... Respondent Through Mr.Pradeep Aggarwal and Mr.Deep Dhamija, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.2. Some of the basic facts are that the parties entered into an agreement on 07.11.2011 whereby the petitioner was to carry out the work of plumbing and fire fighting equipment etc. for the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that there is an outstanding of Rs.91,63,443.50/- unpaid. The petitioner through its advocate issued a notice invoking the arbitration clause on 04.01.2017. As no steps were taken by the respondent, the present petition has been filed.3. 4. I ...
Tag this Judgment!Japan Singh vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 9005/2015 JAPAN SINGH ........ Petitioner Date of decision:16. h October, 2017 Through: Mr.Bharat Bhushan and Mr.Anish Kulshrestha, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA SANJIV KHANNA, J.(Oral) The petitioner is Ex-Head Constable who was charge sheeted under the Border Security Force Act for deserting service between 14.12.2006 and 03.09.2008 and for doing an act with intent to cause wrongful gain for self.2. The petitioner vide order dated 28.12.2008, which has not been placed on record, after trial in the Summary Security Force Code, was WP(C) 9005/2015 Page 1 dismissed from service.3. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 24.08.2009. This order records that the offence of overstay for very long duration of 628 days was with the ulterior motive to avoid trial on the serious offen...
Tag this Judgment!Bimla Sharma and Ors vs.punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
$~4. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9525/2016 1. BIMLA SHARMA AND ORS ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Thareja, Advocate PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA % The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2016 ORDER1610.2017 passed by the DRAT, dismissing an appeal filed by them (Appeal No.327/2016) against the order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the DRT, whereby their S.A. was dismissed.2. Initially, vide order dated 02.09.2016, the DRAT had issued notice on the waiver application and the condonation of delay application filed by the petitioners alongwith their appeal, returnable on 20.09.2016. After considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the petitioner No.1 had approached the respondent/Bank for getting education loans...
Tag this Judgment!M/S the New India Assurance Co Ltd vs.rekha & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~ 3 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :16th October, 2017 CM(M) 141/2015 M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.D.D.Singh and Mr.Navdeep Singh, Advs. versus REKHA & ORS Through: Mr.S.N.Parashar, Adv. for R-1 ........ RESPONDENTS to R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petition at hand challenges the order dated 19.12.2014 of the Tribunal in the course of the proceedings arising out of the accident claim (Suit No.173/2012) instituted by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (claimants) whereby the request of the petitioner (insurance company) to examine the driver of the insured vehicle, a party to the claim proceedings, as a witness was rejected, after it having been permitted by order dated 12.11.2013 to raise the defences under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.2. The ground on which the tribunal rejected the request for examination of the driver of the insured vehicle as a witness was that he could not be forced to...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Bahadur & Ors vs.surender Singh & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~ 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :16. h October, 2017 + MAC.APP. 322/2012 DEV BAHADUR & ORS ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Lakshmi Gurang, Ms. Easha Kadian and Mr. Yuvan Gandhi, Advs. versus SURENDER SINGH & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Rishabh Tetly, Adv. for Mr.Sanjay Ghose, Adv. for R-2 and R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. Puran Singh, a bachelor, then aged about 22 years, having completed his school education and pursuing a course leading to degree of Bachelor of Arts, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 21.10.2006 involving negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.DL-IGB-5895 of the second and third respondent (Fire Brigade service) and died in the consequence. The first and second respondent being his parents (collectively, the claimants), instituted accident claim case (Suit No.62/06/2011) on 11.12.2006, impleading the second respondent and its employee along with the driver of the tru...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Motwani & Anr. Vs.mcd & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.243/2017 + % RAJENDRA MOTWANI & ANR. 16th October, 2017 ..... Appellants Through: Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Uchit Bhandari, Advocate and Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Advocate. versus MCD & ORS. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ........ RESPONDENTS To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.37263/2017 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RSA No.243/2017 2. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 18.5.2016 and the First Appellate Court dated 6.7.2017; by which the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for RSA No.243/2017 Page 1 of 10 restraining the defendant nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7(contesting defendants) from raising any illegal construction in their property No.A-I/32, J...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sheikh Bilal Bashir vs.delhi Medical Council & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2976/2015 DR. SHEIKH BILAL BASHIR ........ Petitioner Through Mr Ravi Kant Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate. versus DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL & ANR. Through Mr Praveen Khattar, Advocate for DMC with Sh L.D.S. Uppal, Asstt. Secretary, DMC. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1610.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J CM306152017 1. The present application (CM No.30615/2017) has been filed, inter alia, praying that the arguments be heard and the petition be disposed of expeditiously. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and with the consent of the parties, the petition (W.P.(C) 2976/2015) is taken up for hearing. W.P.(C) 2976/2015 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a communication dated 16.02.2015 issued by the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) rejecting the petitioners representation and holding that the W.P. (C) 2976/2015 Page 1 of 9 pe...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Raj Limited vs.raghunath Builders pvt.ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:16. 10.2017 O.M.P. (COMM) 368/2017 ANANT RAJ LIMITED RAGHUNATH BUILDERS PVT.LTD. versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Ms Rekha Dwivedi, Advocates. : Mr. S.C. Ladi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Deeksha L. Kakar, Mr. R.K. Alagh, Mr. Vinod Jain and Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocates. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1610.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (Oral) CAV.893/2017 Since learned counsel for the respondent/caveator enters appearance, the caveat stands discharged. IA No.11925/ 2017(exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. O.M.P. (COMM) 368/2017 Page 1 of 22 O.M.P. (COMM) 368/2017 & IA No.11924/2017(stay) 1. The petitioner, by this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeks setting aside of Award dated 09.09.2...
Tag this Judgment!Shayam Sunder vs.kotak Securities Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SHAYAM SUNDER FAO No.399/2017 16th October, 2017 Through: Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. Appl. No.37308/2017 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. FAO No.399/2017 1. This first appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) impugns the judgment of the court below dated 18.7.2017 which has dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act. Objections have been dismissed not only on the ground that they were time barred but also on merits. FAO No.399/2017 Page 1 of 6 2. In my opinion, once the objections are filed beyond limitation, then the Court cannot go into the merits of the matter and objections which are time barred...
Tag this Judgment!Kmp Expressways Limited vs.idbi Bank Limited & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~37-38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:16. 10.2017 ARB. A. (COMM.) 41/2017 KMP EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED versus IDBI BANK LIMITED & ANR. And + O.M.P. (COMM) 367/2017 KMP EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED Versus ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner IDBI BANK LIMITED & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in the matters For the Appellant/Petitioner : Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr Saket Sikri, Mr For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr Aman Vivek, AAG with Mr A.P.Singh and Mr Deepak Tyagi and Mr Aman Aggarwal, Advocates for HSIIDC. Kishore Kumar and Mr Vikalp Mudgal. Mr Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Mr Raunak Dhillon, Mr George Verghese Ms Ananya Choudhury and Mr Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Advocates for R-1. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1610.2017 Arb.A(Comm) 41/2017 & OMP(COMM) 367/2017 Page 1 of 22 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Cav.889/2017 in O.M.P(COMM) 367/2017 Since learned counsel for the respondent/caveator en...
Tag this Judgment!