Delhi Court October 2017 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2017 Page 38 of about 590 results (0.017 seconds)Rajeev Saumitra vs.neetu Singh
Court: Delhi
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 177/2017 and CM No.36759-36760/2017 RAJEEV SAUMITRA ..... Appellant Through: Mr Y.P. Narula, Sr. Advocate with Mr Murari Tiwari, Mr Rahul Kumar and Ms Tara Nareula, Advfs. versus NEETU SINGH Through: Ms Rajeshwari H. and Mr Sushobhan, Adv. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA % 1. ORDER1310.2017 The appellant/husband is aggrieved by an order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, dismissing an application filed by him under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, in a pending petition filed by him under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed against the respondent/wife.2. After addressing arguments at some length, Mr Narula, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, states, on instructions, that the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal, particularly since the petition is listed before the Family Court on 06.12.2017, for recordi...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Kumar Sarpal vs.the Govt of Nct of Delhi and Anr
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~86 * + W.P.(C) 5112/2017 ASHWANI KUMAR SARPAL ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr Sachin Jain, Advocate. THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel with Mr Sandeepa Pathak, Advocate for GNCT. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1310.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:-"a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents to recognize the treatment taken by the petitioner through acupuncture therapy as a permissible medical therapy and allow him to take such treatment from expert doctor even working in private hospital not on the panel of DGHS. b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents to reimburse all the medical expenses of the petitioner incurred on his treatment relating...
Tag this Judgment!V.k. Sharma vs.rajwati & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-325 to R-327 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:13. h October, 2017 + MAC APPEAL3842011 V.K. SHARMA .... Appellant Through: Mr. S.M. Suri, Advocate versus RAJWATI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya for Mr. + MAC APPEAL3882011 K.L. Nandwani, Advocate for R-8 V.K. SHARMA .... Appellant Through: Mr. S.M. Suri, Advocate versus UMA SHANKAR & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya for Mr. + MAC APPEAL3922011 K.L. Nandwani, Advocate for R-3 V.K. SHARMA .... Appellant Through: Mr. S.M. Suri, Advocate versus SUMAN SHARMA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya for Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate for R-3 MAC Appeal No.384/11, 388/11, 3Page 1 of 5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) On 10.07.2005, a motor vehicular accident took place involving 1. two vehicles, one being Maruti Van bearing registration no.DL-2CR- 9406 (van) and, the other, a stationary bus bearing registration no.DL- 1PB-3966 (bus) i...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India vs.meena Kumari and Anr
Court: Delhi
$~SB1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:13. h October, 2017 * % + W.P.(C) 6615/2014 UNION OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Satyendra Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Mool Office Superintendent. Chand, versus MEENA KUMARI AND ANR Through : Ms. Suman Kapoor, Adv. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) C.M. No.9320/2017 (Delay) 1. This is an application filed by the applicant seeking condonation of 112 days delay in filing the application (C.M. No.9319/2017) for recall of the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by this Court.2.3. Heard. Since there is no opposition to the present application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing C.M. No.9319/2017 is condoned.4. Application stands disposed of. C.M. No.9319/2017 5. This is an application filed by the review petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 21.09.2016 by which the review petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed for non-appearance.6. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumari vs.the State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
$~44 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BAIL APPLN. 682/2017 RAJKUMARI UPADHYAY ....Petitioner Through: Mr. J.K. Tripathi, Advocate. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State, PS- Inspector Ashok Kumar, Pulprahaldpur. Mr. Shiva Sambyal, Advocate for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL % ORDER1110.2017 1. By the present petition filed under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein referred as Cr.P.C), the petitioner/accused seeks Regular Bail in FIR No.5under Section 302/506/3of Indian Penal Code (herein referred as IPC), registered at Police Station Pul Prahaladpur.2. The brief and necessary facts of the case as per the FIR are that on the night of 05.12.2015 an information regarding the catching a thief vide DD No.5A was received at Police Station and same was handed over to HC Uttam Nagar. In the meanwhile another DD No.6A regarding scuffle was received at Police Station an...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita vs.sanjay Kumar
Court: Delhi
$~5. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 178/2017 and CM APPL. 36762-63/2017 1. SUNITA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shailender Dahiya, Advocate versus SANJAY KUMAR Through: None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA % The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife against an ORDER1310.2017 order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, dismissing her application for seeking review of an order dated 01.03.2017, whereby an earlier application filed by her under Section 151 CPC for permission to examine a witness (Shri Jitender), was dismissed.2. It is deemed necessary to briefly refer to the relevant sequence of events in the present case. The respondent/husband filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying inter alia for a decree of nullity of marriage against the appellant/wife. After the pleadings were completed, the parties had filed their respective list of witnesses. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bses Yamuna Power Limited vs.sh.ramesh Ladha
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on : October 13th, 2017 RFA672007 BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Manish Srivastava, Mr.Aditya and Trisal Gupta, Mr.Shagun Mr.Vikrant S.Chauhan, Advs. versus SH.RAMESH LADHA Through: Mr.Fanish K. Gahlaut, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI ..... Respondent Jain and Mr.Neeraj JUDGMENT P.S.TEJI, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellant/defendant.2. The facts enumerating from the record are that the respondent/ plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction for declaring the inspection report dated 02.06.2000 and subsequent reports and action of the defendant in not ...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs.neetu & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-330 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:13. h October, 2017 + MAC APPEAL No.395/2011 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth & Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, Advs. versus NEETU & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R- 1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. By its judgment dated 05.02.2011 in accident claim case (MAC54410/08) which was instituted on 13.10.2006 by the first to third respondents seeking compensation on account of death of Shyam Singh in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 02.10.2006 due to negligent driving of car bearing registration No.DL8K4030 the liability was fastened against the appellant insurance company (insurer), rejecting its plea that the cover note bearing No.772324 dated 29.09.2006 issued under the signatures of its agent Jatinder had been falsely manufactured due to collusion with the fourth respondent (the owner of the vehicle in question) by play...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corpration vs.vijay Kumar
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: October 13, 2017 LPA6552017 & CMs 36478-36483/2017 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPRATION Through: Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate ..... Appellant versus ..... Respondent Through: None VIJAY KUMAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge which affirms the Award under Section 33C (2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent-workman complained of denial of lawful wages, which had accrued to him for a one year period from September, 2012.2. In the proceedings before the Labour Court, the parties have led evidence. The workmaninitially engaged in 1986 as a Conductor with the appellant i.e. DTC, produced several documents including letters written to the Management from September, 2012 repeatedly asking it to take him back into employment or pay him wages. Apparently in 2008, the workman had complaine...
Tag this Judgment!Sun Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~65 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 8961/2017 SUN DISTRIBUTION SERVICES PVT. LTD ........ Petitioner Through Mr Abhishek Malhotra, Advocate with Mr Angad Dugal, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr Nivesh Sharma, Advocate for R1/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1310.2017 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J CM No.36652/2017 1.2. W.P.(C) 8961/2017& CM No.36651/2017 (stay) 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition assailing an order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (hereafter TDSAT), whereby the petitioners application for a decree on admissions made by All Digital Network India Ltd (hereafter ADNIL), (respondent no.2), was rejected. The petitioner had filed an application (MA. No.209/2016 in 4. Broadcasting Petition No.233/2015), inter alia, praying that an order be passed directing...
Tag this Judgment!