Delhi Court October 2017 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2017 Page 40 of about 590 results (0.018 seconds)Sarifan Bano & Ors. Vs.gurdeep Singh & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-331 to 334 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:13. h October, 2017 + MAC APPEAL No.408/2011 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv. versus GURDEEP SINGH & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R- 1 & 2. + MAC APPEAL No.411/2011 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv. versus GURDEEP SINGH & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R- 1 & 2. Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R- 3, 5, 6 & 7. + MAC APPEAL No.423/2011 SARIFAN BANO & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. versus GURDEEP SINGH & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv. for R-3. MAC Appeal No.4& conn. Page 1 of 7 + MAC APPEAL No.427/2013 GURDEEP SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. On 26.03....
Tag this Judgment!Sunita & Ors. Vs.deepak & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~R-328 & 329 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC APPEAL3912011 Decided on:13. h October, 2017 SUNITA & ORS. Through: None versus DEEPAK & ANR. ..... Appellants ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Adv. for R-1 with R-2 in person + MAC APPEAL4442011 DEEPAK ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Adv. versus RAJINDER SINGH THROUGH LRs. & ANR. Through: None ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Indisputably, a motor vehicular accident occurred on 10.02.2005 at 7.40 p.m. in the area of Ghuman Hera Road, leading to Najafgarh involving motor cycle bearing registration no.DL-3SX- 2808 (motorcycle), on the one hand, and two wheeler scooter bearing registration no.DL-9SD-3183 (scooter), on the other. It is admitted MAC Appeal No.391/2011 & 444/2011 Page 1 of 10 case on both sides that the motor cycle was driven at the relevant point of time by Rajinder Singh and the scooter by Deepak. It has come in the pleadings, and the e...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Rajput vs.susheela Devi Saini & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SUNITA RAJPUT RFA No.862/2017 13th October, 2017 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. D.K. Mehta and Mr. Rishabh Mehta, Advocates. versus SUSHEELA DEVI SAINI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 8.8.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for partition filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the property D-16, Green Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property).2. The facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff pleaded that the suit property was no doubt purchased by the sale deed dated 7.12.1959 in the name of defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the suit, but actually RFA No.862/2017 Page 1 of 10 this property was owned by the father Sh. Waryam Singh because ...
Tag this Judgment!Hero Fincorp Limited vs.care Clinic & Others
Court: Delhi
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 218/2017 Judgment delivered on:13. 10.2017 HERO FINCORP LIMITED versus CARE CLINIC & OTHERS Advocates who appeared in this case: ........... Petitioner ..Respondents For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : Ms Astha : Mr Girish Ananth Murthy and Mr Harish S.R., Advocates. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1310.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. By order dated 30.05.2017, respondents were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the property situated at Sy. No.116/3, situated at Byrathi Village, Bidranahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore Urban Hobli, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, measuring 30 guntas.2. Learned counsels for the parties inform that the arbitration proceedings are at final stage and are listed before the Tribunal for O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 218/2017 Page 1 of 2 final arguments today.3. It is accordingly directed that interim order dated 30.05.2017 shall continue until...
Tag this Judgment!u.p. State Road Transport Corporation vs.mamta Devi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-324 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:13. h October, 2017 + MAC APPEAL3722011 and CM85782011 U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION .... Appellant Through: Ms. Garima Prashad and Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocates versus MAMTA DEVI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant is the owner of the bus bearing registration no.UP-81R-9018, the negligent driving of which statedly resulted in a motor vehicular accident on 20.04.2008 causing the death of Kripal Singh giving rise to the cause of action in favour of the first to fifth respondents (collectively, the claimants) to seek compensation through accident claim case (MACT4902010) instituted on 04.07.2008. Concededly, the bus was driven at the relevant point of time by Chahat Khan, an employee of the appellant engaged as a driver.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), after inquiry, by judgment dated 27.11.2010, returned a finding that the acciden...
Tag this Judgment!Dheeraj Kumar & Ors. Vs.the State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi ) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1687/2017 1.2. DHEERAJ KUMAR & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr.V.K. Sharma, Advocate along with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR....... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Avi Singh, ASC for the State along with Ms. Megha Bahl, Advocate with SI Dalbir Singh, PS Farsh Bazar, Delhi. Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ORDER1310.2017 Status report has already been filed. Respondent No.2 appears in person. She is duly identified by IO SI Dalbir Singh.3. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 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.394/2016, registered against them on 28.09.2016 with Police Station Farsh Bazar, East District, Delhi, under Sections 498A/4IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2.4. The marriage of the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchan Babbar and Ors. Vs.state and Anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.387/2017 + % KANCHAN BABBAR AND ORS. Reserved on:10. h October, 2017 Pronounced on:13. h October, 2017 ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Advocate. Versus ........ RESPONDENTS STATE AND ANR. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) FAO No.387/2017 and C.M. No.36356/2017 (stay) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 impugning the judgment of the probate court below dated 1.2.2017 which has allowed the petition and has granted probate with respect to the Will dated 23.9.1997 executed by the deceased testator Ex.MWO Nand Lal Surma with respect to his property being industrial plot no.38A, Functional Industrial Estate of Electronics, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase II, New Delhi. By this Will FAO No.387/2017 Page 1 of 22 the subject property was bequeathed in favour of the respondent no.2 herein, the son of the deceased ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.gurdeep Singh & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-331 to 334 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:13. h October, 2017 + MAC APPEAL No.408/2011 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv. versus GURDEEP SINGH & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R- 1 & 2. + MAC APPEAL No.411/2011 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv. versus GURDEEP SINGH & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R- 1 & 2. Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R- 3, 5, 6 & 7. + MAC APPEAL No.423/2011 SARIFAN BANO & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. versus GURDEEP SINGH & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv. for R-3. MAC Appeal No.4& conn. Page 1 of 7 + MAC APPEAL No.427/2013 GURDEEP SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. On 26.03....
Tag this Judgment!Anand Rawat vs.lalit Singh Negi
Court: Delhi
$~3. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 176/2017 and CM APPL. 36757-36758/2017 ANAND RAWAT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate versus LALIT SINGH NEGI Through: None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA % ORDER1310.2017 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, brother of Smt. Bharti Negi, who happens to be the wife of the respondent praying inter alia for setting aside an order dated 12.09.2017, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, dismissing an application filed by him under Section 114 read with Section 151 CPC, for recall of the order dated 23.05.2017.2. Mr. Nandwani, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is the brother of Smt. Bharti Negi. The respondent herein, who is the appellants brother-in-law, has filed a petition for seeking dissolution of marriage against his wife. The marriage of the aforesaid parties was solemnised at Mehrauli, D...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Sons Ltd. & Anr. Vs.lokesh Sharma & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:13. h October, 2017 CS(OS) 344/2010 TATA SONS LTD. & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Represented by: Mr. Karan Kamra, Advocate. versus Represented by: None LOKESH SHARMA & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA .....Defendants MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. In the present suit plaintiffs pray for the following reliefs: i. ii. to An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in services of any description baring the trademarks of the Plaintiffs collectively known as TATA house marks and/or any mark/s /logo/trade name deceptively similar the Plaintiffs registered trademarks, amounting to infringing of the registered trade marks of the Plaintiffs including but not limited to registration No.838432 in class 16, No.1247045 in Class 35, No.1247046 in Class 36, No.163227...
Tag this Judgment!