Delhi Court October 2017 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2017 Page 52 of about 590 results (0.008 seconds)M/S Contract Advertising India Ltd. Vs.m/s Ajanta Offset & Packagings ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.456/2005 + % M/S CONTRACT ADVERTISING INDIA LTD. ..... Appellant 10th October, 2017 Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Adv. Through: versus M/S AJANTA OFFSET & PACKAGINGS LTD. & ANR. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ........ RESPONDENTS To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no.2 in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 10.3.2005 whereby the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent no.1/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,57,021/- along with interest at 21% per annum. The suit was decreed against the two defendants with the appellant being the defendant no.2 and the respondent no.2 being the defendant no.1. Both the defendants in the suit i.e appellant/defendant RFA No.456/2005 Page 1 of 8 no.2 and the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 have been held jointly and severally liable to pay t...
Tag this Judgment!Raminder Sarup Singh Decd Thru Lrs vs.govinder Singh
Court: Delhi
$~21 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO(OS) 468/2010 RAMINDER SARUP SINGH DECD THRU LRS ..... Appellant Through: Mr. I.S. Alag, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S. Lamba, Advocate. versus GOVINDER SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate with respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA % ORDER1010.2017 1. The appellant, one of the four successors-in-interest of Sardarni Raminder Sarup Singh, who was the plaintiff in CS(OS) 3403/1991, has filed the present appeal, being aggrieved by an order dated 7.5.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing an application that was originally filed by his mother, impugning a consent decree dated 25.11.1993, passed in CS(OS) 3403/1991.2. It is worthwhile to note that during the pendency of the aforesaid application (I.A. No.6903/1996), the mother had expired on 29.11.2005, leaving behind four legal heirs and the appellant was brought on record as her legal representativ...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram General Insurance. Co. Ltd vs.akbar Ali & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-306 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:10. h October, 2017 + MAC APPEAL No.167/2011 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE. CO. LTD ....Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. versus AKBAR ALI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The first respondent, then 23 years old, working as a manual labour, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 04.08.2008 due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as Mahindra Champion bearing registration No.DL1F7496 the injuries resulted in his left foot through ankle being amputated leaving him permanently disabled. On his accident claim case (suit 44/10/2008) instituted on 15.09.2008, the motor accident claims tribunal, by its judgment dated 21.12.2010, awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs. 21,01,002/-, directing the appellant insurance company to pay with interest @ 7.5% per annum, the appellant being the insurer against third party risk in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Zakaria vs.inamul Haque & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH CO URT O F DE L HI AT NEW DE LHI % Delivered on:10. h October, 2017 + W.P.(C) 9422/2015 & CM No.22021/2015 MOHD. ZAKARIA INAMUL HAQUE & ORS. Versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Singhal, Adv. For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Naushad Alam, Adv. with Respondent No.1 in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGEMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J1 The... Petitioner impugns the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal (under Maintenance & Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Respondent No.1 is the father of the... Petitioner and Respondent nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No.1 was the... Petitioner before the Maintenance Tribunal.3. By the impugned order dated 31.08.2015 the Maintenance Tribunal has directed as under: WP(C) 9422/2015 Page 1 of 181) 2)3) 4)5) That the relinquishment deed bearing registered No.20710 in book No.1 vol ...
Tag this Judgment!Data Deen vs.dirctorate of Education & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: October 10, 2017 DATA DEEN LPA2652017 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms. Rashmi Verma, Advocates versus DIRCTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satyakam, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 with Ms. Mukta Soni, DEO, Zone-14 Mr.Nipur Dwivedi, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The narrow controversy in this appeal pertains to the correctness of the learned Single Judges order dated 22.02.2017 declining to modify an earlier order in W.P. (C) 7732/2010. The writ petition had sought for an appropriate pay fixation consequent upon the petitioner/appellants promotion as Laboratory Assistant w.e.f. 01.02.2009. The writ petitioner had occasioned to approach this Court earlier in 2008, contending that he was unfairly denied regular promotion to the grade of Laboratory Assistant even though...
Tag this Judgment!Lalsa Prasad Singh vs.chanderwala & Anr
Court: Delhi
* + % LALSA PRASAD SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.852/2017 10th October, 2017 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bipin Kumar Jha, Advocate. versus CHANDERWALA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. Appl. Nos. 36273-74/2017 (for exemptions) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of. C.M. Appl. No.36275/2017 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. On receipt of certified copy of the judgment, the same be filed in this Court. The application stands disposed of. C.M. Appl. No.36272/2017 (for delay) This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 37 days in filing the appeal. RFA No.852/2017 Page 1 of 15 For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed and the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.852/2017 1. This Regular First Appeal under...
Tag this Judgment!Avdhesh vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:10. h October, 2017 + CRL.A. 700/2017 AVDHESH STATE CORAM: Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma alongwith ..... Appellant Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocates. Versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP alongwith SI Sachin, PS Narela. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 02.02.2017 by which the appellant Avdhesh has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). Challenge is also made to the order on sentence dated 07.02.2017 by which the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months...
Tag this Judgment!Kshitij Arora vs.government of Nct of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:10. h October, 2017 TEST.CAS. 44/2016 KSHITIJ ARORA Represented by: Ms. Manmeet Arora, Ms. Chand Chopra, Advs. ........ Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Pavitra Kaur, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present petition filed under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, the petitioner seeks grant of Letter of Administration in his favour in respect of the last Will of Late Shri C.K. Arora executed on 20th September, 2015.2. Briefly stated, Late Shri C.K. Arora passed away on 1st October, 2015. Late Shri C.K. Arora was married to Late Smt. Kiran Arora who predeceased her husband on 3rd April, 2003. From the said wedlock, two children namely, Sh. Sunil Arora (respondent No.2) and Dr. Atul Arora (respondent No.3) were born.3. Late Shri C.K. Arora executed his last Will and testament on 20th September, 2015 whereby he bequeath...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Malik vs.united India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-304 & 305 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:10. h October, 2017 + MAC APPEAL No.161/2011 RAJ KUMAR MALIK ..... Appellant Through: None. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya for Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv. for R-1. + MAC APPEAL No.162/2011 NISHA & ORS. Through: None. versus ..... Appellants UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya for Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. On 12.06.2006, a motor vehicular accident took place involving two vehicles, one Chevrolet Tavera (SUV) bearing registration No.DL1J4092and, the other, a bus of the Delhi Transport Corporation MAC Appeal No.161 & 162 of 2011 Page 1 of 6 (DTC) bearing registration No.DL PA3037 Several persons suffered injuries including Raj Kumar Malik and Rajiv Chopra, the latter having died. Ten accident claim cases came to be instituted on 19.07.2008 bef...
Tag this Judgment!The Govt. Of Nct of Delhi vs.malay Kumar Ghosal & Ors.
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:10. h October, 2017 CRL.L.P. 658/2016 and Crl.M.A.19585/2016 THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Through: Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP for State. versus WSI Anita, PS Paschim Vihar. ........ Petitioner $~8 * % + MALAY KUMAR GHOSAL & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.Nandini Sen, Adv. for... RESPONDENTS no.1, 2 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.19585/2016 (delay) 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of 130 days delay in filing this petition.2. At the outset, we may notice that vide order dated 30.03.2017, limited notice to show cause was issued to the respondents as far as it relates to the charge under Section 498A IPC.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 3 to 8 of the application wherein reasons for the delay have been explained. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that...
Tag this Judgment!