Delhi Court October 2017 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2017 Page 53 of about 590 results (0.021 seconds)Ram Nath Jha vs.director General of Police
Court: Delhi
$~12 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 3047/2017 & CM133562017 Date of decision:10. h October, 2017 RAM NATH JHA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Jitendra Kumar Jha, Ms.Aditya, Advs. versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ..... Respondent Through Ms.Barkha Babbar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA SANJIV KHANNA, J.(Oral) Ram Nath Jha has filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: (i) Direct the respondent to pay the entire pecuniary benefit with interest to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 08/072011 passed by this Honble Court in WP (C) No.1975/2011. (ii) Quash the letter of transfer dated 23/01/2017 and letter of rejection request dated 21/03/2017 with respect to the petitioner. WP(C) 3047/2017 Page 1 (iii) Direct the respondent authorities not to transfer the petitioner outside Delhi till his superannuation from his service that is January, 2020. (iv) Direct the respondent to treat the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Jagbir Singh vs.central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
* % + CRL.A.977/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI versus Reserved on:14. 09.2017 Delivered on:10. 10.2017 ..... Appellant JAGBIR SINGH CENTAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms.Kriti Mr. P.Vinay Kumar and Mr.B.K.Mishra. Handa and Mr.Vignaraj Pasayat. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR JUDGMENT ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J1 Jagbir Singh, the appellant has been convicted by judgment dated 05.08.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C.Act) and CBI-03, South-West District Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in CBI Case 5/2012 (RC No.S19 2006 E0005 for the offences under Sections 218 and 417 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act, 1988. By order dated 11.08.2015, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year, to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer SI for one month for the offence under Crl.A.977/2015 Page 1 of 24 Se...
Tag this Judgment!K S Sidhu vs.union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: October 10, 2017 Judgment reserved on: September 27, 2017 + W.P.(C) 3578/2016 K S SIDHU Through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Adv. with ........ Petitioner Versus Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Adv. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Bharathi Raju, CGSC for R-1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J CM No.40281/2016 (for delay) For the reasons stated in the application delay of 141 days in filing the counter- affidavit by respondent nos. 1 to 3 is condoned. The counter affidavit is taken on record. Application disposed of. W.P.(C) 3578/2016 1. This petition is yet another round of litigation by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-"The petitioner therefore humbly prays for a writ or order in the nature of a writ directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the entire amount Rs.7,06,214.57/- (Rupees Seven lakhs six thousand two hundred fourteen and paise fifty seven only) as ...
Tag this Judgment!Indwell Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs.rail Vikas Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON:14. 09.2017 PRONOUNCED ON:10. 10.2017 W.P.(C) 7622/2017, CM APPL.31523-31525/2017 INDWELL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ....... Petitioner Through: Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Mr. Ashwath Sitaraman, Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Mr. Ahmed Said and Mr. Suhail Rashit Bhat, Advocates. Versus RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Udit Seth, Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Advocates for respondent. Mr. Niraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.K. Srivastava, Mr. Vivekananda, Mr. Varun Sibal, Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr. Prateek Kumar, Mr. Snehal Kakrania and Ms. for Interveners. Jaggi, Advocates Shagun CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.Facts 1. The petitioner (described as Indwell) is engaged in construction business; it claims a direction to the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (hereafter RVNL or respondent) to consider W.P.(C)7622/2...
Tag this Judgment!Justice for All vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~16 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % JUSTICE FOR ALL ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Adv. W.P.(C)No.8870/2017 Date of decision :10. h October, 2017 versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Ramesh Singh, SC- GNCTD with Mr. Sandeepan Pathak, Adv. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, SC- NDMC for R-2 with Ms. Anushruti and Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar, Advs. Ms. Monika Arora, SC-SDMC with Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Adv. Mr. U.P. Singh for Mr. D.K. Devesh, Adv. for R-4/EDMC Ms. Puja Kalra, Adv. for R-5/NDMC CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) W.P.(C)No.8870/2017 Page 1 of 3 GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 This writ petition complains that by virtue of circulars dated 6th November, 2015 and 1st August, 2016, the respondents have restricted the rights of the School Management Committees (SMCs) in violation of the spirit, intendment and purpose of Section 21 of the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Edu...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar vs.alok Mishra & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:10. h October, 2017 + MAC APPEAL No.303/2009 SANTOSH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Popli, Adv. versus ALOK MISHRA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The accident claim case (Petition No.379/2006) instituted on 6.09.2006 by the appellant was initially filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but was converted into one seeking compensation on the principle of fault liability under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of the claimant (appellant). The inquiry resulted in the impugned judgment being passed on 09.03.2009 holding that the appellant had failed to prove the fault on the part of the first respondent, described as driver of Maruti car bearing No.DL-2CAA-9287. MAC Appeal No.303/2009 Page 1 of 3 2. The first and second respondents though served have chosen not to appear or participate in the hear...
Tag this Judgment!Era Infra Engineering Limited vs.central Park Estate Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~OS-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 89/2017 Date of decision:10. 10.2017 % + ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED Through Mr.Manoj ........ Petitioner K.Singh, Mr.Nilava and Mr.Rahul Bandhopadhyay Pandey, Advs. CENTRAL PARK ESTATE PVT LTD versus ..... Respondent Through Ms.Sadhana Sharma, Adv. for R-1 Mr.Ravi K.Chandna and Ms.Bindiya L.Airi, Advs. the proposed respondent for CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 seeking to appoint an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The case of the petitioner is that on 7.2.2008 the respondent issued an invitation for bids for construction and development of Central Park II, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) Subsequently on 11.3.2008 a Letter of Intent was issued by the respondent. A formal Contract Agreement (work order) was entered into between the parties on 26.03.2008. On 11.6.20...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Saraf vs.u O I & Anr
Court: Delhi
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:07. 09.2017 Delivered on:10. 10.2017 + W.P(CRL) 1132/2017 & CRL.M.A.6387/2017 (Stay) RAHUL SARAF U O I & ANR versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Dr.A.M. Singhvi & Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advs. with Mr.Anish Dayal, Mr.S.K. Singhi, Mr.Chayan Sarkar, Mr.Karan Bindra, Mr.Arjit Pratap Singh, Ms.Rupam Sharma, Mr.Jaideep Maheshwari, Mr.Ritul Tandon & Mr.Anupam, Advs. For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr.Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Satya Prakash Singh & Mr. Anoop Yadav, Advs. along with Mr. Khem Singh (Officer) for R-1/UOI. Mr.Nikhil Goel, Adv. with Mr.Ashutosh Ghade, Adv. for CBI. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR JUDGMENT ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J1 This writ petition has been filed for quashing/recalling of the proceedings initiated by the respondents pursuant to the request for W.P(Crl.) 1132/2017 Page 1 of 49 legal assistance dated 18.08.2016 and request for supplementary...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Bank vs.gambro Nexim (I) Medicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* + % VIJAYA BANK IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.240/2017 10th October, 2017 Through: Mr. Vaibhav Dang, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus GAMBRO NEXIM (I) MEDICALS PVT. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anaunya Bhattacharya, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) Caveat No.868/2017 Counsel for the caveator enters appearance. Caveat stands discharged. C.M. Appl. No.36280/2017 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. C.M. Appl. No.36281/2017 (for delay) This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. RSA No.240/2017 Page 1 of 9 For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed and the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RSA No.240/2017 and C.M. Appl. No.36279/2017 (for stay) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code o...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Prem Ice Factory vs.delhi State Industrial Development Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5566/2015 M/S. PREM ICE FACTORY ........ Petitioner Through: Mr K. S. Kashyap, Advocate. versus DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr Arun Monga with Mr Surya Joshi and Ms Kudrat, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1010.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the communication dated 04.12.2001 (hereafter referred to as the impugned communication), whereby the amount of 60,000/- deposited by the petitioner's predecessor (the petitioner's deceased husband) for allotment of an alternate plot was refunded. The petitioner further prays that the respondent be directed to allot an industrial plot to the petitioner as per the scheme framed in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India And Others (1996) 4 SCC750 2. The petitioner is the widow of Late Shri Suresh Chand, who was the owner/occupier a...
Tag this Judgment!