Delhi Court November 2017 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Indra Kaushal & Another vs.ravinder Kaushal & Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2017
$~OS-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of decision:30. 11.2017 CS(OS) 38/2014 and I.A.No.197/2014 INDRA KAUSHAL & ANOTHER ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.O.P.Aggarwal & Mr.K.N.Singh, Advs. Versus RAVINDER KAUSHAL & OTHERS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Rajesh Singh, Adv.for D-l & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) IA No.2067/2015(u/O XII Rule 6 CPC) 1. This application is filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking passing of a decree on admissions.2. This suit is filed seeking a decree of partition in respect of the property bearing No.24/1, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 claiming 2/5th share as that of the plaintiffs and 3/5th share of the defendants; a decree for possession is also sought for the 2/5th share of the plaintiffs; and a decree for mesne profits @ Rs.50,000/- per month.3. It is stated in the plaint that Dr.S.S.Kaushal, the father of the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 and 2 and Late Sh.Rajiv Kaushal who is now represented by defendant Nos.3 ...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.surender Singh & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2017
$~R-598 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"30th November, 2017 + MAC.APP. 993/2012 & CM No.15727/2012 (stay) BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. versus SURENDER SINGH & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Jagdeep Singh, a bachelor, aged 21 years, was travelling in a Tempo Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-55-5870, with certain other persons, on 25.08.2008, when due to its negligent driving by the third respondent, they met with an accident, resulting in several persons including Jagdeep Singh, suffering injuries he dying in the consequence. His parents (the claimants), they being first and second respondent in appeal, instituted accident claim case MACT No.833/2010 on 03.01.2009 seeking compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in which, besides the third respondent (driver), the fourth respondent and the appellant were i...
Anshul Sharma and Ors. Vs.telecommunications Consultants India Limited ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Order: November 30, 2017 W.P.(C) 10673/2017 & CMs 43663-64/2017 ANSHUL SHARMA AND ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Anup Kumar, Mr. Bhupendra Singh and Ms. Neha Jaiswal, Advocates versus TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED AND ORS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Through: Nemo ORDER (ORAL) 1.... Petitioners are the contractual employees of first respondent, who are aggrieved by impugned Termination Notices (Annexures P-1 to P-5) and office order (Annexure P-6) vide which their contractual service comes to an end today forenoon.2. Quashing of impugned Termination Notices (Annexures P-1 to P-5) and office order (Annexure P-6) is sought by petitioners while asserting that first four petitioners have been in contractual employment of first respondent as Engineers/Technicians since the years 20and fifth petitioner has been in contractual employment of first respondent since the year 2011.3. Learned couns...
Maya Devi and Ors. Vs.union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:30. h November, 2017 $~22 * % + W.P.(C) 2521/2016 MAYA DEVI AND ORS. Through: Ms. Nishtha Garg, Adv. ........ Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sachin Nawani, Adv. for R1 and R3. Mr. Ajay Arora and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for North DMC. Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr.Ekant, Advs. for GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioners measuring 3 biswas comprised in Khasra No.41min situated in Village-Mundka, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject land) stand lapsed.2. At the oral request of counsel for the petitioners, which is not opposed, North Delhi Municipal Corporation is impleaded as a party to the writ petition W.P.(C) No.2521/2016 Page 1 of ...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.ashrafi Devi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2017
$~R-607 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:30. h November, 2017 + MAC. APPEAL No.1042/2012 and CM No.16346/2012 (stay) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate versus ASHRAFI DEVI & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA Through: Nemo. ..Respondents JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Soran Singh, aged 42 years, earning his livelihood from the transport business, suffered injuries and died in the consequence, as a result of motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 08.04.2008, due to negligent driving of motor vehicle, described as truck bearing registration No.UP-85E-9217, which was admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question with the appellant insurance company (insurer). On the accident claim case (Petition No.400/2008) instituted by his widow and six other members of the family dependent on him, they being first to seventh respondents (collectively, the claimants), the tribunal held inquiry, and by judg...
Suresh Kumar vs.central Secretariat Club
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2017
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.990/2017 % SURESH KUMAR Reserved on:27. h November, 2017 Pronounced on:30. h November, 2017 Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Dhan Mohan, Advocate with Ms. Tanu B. Mishra, Advocate. CENTRAL SECRETARIAT CLUB versus ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J C.M. Nos.42877/2017 & 42879/2017 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M.s stand disposed of. C.M. No.42878/2017 (condonation of delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.990/2017 and C.M. No.42876/2017 (stay) 3. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the RFA No.990/2017 Page 1 of 12 Trial Court dated 29.4.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3 lacs on ac...
Mrs. Viren Singh vs.north Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2017
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on 30th November, 2017 + W.P.(C) 7821/2017 MRS. VIREN SINGH ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Seema Rao, Ms. Shefali Jain, Ms. Mahima Rathi and Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Advs. versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Ms. Puja Kalra, Adv. for NDMC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA JUDGMENT A. K. CHAWLA, J.(ORAL) Instant petition has come to be filed with the prayers, as follows: 1. Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction including the one in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to allow the application for sanction for carrying out constructions on 3rd floor of the property No.B-165 Naraina Vihar, New Delhi as per the plans submitted upon accepting the request for the said purpose by the petitioner.2. To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order/communication No.D/AE(B)/KBZ/2017/ 572 dated 05/and order/com...
Samir Agarwal vs.the State & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:30. 11.2017 ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Sunil Dutt Dixit, Adv. TEST.CAS. 118/2014 SAMIR AGARWAL THE STATE & ORS versus $~OS-11 * % + ........ RESPONDENTS Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has filed this present petition under section 276 and 278 1. of the Indian Succession Act seeking grant of probate in favour of the petitioner with respect to the will dated 28.08.2010 which was executed by Late Smt Madhuri Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who expired has on 09.10.2010 in New Delhi.2. It has been averred in the petition that the deceased was the mother of the petitioner, respondent No.3, 4 and respondent No.2 was the husband of the deceased.3. It is stated that the deceased during her lifetime executed a will dated 28.08.2010, which was duly attested by respondent No.4 and Sh. Chetan A. Jadia.4. Notices of the petition were duly served to the State and th...
u.p. State Road Transport Corporation vs.urmila Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2017
$~R-596 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:30. h November, 2017 + MAC. APPEAL No.989/2012 U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Through: Shadab Khan, Advocate for ..... Appellant Ms. Garima Prasad, Advocate versus ..Respondent URMILA DEVI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA Through: None. JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant (UPSRTC) challenges the quantum of compensation in an accident claim case (MACT Suit No.703/08, Old Suit No.321/07), of the respondent (claimant), instituted on 22.08.2007 on the ground that the awards under the heads of future loss of income and artificial limb are excessive.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this court finds no substance in the appeal.3. The objection to the assessment of the functional disability taken as fifty per cent (50%) is not fair since the disability certificate (Ex.P-3) confirms the amputation of the right ankle, such assessment being in accord with legislative prescription against entry Nos. 22 and MAC ...
Ishwar Dayal Kansal vs.motion Picture Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2017
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on:30. 11.2017 + RFA(OS) 28/2017 ISHWAR DAYAL KANSAL ..... Appellant Through: Appellant in person. versus MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.(ORAL) CM APPL. 15264/2017 (for condonation of five days delay in filing appeal against order dated 20.02.2017) A perusal of the present application in conjunction with the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by this Court, reflects that institution of the accompanying appeal is delayed by 93 days if the said period is reckoned from 24.11.2014; the date when the impugned judgment came to be pronounced, and only five days if the said period is reckoned from 20.02.2015; when a petition seeking review of the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2014 came to be allowed in part. It is further observed that the appellant, who appears in person, assails both the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »