Delhi Court December 2017 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2017 Page 58 of about 598 results (0.019 seconds)Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.naveen Kumar & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~R-609 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:01. t December, 2017 + MAC APPEAL10592012 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Through: Mr. A.K. Soni and Mr. Pavan ..... Appellant versus NAVEEN KUMAR & ANR. Through: Kumar, Advocates ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The award of compensation in favour of the first respondent (claimant), in accident case (suit no.890/2010), instituted on 07.04.2010, decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) by judgment dated 17.05.2012, on the basis of finding that he had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 27.07.2009, due to negligent driving of a car bearing registration no.UK-07-V-9893, admittedly insured with the appellant (insurer) for the period in question against third party risk, is assailed by the appeal at hand on the ground that the word of the claimant was not corroborated by any corresponding first information report (FIR). MAC Appeal No....
Tag this Judgment!S a vs.m A
Court: Delhi
# 31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:01. 12.2017 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 209/2017 & CM Nos.43478-43479/2017 S A M A versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. J.K. Bhola, Advocate : None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) 1. The present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, impugns an order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South-East, Saket, Delhi.2. The issue that has been raised by the appellant wife in the present appeal is predicated on the submission that in a matrimonial proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said MAT.APP.(F.C.) 209/2017 Page 1 of 5 therein) the appellant wife (respondent is entitled to have an Act), application under Section 24 of the said Act determined before filing a written statement in the di...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Phal Bansal vs.state & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:1. t December, 2017 1. CRL.M.C. 4542/2016 & CRL.M.A.18997/2016 SEWAK BALKISHAN GUPTA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sunil Magoo, Adv. versus THE STATE JITENDER NATH RAJNISH GOENKA KAMAL GAIND RAM PHAL BANSAL ..... Respondent No.1 ..... Respondent No.2 ..... Respondent No.3 ..... Respondent No.4 ..... Respondent No.5 Through: Mr.Raghuvinder Varma, APP for State with SI Chanchal Singh, PS- EOW. Mr.Sumit Chander, Adv. with Mr.Mizan Siddiqui, Mr.Jatin Choudhary and Mr.Supreet Prasad, Advs. for R-2.2. CRL.M.C. 223/2017 & CRL.M.A.982/2017 RAM PHAL BANSAL ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.A.K.Singla, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rajesh Bansal, Mr.Arun Shrivastava, Mr.Pramod Dayal, Mr.Deepak Dewan, Mr. Vijay K. CRL.M.C.4542/2016, CRL.M.C.223/2017, CRL.M.C.317/2017, CRL.M.C.4544/2016 Page 1 of 20 Gupta, Mr. Mohit Saroha and Ms.Ridhima Bansal, Advs. versus STATE JITENDER NATH SEWAK BALKISHAN GUPTA KAMAL GAIND RAJ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar vs.the Honourable Lt. Governor Raj Bhawan, Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:1. t December, 2017 + W.P. (C.) No.6351/2014 SATISH KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Advocate versus THE HONOURABLE LT. GOVERNOR RAJ BHAWAN, DELHI & ORS. Through Ms. Deepika, Advocate for ........ RESPONDENTS L&B/LAC. Mr. M.P. Bhargava, Advocate for Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction to declare the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra no.2920/157 having 1/3rd share measuring 8 biswa; Khasra no.1294 having 1/3rd share measuring 1 bigha 5 biswa; Khasra no.156 having 131/1245th share measuring 1 bigha 9 biswa; Khasra no.158 having 1/3rd share measuring 2 bigha 5 biswa; and Khasra no.193 having 1/3rd share measuring 17 biswa, sit...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram Singh vs.raj Kumar & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~R-622 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:01. t December, 2017 + MAC APPEAL11022012 RAJA RAM SINGH ... Appellant Through: Ms. Harsh Lata, Advocate Versus RAJ KUMAR & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant was the claimant before the motor accident claims tribunal, in accident claim case (Suit No.860/2009), seeking compensation for the injuries sustained and the disability consequently suffered, in a motor vehicular accident that had taken place on 20.10.2006, due to negligence on the part of driver of tempo bearing registration No.DL-1LF-5093, admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question with the third respondent (insurer). The claimant proved that he, then aged of 48 years, had been rendered permanently disabled on account of amputation of his right leg above knee, the medical opinion in which regard is that the physical impairment is 80% in ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.mamta & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~R-611 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:01. t December, 2017 + MAC APPEAL10672012 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ... Appellant Through: Mr. P. Acharya for Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate versus MAMTA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. By judgment dated 21.05.2012, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) decided accident claim case (MACT122510) of first to fifth respondents (collectively, the claimants) and granted compensation in the sum of Rs.7,17,500/-, on account of death of Praveen Singh Khatri in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 03.09.2009 involving negligent driving of a motor vehicle described as Tata Sumo bearing registration no.HR-55H-0499, the liability being placed on the appellant (insurer), it having issued an insurance policy covering third party risk in respect of the said vehicle. It may be added that the claimant petition was pressed under Section 163 A of the Motor...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India vs.durlabh Singh & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~10 & 11. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA2272010 and 228/2010 UNION OF INDIA Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Ms. Samya Panjwani, Advocate ..... Appellant 1. versus DURLABH SINGH & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS in LPA2272010 NARINDER PAL SINGH&ORS....Respondents in LPA2282010 Through: Mr. Chandra Shekhar with Mr. Prashant Shekhar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI % These are two unfortunate cases, where the appellant/UOI has elected ORDER0112.2017 to assail a common judgment dated 22.04.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in two petitions filed in the year 2008 by the respondents herein, both victims of the riots that had engulfed Delhi in the year 1984, in the wake of the assassination of the then Prime Minister of the country, praying inter alia that directions be issued to the appellant/UOI to release the compensation of Rs.50,000/- each in their favour, in terms of the Central Government policy published on 12.04.1...
Tag this Judgment!Omar Abdullah vs.payal Abdullah and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 4717/2017, Crl. M. A. 18788/2017 (Stay) Order Reserved on:29. h November, 2017 Order Pronounced on:1. t December, 2017 OMAR ABDULLAH ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Malvika Rajkotia, with Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. versus PAYAL ABDULLAH & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jayant Sud, Senior Advocate with Mr.Honey Khanna, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in M- Petition No.111 of 2016 and seeks quashing of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.2. Long and heated arguments were heard.3. Ms. Malvika Rajkotia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contend...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9701/2017 PRADEEP KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Dharm Singh, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: Mr. Anju Gupta and Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocates. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI % ORDER0112.2017 1. The petitioner has prayed for issuing directions to the respondents/CISF to appoint him to the post of Constable (Driver).2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide Notification dated 19.11.2016 issued by the respondents/CISF applications were invited to fill- up backlog vacancies to the post of Constable (Driver) for SC/ST candidates and the petitioner herein had applied for the subject post and was issued a call letter for his medical examination.3. On 19.5.2017, during his medical examination, the petitioner was found medically unfit due to Perforation of right tympanic membrance (normal absence of Perforation). The petitioner asked for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Anita Jain and Anr. Vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: December 01, 2017 W.P.(C) 10723/2017 & CM No.43900/2017 MS. ANITA JAIN AND ANR. Through: Mr.Sujoy Kumar, Advocate ........ Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. Through: Mr.Devvrat, Advocate ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL)... Petitioner No.1 upon her retirement on 30th September, 2017 had sought re-employment up to the age of 62 years and in the application seeking re-employment for two years, she had not disclosed about the private complaint filed against petitioner No.1 by her colleague. Vigilance clearance was given by the school to petitioner No.1 for re- employment but respondent-Directorate of Education vide impugned order of 6th November, 2017 (Annexure P-1) had declined to accord approval for re-employment of first petitioner while taking note of the case pending against her. Vide order of 24th November, 2017 (Annexure P-39) first respondent had examined the c...
Tag this Judgment!