Delhi Court February 2017 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Icici Bank Ltd vs.kamal Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$~1 * % + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h February, 2017 FAO22016 & CM No.113/2016 ICICI BANK LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv. versus KAMAL KUMAR Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks dispensation of the service of notice on the respondent on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court before service of notice on the respondent. The Trial Court record has been perused. Considering that the impugned order was passed before service of notice on the respondent, the notice to the respondent in this appeal is dispensed with and the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.8,08,491/- against the respondent on the ground that the appellant advanced a loan of Rs.4,40,000/- to the respondent for purchase of car make RITZ/VDI. The loan was repayable in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.9...
Arjun Singh Gupta (Deceased) and Anr vs.ajay Kumar Gupta and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10. th February, 2017 Pronounced on:28. h February, 2017 CS (OS) 3625/2014 & IA213292015 (U/O. 12 R. 6 CPC of defendants), IA236262014 (u/O. 39 R. 1 and 2 CPC of the plaintiff) and IA37922015 (u/O. 39 R. 4 CPC of defendants) ARJUN SINGH GUPTA (DECEASED) AND ANR Through: ...PLAINTIFFS Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Ms. Chandrani Prasad and Ms. Mitali, Advocates Versus + AJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. .... DEFENDANTS Jai Sahai Endlaw, Through: Mr. Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 ORDER The civil suit in the context of which application (IA213292015) has been filed by the defendants seeking its dismissal in part with reference to admissions, invoking Rule 6 of Order XII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was instituted in November 2014 for reliefs in the nature of declaration, partition and injunction by two plaintiffs, they being Sh. Arjun Singh Gupta (first plaintiff) and his wife Smt. Roopa Gupta (second plaintiff), Ajay Kuma...
Icici Bank Ltd vs.rajesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$~14 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h February, 2017 FAO92017 ICICI BANK LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv. versus RAJESH KUMAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA Through: None. ..... Respondent JUDGMENT (ORAL) CM No.615/2017 The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. FAO92017& CM No.546/2017 1. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks dispensation of the service of notice on the respondent on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court before service of notice on the respondent. The Trial Court record has been perused. Considering that the impugned order was passed before service of notice on the respondent, the notice to the respondent in this appeal is dispensed with and the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.6,17,381.80 against the respondent on the ground that the appellant advanced a loan of Rs.5,40,000/- to the ...
Icici Bank Ltd vs.neeraj Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$~7 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h February, 2017 FAO2182016 ICICI BANK LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv. versus NEERAJ KUMAR Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) CM No.18253/2016 The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. FAO2182016 & CM No.18251/2016 1. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks dispensation of the service of notice on the respondent on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court before service of notice on the respondent. Considering that the impugned order was passed before service of notice on the respondent, the notice to the respondent in this appeal is dispensed with and the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.8,11,087.49 against the respondent on the ground that the appellant advanced a loan of Rs.8,58,000/- to the respondent for purchase of car ma...
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs.cmi Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$~93 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:28. 02.2017 FAO (OS) 54/2017 & CM750910/2017 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED .... Appellant versus ..... Respondent CMI LIMITED Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR : Mr Sanjeev Narula, Advocate. JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the learned single Judge of this court in OMP No.304/2009 which was a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the present appellant. The said OMP No.304/2009 was directed against the award dated 27.01.2009 made by the sole Arbitrator in a dispute between the parties arising out of the purchase orders placed on the respondent for procurement of PIJF Telecom Cables. We need not go into the details of the purchase orders but wish to set out Clause 17.1 of Section III of the Genera...
Icici Bank Ltd vs.avtar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$~13 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h February, 2017 FAO5332016 ICICI BANK LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv. versus AVTAR SINGH Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks dispensation of the service of notice on the respondent on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court before service of notice on the respondent. The Trial Court record has been perused. Considering that the impugned order was passed before service of notice on the respondent, the notice to the respondent in this appeal is dispensed with and the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.5,56,032.59 against the respondent on the ground that the appellant advanced a loan of Rs.6,40,000/- to the respondent for purchase of car make FORD ECOSPORT TITANIUM (D). The loan was repayable in 60 monthly instalments of...
New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs.suman and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: February 28, 2017 MAC.APP. 133/2009 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through: Mr. D. K Sharma, Advocate ..... Appellant Versus SUMAN & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Through: Nemo. .....Respondents * + JUDGMENT (ORAL) Impugned Award of 3rd January, 2009 grants compensation of `8,76,000/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum to respondents-claimants on account of death of one Subhash Chand in a road accident on 8th April, 2005. The facts are already noted in impugned Award and need not be adverted to for the reason that in this appeal, appellant-Insurer seeks recovery rights only against driver and owner of vehicle in question. Pertinently, the driver and owner of vehicle in question had neither contested before learned Tribunal nor before this Court. To support the stand that driving licence of driver of vehicle in question is fake, appellant had relied upon evidence of its Assistant Manager (R3W1) and evidence of concerned o...
Januki Kumari j.b.rana & Ors vs.ashok Kumar and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:09. 02.2017 Decided on:28. 02.2017 CS(COMM) 77/2017, I.A. 1216/2017 (O26R9, I.A. 1217/2017 (exemption), I.A. 1218/2017 (under Section 151 CPC) JANUKI KUMARI J.B.RANA & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr C.M. Lall, Mr Nancy Roy, Mr Pranay Sarkar and Mr Jeetu Sharma, Advs. versus ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS ..... Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT I.A. 1215/2017 (O39R1&2) 1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs claiming the following reliefs:-"a. A decree of permanent injunction be passed thereby directing that the Defendants, its proprietor, partners, employees, agents, distributors, franchisees, representatives and assigns be restrained from manufacturing or authorizing the manufacture, selling or offering for sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, displaying or in any other manner whatsoever any sports shoe or footwear and / or any other allied and cognate goods with CS(COMM) No.77/2...
Icici Bank Ltd vs.tahir Ali
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$~4 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h February, 2017 FAO982016 & CM No.7705/2016 ICICI BANK LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv. versus Through: None. TAHIR ALI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA ..... Respondent JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks dispensation of the service of notice on the respondent on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court before service of notice on the respondent. Considering that the impugned order was passed before service of notice on the respondent, the notice to the respondent in this appeal is dispensed with and the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.4,32,445.38 against the respondent on the ground that the appellant advanced a loan of Rs.4,33,000/- to the respondent for purchase of car make MARUTI SWIFT/VDI. The loan was repayable in 47 monthly instalments of Rs.11,350/-each. The respondent exec...
Icici Bank Ltd vs.sunil Dutt
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$~11 * % + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h February, 2017 FAO5242016 ICICI BANK LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv. versus SUNIL DUTT Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks dispensation of the service of notice on the respondent on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court before service of notice on the respondent. The Trial Court record has been perused. Considering that the impugned order was passed before service of notice on the respondent, the notice to the respondent in this appeal is dispensed with and the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.7,91,540.88/- against the respondent on the ground that the appellant advanced a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent for purchase of car make I-20/ ACTIVE-S. The loan was repayable in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.17,335/...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »