Delhi Court February 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.
Shiv Shankar vs.state (Govt of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY17 2017 CRL.REV.P. 132/2015 SHIV SHANKAR Through : Mr.Bipin Kumar Jha, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG Through : Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP. S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. Present Revision petition under Sectionsread with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 24.02.2015 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.whereby conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 354 IPC sentencing the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year with fine `100/- were upheld. The Revision petition is contested by the respondent/State.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Allegations against the petitioner were that on 30.07.2006 Crl.Rev.P.132/2015 Page 1 of 6 at about 6.00 p.m. at complainants jhugg...
Satya Plywood Industries Private Limited vs.the Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:06. 12.2016 Judgment pronounced on:17. 02.2017 CO.PET. 507/2016 IN THE MATTER OF:-"SATYA PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ........ Petitioner Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES .... Respondent Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, Aparna Mudiam, Advocate for... Petitioner. Ms. AROC. Mr. Anil Panwar, CGSC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Satya Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Company) praying for restoration of the name of the... Petitioner Company in the Register CO.PET. 507/2016 Page 1 of 7 of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent).2. The... Petitioner Company was incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, N.C.T. of Delhi and Haryana, under the Act, vide certificate o...
Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd vs.fiit Jee Limited & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2655/2013 BRAHMOS AEROSPACE PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Reserved on 22.11.2016 Decided on:17. 02.2017 Through: Mr.A.Das, Ms.Rashi Bansal and Ms.Anju Agarwal, Advocates Versus FIIT JEE LIMITED & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr.Mohan Vidhani and Ms.Geeta, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT I.A.14418/2015 (by defendants u/S. 124 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 r/w S. 151 CPC) 1. Vide this application, the defendant has sought the stay of the proceedings before this Court to facilitate him to file an application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Registrar of Trademarks for rectification of the trademark BRAHMOS registered in the name of the plaintiff, on the plea that the said trademark is not being used by the plaintiff in the field of education and that it has got the trademark registered in several classes although he has not been using the same and CS(OS) No.2655/2013 Page 1 thus he is hoarding ...
Suman Kumar Jain vs.registrar of Societies & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1380/2017 & CMs 6356-57/2017 1. SUMAN KUMAR JAIN Through : Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate ....... Petitioner versus REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee and Ms. Niti Jain, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present ORDER1702.2017 petition, while reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the competent court, as provided under Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, for raising grievances against the respondent No.2/Society and its office bearers, in accordance with law.2. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The writ petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications. FEBRUARY17 2017 sk HIMA KOHLI, J...
63 Moons Technologies Ltd. Vs.deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcem ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$-49 * IN THE HIGH CO URT O F DE L HI AT NEW DE LHI % Judgment delivered on:17. 02.2017 + W.P.(C) 274/2017 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ........ Petitioner versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Saighal, Mr. Anuj Malhotra, Mr. Himanshu Satija and Mr. Anupam D. Gupta, Advocates For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Sumit Misra, Adv. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGEMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent adjudicating authority to hear and dispose of the Original Complaint (O.C.) No.645/2016 and Original Complaint (O.C.) No.663/2016 together as one in a consolidated manner.2. It is contended that both the complaints pertain to attachment of properties of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged ci...
Segece India Private Limited (In Vol. Liqn.) Vs.-
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:09. 01.2017 Judgment pronounced on:17. 02.2017 CO.PET. 09/2017 SEGECE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (IN VOL. LIQN.) Ms. Through: Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate on behalf of the Official Liquidator. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. The present is a petition under section 497(6) of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Official Liquidator, seeking voluntary winding up of Segece India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Company).2. The... Petitioner Company has been incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on 19.06.2008 and a certificate in this behalf has been issued by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana at New Delhi.3. The registered office of the... Petitioner Company is at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court. CO.PET. 09/2017 Page 1 of 1 4. The Declaration of solvency was executed and ...
Parveen Kumar vs.staff Selection Commission
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$~8 * + W.P.(C) 12293/2015 & CM No.32568-69/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI PARVEEN KUMAR Date of Decision :17. h February, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Advocate versus STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ..... Respondent Through Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC and Mr. Sumant Bhushan, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The petitioner- Parveen Kumar by this writ petition impugns the order dated 29.10.2015 whereby OA No.655/2015 filed by him has been dismissed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal for short).2. The petitioner as a Scheduled Tribe candidate had appeared in the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) examination in the year 2013 for recruitment to the post of Data Entry Operator (DEO) and Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The advertisement required each candidate to exercise their order of preference of Service/Organiation (which also included va...
Smriti Madan Kansagra vs.perry Kansagra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On :February 16, 2017 Judgment Delivered On : February 17, 2017 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 67/2016 SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA .....Appellant Represented by: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.P.Banerjee, Ms.Shweta, Ms.Avveena, Ms.Shreya Singhal and Ms.Mansi Sharma, Advocates versus PERRY KANSAGRA .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.P.D.Gupta, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Inderjeet Saroop, Mr.Raghav Saroop and Mr.Atul Gupta, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The issue of custody, including interim custody and visitation rights of the parents to a child becomes a source of continuous litigation when the litigating couple adopts hard postures. Often the innocent children are used as tools of vengeance by vindictive litigants who inflict severe emotional and psychological abuse on the child thereby seriously affecting the child in his/her later part of li...
Jagmohan Behl vs.state Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:6. th February, 2017 Pronounced on:17. h February, 2017 CS (OS) 2408/2014 and IA No.13994/2015 [u/O. VII R.11(d) CPC]. and IA244272015 [u/O. VIII R. 1 CPC]. JAGMOHAN BEHL ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. D.K. Rustagi, Ms. Medha Arya and Mr. Mayank Rustagi, Advocates Versus + STATE BANK OF INDIA .... Defendant Through: Mr. S.N. Relan and Mr. Abhinav Thareja, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 ORDER This civil suit for recovery on account of mesne profits is one more in a series of cases that came to be instituted by or between the parties, against the backdrop of lease that had been granted in 1986, by the plaintiff, respecting commercial premises described as a portion comprising of 1575 sq. ft. out of which 771 sq. ft. on the ground floor and the remaining 804 sq. ft. on mezzanine floor in the larger property bearing Municipal No.M-46, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, initially in favour of State Bank of Indore, which merged ...
Sumit Kaur vs.meenu Bahadur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$~35 * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA1762017 & CMs 6039-40/2017 SUMIT KAUR Through : Mr. Rais Farooqui and Ms. Nazma Hasan, Advocates ..... Appellant versus MEENU BAHADUR Through : None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER1702.2017 On the last date of hearing, counsel for the appellant had stated that he may be granted some time to obtain instructions from his client as to whether she would be ready and willing to vacate the suit premises, if granted a reasonable time. The said observation was made after expressing a prima facie view that the impugned judgment on admission dated 19.11.2016 passed by the trial court under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, partly decreeing the suit for the relief of possession in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness.2. Today, counsel for the appellant states on instructions from his client that she does not wish to press the present appeal. He however requests that a lim...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »