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.
Bhajinder Singh vs.hardev Singh & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:17. 02.2017 + CM(M) 187/2017 & CM APPL. Nos. 6208-6209/2017 BHAJINDER SINGH ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Kunal Kalra, Advocate versus HARDEV SINGH & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Rajan Tyagi, Addl. Standing Counsel with Mr.Mandeep Arora, Advocate for R-2/ SDMC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) CM APPL. No.6208/2017(exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) No.187/2017 & CM APPL. No.6209/2017(stay) 1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 06.06.2016 by which an application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to cross-examine DW- 2 the witness of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the SDMC) was dismissed.2. Respondent No.1 has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain defendant No.1/petitioner from encroaching upon Muni...
Amit Kumar vs.govt of Nct of Delhi and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1373/2017 AMIT KUMAR Date of Decision :17. h February, 2017 Through Mr. Asish Nischal and Mr. Arun ........ Petitioner Nischal, Advocates versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Mr. Rhishabh Jetley and Ms. Pratistha Vij, Advocates for R-1 & R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The petitioner-Amit Kumar by this writ petition impugns the order dated 19.01.2017 whereby OA No.1963/2015 filed by him has been dismissed by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.2. The petitioner by the aforesaid OA had prayed for compassionate appointment, his father having expired on 13.12.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was to superannuate on 31.08.2021 and the petitioner, at the time of the death of his father, was about 17 years of age.3. The Screening ...
Smt. Neety Gupta vs.smt. Usha Gupta and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI17h February, 2017 Through: Ms. Mala Goel, Advocate. ..... Plaintiff CS (OS) No.2209/2008 + % SMT. NEETY GUPTA SMT. USHA GUPTA AND ORS. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Versus ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advocate for D-4. To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) I.A. No.2026/2017 (Under Order III Rules 1, 2 and 4 CPC) 1. By this application plaintiff/applicant seeks to bring to the attention of the Court that the reply which was filed on behalf of the defendant No.4 to the Review Petition No.146/2016 was by a counsel who had not filed the vakalatmama. This is a correct fact as per record, however, today another counsel appears for defendant No.4 and states that she has already filed her vakalatnama on behalf of defendant no.4. RP No.146/2016 in CS (OS) No.2209/2008 Page 1 of 5 2. In view of this position no further orders are called for to be passed in this I.A. and the same is disposed of accor...
Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs.procter & Gamble Home Products Private Limit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
% *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h February, 2017 + CS(OS) No.459/2016 & IA No.11244/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Mr. Siddhanth Sharma, Ms. Eesha Mohapatra, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Akanksha Munjal, Mr. Arvind Chari and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. Versus HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and Mr. Abhiram Naik, Advs. + CS(OS) No.463/2016 & IA No.11360/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) AND HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and Mr. Abhiram Naik, Advs. Versus PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Defenda...
Fresh & Healthy Enterprises Ltd. Vs.first Choice International
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$~30 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM) 71/2017 FRESH & HEALTHY ENTERPRISES LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr M.M. Kalra and Ms Sonali Kumar, Advocates. versus FIRST CHOICE INTERNATIONAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr P.V. Yogeswaran and Mr Shikhar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU Garg, Advocates. % ORDER1702.2017 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J IA No.2118/2017 1.2. O.M.P. (COMM) 71/2017 and IA No.2117/2017 M/s Fresh & Healthy Enterprises Limited, a Government Company, 3. has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act) impugning an arbitral award dated 09.01.2017 (hereafter 'the impugned award') made and published by the sole arbitrator.4. The impugned award was rendered in reference to the disputes that had arisen between the parties in relation to an agreement dated 30.01.2015 (hereafter 'the agreement') whereby the respondent h...
Manju Taneja vs.l S Pawar & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:17. 02.2017 + C.R.P. 39/2017 & CM Nos.6285-86/2017 MANJU TANEJA ........ Petitioner Through Ms.Suman Chauhan, Advocate Versus L S PAWAR & ORS Through ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 24.01.2017 by which an application filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC seeking review of judgment dated 14.07.2016 was dismissed.2. The grounds taken in the review application were that the counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a concession to the court and has confined his argument to the issue of damage/mesne profits and did not challenge the finding of the trial court regarding the other reliefs. It is submitted that the petitioner had never authorised her counsel to challenge the decree of the trial court date...
Ram Prakash vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP (CIVIL) No.10308/2015 % RAM PRAKASH Reserved on:11. h November, 2016 Date of Decision:17. h February, 2017 ....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.S. Saini, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..Respondents Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Preet Singh, Mr. Sukh Dev Singh & Ms. Kiran Kaushik, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.This writ petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.03.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1556/2012.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Ram Prakash, who was a Loco Pilot Passenger/Diesel of the working train No.4724 Dn Kalindi Express was charge-sheeted for the collision of the said train with the rear end of train No.2452 Shram Shakti Express at km No.1251/8-6 on 16.01.2010 between Mitawali and Tundla. The collusion had taken place despite ...
Babu Ram Thapa vs.food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.1369/2017 17th February, 2017 BABU RAM THAPA Mr. Dharmender Tyagi, Adv. ........ Petitioner Through: versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Harminder Oberoi, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1.... Petitioner by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for compassionate appointment on the ground of death of his father on 18.5.1975 while working with the respondent/employer/Food Corporation of India.2. It is seen that today in 2017 around 41 years have passed since the death of the father of the petitioner and on account of which the petitioner seeks compassionate appointment. Even taking the petitioner is major from 1980, and thus 36 years have expired since the petitioner became a major. W.P.(C) No.1369/2017 Page 1 of 3 3. Compassionate appointment is not a mode of normal appointment or r...
Smt. Radhika Kapur vs.state and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. th January, 2017 Pronounced on:17. th February, 2017 TEST CASE1152014 and IA56742016 (u/S. 151 CPC) SMT. RADHIKA KAPUR ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Arora, Advocate Versus + STATE AND ORS. .... RESPONDNETS Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 ORDER This petition invoking the provisions of Section 278 and 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 prays for grant of letters of administration and / or succession certificate respecting Will dated 14.11.2013 of late Sh. Baijnath Kapur with regard to the estate left behind by him at the time of his death on 17.05.2014. Pertinent to mention at this stage itself that the petition has been instituted by Smt. Radhika Kapoor, daughter-in-law of the deceased testator, she being the wife of his son Anand Kapoor and the sole beneficiary under the Will which has been produced, in the course of inquiry, in original (Ex. PW1/1).2. As per averments in the petition, the testator w...
Ravinder Parkash Punj vs.the New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2017
$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1344/2017 & CMs 6128-29/2017 1. RAVINDER PARKASH PUNJ ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Anoop Bhambani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Gandhi, Advocate versus THE NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate for NDMC. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia ORDER1702.2017 for quashing and setting aside the assessment order dated 12.5.2016 whereunder, the existing rateable value in respect of property bearing No.10, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi has been assessed at a new rateable value for the period w.e.f. 2004-2005 till 2015-2016.2. In view of the fact that the statute provides for an alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, as contemplated under Section 115 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (in short the Act), this court is of the opinion that the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »