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.mohit Makhija
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$~16 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h February, 2017 FAO172017& CM No.1095/2017 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv. versus ..... Respondent ICICI BANK LTD MOHIT MAKHIJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA Through: None. 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.5,68,002.20 against the respondent on the ground that the appellant advanced a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent for purchase of car make SWIFT/VDI. The loan was repayable in 60 monthly instalments o...
Icici Bank Ltd vs.anil Pandit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$~2 * % + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h February, 2017 FAO712016 & CM No.5228/2016 ICICI BANK LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, Adv. versus ANIL PANDIT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA Through: None. ..... Respondent 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. 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.4,41,341.14 against the respondent on the ground that the appellant advanced a loan of Rs.5,80,000/- to the respondent for purchase of car make MARUTI SWIFT DZIRE/VDI. The loan was repayable in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.12,829/- each. The respon...
Ajit Singh Sudan vs.kuldeep Kaur & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2017
$~A- * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. 02.2017 C.R.P. 181/2016 and CM No.41611/2016 (stay) AJIT SINGH SUDAN ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sandeep Bajaj, Ms.Harleen Kumar, Mr.Govind Kumar and Mr.Sachin Gupta, Advocates. versus KULDEEP KAUR & Ors. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Sharvan Dev and Mr.Kamal Jindal, Advocates with respondent-in-person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) 1. The present revision petition is filed under Section 115 CPC to impugn the order dated 16.07.2016 passed by the trial court dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for dismissal of the plaint.2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. As per the plaint she states that she is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.C-IV/11, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024. The said property was al...
Pargan Singh & Anr vs.gurubachan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA2332017 & CMs 7596-99/2017 1. PARGAN SINGH & ANR ..... Appellants Through : Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Seema Seth and Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocates versus GURUBACHAN SINGH Through : None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % The appellants/defendants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree ORDER2702.2017 dated 24.10.2016 passed by the trial court in a suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and recovery of damages/mesne profits instituted against them by the respondent, the 90 years old father of the appellant No.1.2. Mr. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants/defendants states at the outset that the appellants/defendants do not wish to press the appeal on merits and they only seek some reasonable time of three months to vacate the suit premises. He explains that the appellant No.2, wife of the appellant No.1 and daughter-in-law of the respondent, is suffering from...
Parvesh Jain vs.cbi (State)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 27th, 2017 * + BAIL APPLN. 197/2017 PARVESH JAIN versus CBI (STATE) ........ Petitioner Jain, Through Mr.Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with with Mr.Ajay Mr.Pranay Jain, Adv. & Mr.Aastha Chopra, Adv. Adv. ..... Respondent Through Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. P.P. for CBI with Mr.Girraj, Investigating Officer. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S. TEJI, J ORDER1 The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.RC04A)/2015/CBI/AC-III/ND, under Sections 120B read with 420/467/468/471 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. The facts, as emerging from the record, are that the FIR of the instant case was registered by the CBI on 04.11.2015 on the basis of a written complaint made by Mr.Rajender Singh, Dy. General Manager of IDBI Bank Limited against the accused Parvesh Jain, proprietor ...
Sonia vs.delhi State Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1129/2017 SONIA Date of Decision :27. h February, 2017 Through Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus DELHI STATE SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, ASC with Ms. Pratistha Vij, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2016 whereby O. A. No.3502/2015 filed by the petitioner- Ms. Sonia has been dismissed recording as under:-"None appears on behalf of the applicant even on revised call.2. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the department has passed impugned order dated 08.07.2015 in compliance of this Tribunals order dated 20.03.2015, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit her representation which she did and after W.P.(C) No.1129/201...
V. Vikraman vs.uoi & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: February 27th, 2017 W.P.(C) 2328/2007 V.VIKRAMAN ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma with Mr. Kanishka Gaur, Advocates versus UOI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr.Shambhu Chaturvedi & Mr. B.V.Niren, Advocates for respondents No.1 to 4 CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA A. K. CHAWLA, J.1. Case in hand, is of an officer, who was appointed as Company Commander (Group A) with Special Service Bureau on 5.11.1993 and having completed his training at National Industrial Security Academy, Secundrabad, in December 1994, came to join the 'C' Company at Jang, Tawang District in North-East, as Officer In-charge, in January, 1995. He WP(C) 23Page 1 of 11 came to be charged with the allegations of misconduct on 15th & 16th February, 1996, which related to the short supply of stores, of which he was the Officer In-charge. He came to be se...
Anup Kant Sahay vs.state & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL M.C4432017 Date of Hearing & Order: February 27th, 2017 ANUP KANT SAHAY ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Shripal Singh, Advocates for petitioner. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub-Inspector Bijender Singh, Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition under Section. 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the... Petitioner, namely, Sh. Anup Kant Sahay for quashing of FIR No.669/2013, under Section 354(D) IPC registered at Police Station Okhla, Delhi on the basis of a mediation executed between him and CRL M.C4432017 Page 1 of 7 the Subsequently, for complainant/respondent No.2. respondent No.2 namely Ms. Shipra Verma upon the intervention of the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi.2. respondent-State Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the respon...
North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs.qaiser Javed & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 616/2017 Judgment dated:27. h February, 2017 NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through : Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel and with Ms.Namrata Mukim Ms.Anushruti, Advs. versus % QAISER JAVED & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr.Salar M. Khan, Adv. with Mr.Waziq Khan & Ms.Shruti Rathore, Advs. for respondent No.1 Mr.Sharat Kapoor, Adv. with Mr.C.B. Tiwari and Ms.Tanvi Kalra, Advs. for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL G.S.SISTANI, J.CM. APPL27972017 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM. APPL27982017 (Condonation of Delay in Re-filing) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 17 days in re-filing of the petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CM. APPL27962017 (under Order XLI Rule 27 for Additional Documents) 3. This is an application seeking to place add...
Election Commission of India vs.mukhtar Ansari & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:22. d February, 2017 Decided on:27. h February, 2017 CRL.M.C. 689/2017 & Crl.M.A. 2923/2017 (stay) ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Ms. Aakashi Lodha, Advs. versus MUKHTAR ANSARI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Represented by: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Salman Khursheed, Mr. S.S. Gandhi and Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advs. with Mr. R.K. Thakur, Mr. Jubair Ahmad Khan, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Qadri, Mr. Azra Rehman, Mr. Rishabh Jain, Mr. Sandeep, Mr. B. Mishra, Ms. Ritu Negi, Ms. Surya Rajappan, Mr. U.P. Singh, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. PP for CBI/ R-2. Mr. Ratnakar Das, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anil Mittal, Ms. Komal Aggarwal, Advs. for State of U.P./ intervener. Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mikhil Sharda, Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Mr. Parth Awasthi, Advs. for Pvt. Complainant/ intervener. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »