Delhi Court March 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.
r.a.s. Gothwal vs.managing Director, Cris
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.6106/2016 + % R.A.S. GOTHWAL23d March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. P.S.Nagpal, Adv. versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, CRIS Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks the relief of grant of Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- instead of the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- granted vide order of the respondent/employer dated 15.7.2008.... Petitioner therefore is effectively challenging the order dated 15.7.2008 by which, as per the petitioner, he was wrongly granted the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- instead the correct Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-.... Petitioner as per the relief clause of the writ petition, impugns the order of the respondent/employer dated 30.6.2015 which rejected the representation of the petitioner for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-. W.P.(C) No.6106/2016 Page 1 o...
Philips India Ltd. Vs.chikitsabroti Udyog (Sanjivan Hospital) & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
$~19 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 117/2017 & IA31562017 PHILIPS INDIA LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Mahabir and Mr P.C. Arya, Advocate versus CHIKITSABROTI UDYOG (SANJIVAN HOSPITAL) & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr Pijush Biswas, Mr Jayanta Sengupta and Mr Mirza Kayesh Begg, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER2303.2017 % 1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) by Philips India Ltd. seeking certain interim reliefs against the Chikitsabroti Udyog (Sanjiban Hospital) [Respondent No.1]., Dr Subhasish Mitra and Dr Dalia Mitra (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3), who are the President and office bearer respectively of the Respondent No.1 and TM Technique Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.4), which stood as guarantor for obligations of the Respondent No.1 society. Background facts 2. The facts relevant to filing of the present petition are that, the Respondent No.1 was desirous of purchasing healthcare equ...
East Delhi Municipal Corporation vs.raj Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
$~18 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA1322017 & CM APPL. 4513/2017 EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. G D Mishra, Standing Counsel, versus EDMC ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Saroj Kumar Jha, Advocate RAJ KUMAR JAIN CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER2303.2017 1. Appearance is entered by the counsel for the respondent, who state that he has received a complete set of the paper-book and states that he is ready and willing to abide by the consent order dated 01.02.2016 passed in RFA No.192/2016, being the lead matter in the case of EDMC. He however states that it may be indicated by the appellant/EDMC as to what will be the estimated date by which the amounts payable to the respondent herein, would be released in terms of the compilation prepared and filed in the connected appeals that have been disposed of.2. The attention of the Court is drawn to the fresh compilation filed by the appellant alongwith an affidavit in RFA No.192/2016 wher...
k.l. Bhasin vs.punjab National Bank & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + % W.P.(C) No.7487/2000 23rd March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate with petitioner in person. K.L. BHASIN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the orders of the departmental authorities of the respondent No.1/Punjab National Bank/employer whereby petitioner had been imposed the major penalty of dismissal from services which is to be a disqualification for future employment.2. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and to some extent also the counsel for the respondent no.1/employer, a detailed order was passed on 24.11.2016 noting that the present is a case where on account of the infraction by the petitioner of the rules of the respondent no.1/employ...
Manish Hans vs.delhi Cantonement Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
#23 to 25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * + W.P.(C) 9362/2014 & CM APPLs. 21167/2014, 3576/2015 MANISH SARPAL ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Advocate versus DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Anchit Sharma with Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda and Mr. Satamita Ghosh, Advocates WITH + W.P.(C) 9403/2014 & CM APPL. 21246/2014 ALEXENDER JOHN ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Advocate versus DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Anchit Sharma with Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda and Mr. Satamita Ghosh, Advocates AND + W.P.(C) 2928/2015 & CM APPLs. 5239-5240/2015 ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Advocate MANISH HANS versus W.P.(C) No.9362/2014 & connected Page 1 of 4 DELHI CANTONEMENT BOARD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Anchit Sharma with Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda and Mr. Satamita Ghosh, Advocates. % Date of Decision:23. h March, 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present batch o...
East Delhi Municipal Corporation vs.mahender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
$~5 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA2862017 & CM APPL. 10056/2017 EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. G D Mishra, Standing Counsel/ Through: Mr. Saroj Kumar Jha, Advocate ..... Respondent EDMC. versus MAHENDER SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER2303.2017 1. Appearance is entered by the counsel for the respondent, who state that he has received a complete set of the paper-book and his client is ready and willing to abide by the consent order dated 01.02.2016 passed in RFA No.192/2016, being the lead matter in the case of EDMC. He however states that it may be indicated by the appellant/EDMC as to what will be the estimated date by which the amounts payable to the respondent herein, would be released in terms of the compilation prepared and filed in the connected appeals that have been disposed of.2. The attention of the Court is drawn to the fresh compilation filed by the appellant alongwith an affidavit in RFA No.192/2016 wherein...
Tirlok Chand Bansal vs.bharat Bhushan Bansal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:23. d March, 2017 CS(OS) 470/2016 & IA No.13763/2016 (of defendant u/O VII R- 11(a) CPC) TIRLOK CHAND BANSAL Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Rahul Gupta and Mr. Mohd. Talha, Adv. Versus * % + BHARAT BHUSHAN BANSAL ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Manish K. Jha and Ms. Nidhi Jha, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of damages and compensation in the sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- for malicious prosecution from the defendant.2. The suit, not accompanied with any application for interim relief, came up first before the learned Joint Registrar on 19th September, 2016 when summons thereof were issued.3. The defendant, on service of summons filed IA.No.13763/2016 u/O VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for rejection for the plaint.4. The plaintiff inspite of opportunities has not filed reply to the application.5. The plaintiff, in the plaint has pleaded (i) that he is engaged in the business of ...
Archana Kukreja vs.managing Committee St. Angels School Rohini & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + % + W.P.(C) No.5284/2016 W.P.(C) No.5284/2016& conn. 23rd March, 2017 ........ Petitioner ARCHANA KUKREJA Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Adv. versus MANAGING COMMITTEE ST. ANGELS SCHOOL ROHINI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Prakash Gautam and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advs. for R-1 to 3. Mr. Rizwan, Adv. for Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, Adv. for R/GNCTD. + W.P.(C) No.5285/2016 POMILA HANDA Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus MANAGING COMMITTEE ST. ANGELS SCHOOL ROHINI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Prakash Gautam and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advs. for R-1 to 3. Mr. Rizwan, Adv. for Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, Adv. for R/GNCTD. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) W.P.(C) No.5284/2016 & conn. Page 1 of 6 W.P.(C) No.5284/2016 1. In this writ petition two prayers were made. One prayer was for seeking appointment of a Defence Assistant for the petiti...
Primero Skill & Training Pvt Ltd vs.selima Publications Pvt Ltd & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
% + *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d March, 2017 CS(COMM) 1651/2016 & IA No.15902/2016 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC). PRIMERO SKILL & TRAINING PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. C.S. Yadav, Mr. Praful Jindal and Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advs. versus ..... Defendants SELIMA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD & ORS CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 Through: None. The plaintiff has instituted this suit (i) for declaration that the publication of Article in the newspaper Dainik Samayik Prasanga dated 21st November, 2016 by the defendants is bad in law and contrary to the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana; (ii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing and reporting any Article/news similar to the Article dated 21st November, 2016; and, (iii) for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.2. The suit came up for admission on 21st December, 2016 and thereafter on 23rd December, 2016 when after hearing the counsels for the...
Vf Worldwide Holdings Ltd. Vs.ministry of External Affairs, Govt. Of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-2017
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 892/2017 & CM41142017 & 8713/2017 Judgment delivered on:23. 03.2017 VF WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS LTD. ....... Petitioner versus MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr MahinderAcharya, Sr. Adv. with Mr Samar Kachwaham & Mr Raghavendra M Bajaj. : Mr Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms Arti Bansal. : Mr Rakesh Tikku, Sr. Adv. with Mr Arvind Sharma. For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 For the Respondent No.3 CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the letter dated 23.01.2017 which has been addressed by the respondent no.2 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was informed that since its bid security was a New Zealand dollar and not in US dollar, the petitioners bid for providing Visa /Passport /Consular support services at three locations i...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »