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.
Govt of Nct of Delhi vs.dhan Raj & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:22. d March, 2017 LPA1382017 & CM No.7656/2017 (delay in filing) GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Versus SANJAY & ORS. ..........Appellant ......Respondents + LPA1392017 & CM No.7664/2017 (delay in filing) GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Versus DHAN RAJ & ANR. ..........Appellant ......Respondents None for respondents. Present: Mr. B. Mahapatra, Advocate for appellant. CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL JUDGMENT1 The Government of NCT of Delhi/respondent in W.P.(C)No.8636/2016 and W.P(C) No.8566/2016 is the appellant before us.2. Though the said petitions were disposed of by separate orders, since both the petitions involve common questions of fact and law they are heard and decided together.3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that there is a delay of 104 days in filing LPA No.138/2017 and there is a delay of 108 days in filing LPA No.139/2017. The only explanation offered in the applications is that the ...
Himanshu Gupta vs.engineers India Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % HIMANSHU GUPTA W.P.(C) No.6391/2016 22nd March, 2017 Through: ........ Petitioner Ms. Chandrani Prasad and Ms. Srishti, Advocates. ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Gulshan Chawla and Mr. Yuvan Gandhi, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the relief of declaring of the result of the petitioner as regards the DPC held for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager, Level-14. Though the date of DPC is not mentioned in the writ petition, it is not disputed however that the results of the DPC as regards promotion to the post of Deputy Manager resulted in the results being declared on 30.6.2014 wherein the name of the petitioner was not found as having been granted promotion. W.P.(C) No.6391/2016 Page 1 of 7 2. The only defence urged by the resp...
Sabiha Sultana & Others vs.ahmad Aziz & Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~24 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2958/2011 SABIHA SULTANA & OTHERS ..... Plaintiffs AHMAD AZIZ & ANOTHER Through Mr Aly Mirza, Advocate & Ms Nisheeta Anand, Advocate. versus ..... Defendants Through Mr Arvind Bhatt and Mr Kuber Giri, Advocate for D-1 with D-1 in person. Mr Kunal Kohli, Advovcate for D2/DSIIDC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER2203.2017 % VIBHU BAKHRU, J IA No.12357/2015 1. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 (hereafter the defendant) are siblings. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying for partition of specified immovable properties which they assert form a part of the estate of the Late parents of the plaintiffs and the defendant. They allege that the defendant has illegally and improperly, by playing a fraud on the authorities (defendant No.2), succeeded in having the properties in question mutated in his name. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendant had fraudulently got the sale deeds/gift deeds executed from their m...
Harish @ Zahar vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:18. h October, 2016 Decided on:22. d March, 2017 CRL.A. 596/2016 & Crl.M.B. 1266/2016 VICKY Represented by: Mr. Dhan Mohan with Ms. ..... Appellant versus Tanu B. Mishra, Advs. THE STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State. CRL.A. 650/2016 & Crl.M.B. 1355/2016 HARISH @ ZAHAR ..... Appellant STATE Represented by: Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey with Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs. versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA State 1. Convicted for offence punishable under Sections 3IPC Vicky and Harish @ Zahar challenge the impugned judgment dated 10th May, 2016 and the order on sentence dated 16th May, 2016 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of `20,000/- each.2. Assailing the conviction, Learned Counsel for Vicky submits that Crl.A. 596/2016 & 650/2016 Page 1 of 6 there...
Ranjit Singh vs.guru Harkrishan Public School (New Delhi Society) & An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RANJIT SINGH W.P.(C) No.2642/2017 22st March, 2017 Through: ........ Petitioner Mr. R.K. Saini, Mr. Minal Sehgal, Advocates versus GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL (NEW DELHI SOCIETY) & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the relief of quashing of transfer order dated 7.3.2017 issued by the respondent No.2/Guru Harkrishan Public School transferring the petitioner from Guru Harkrishan Public School, Kalkaji to Guru Harkrishan Public School, Tilak Nagar.2. The legal propositions with respect to whether an employee of a private unaided school in Delhi can be transferred to another school in Delhi, are well settled as under: W.P.(C) No.2642/2017 Page 1 of 11 (i) Each school branch functioning as a school under the Delh...
M/S Mahamaya Enterprises and Ors vs.m/s Groupe Seb India Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~7 * + Through: Mr. Dipak Kumar Jena and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA2662016 M/S MAHAMAYA ENTERPRISES AND ORS. ..... Appellants M/S GROUPE SEB INDIA PVT LTD CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % Through: Mr. Rajan Khanna, Advocate. ORDER2203.2017 ..... Respondent 1. Appearance is entered by learned counsel for the respondent. Both the parties state in unison that during the pendency of the appeal, they have been able to negotiate a settlement, which has been reduced into writing by virtue a Deed of Settlement dated 22.2.2017 whereunder, the appellants have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent. The said amount has already been paid by the appellant. Further, the respondent has given a no objection to the appellants for approaching the transporter for release of goods.2. A copy of the Deed of Settlement dated 22.2.2017 is handed over by learned counsels for the parties. The same is taken on record.3. The appeal is accordi...
Shri Bir Singh & Ors. Vs.sarwan Singh & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: March 22, 2017 .....Appellants Through: Mr. S.N. Prashar, Advocate SHRI BIR SINGH & ORS + MAC.APP. 37/2009 SARWAN SINGH & ORS. Versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.K.Soni, Advocate, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR for respondent No.3 % ORAL1 JUDGMENT In this appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by appellants-claimants. Vide impugned Award of 24th August, 2006, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) has awarded compensation of `8,72,372/- with interest @ 12% p.a. on account of death of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police, aged 46 years. The facts already noted in impugned Award need no reproduction as addition of Provident Fund contribution in the income of deceased and grant of compensation under the head 'loss of consortium is sought in this appeal.2. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submits that provident fund contribution has been wrongly deducted by learne...
Saleem @ Mendak vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:28. h November, 2016 Decided on:22. d March, 2017 CRL.A. 154/2016 SONI @ MEHTAB ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Dhan Mohan and Ms. Tanu B. Mishra, Advocates. versus THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Hukam Chand, PS GTB Enclave. + CRL.A. 329/2016 JAHID @ BANTI ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate. STATE + versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with SI Hukam Chand, PS GTB Enclave CRL.A. 424/2016 SALEEM @ MENDAK ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Advocate STATE for Ms. Pallavi S. Kansal, Advocate. versus Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP ..... Respondent for the State with SI Hukam Chand, PS GTB Enclave CRL.A. 154/2016, 329/2016 & 424/2016 Page 1 of 8 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Vide impugned judgment dated 17th November, 2015 Soni @ Mehtab, Jahid @ Banti, and Saleem @ ...
Union of India vs.satya Prakash & Bros pvt.ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~ * 17 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. 35/2009 UNION OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Shekhar Gehlot and Mr. Shambhu Chaturvedi, Advocates. versus SATYA PRAKASH & BROS PVT.LTD ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Mr. Abhishek Pundir and Mr. Kunal Kohli, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR % ORDER2203.2017 1. This is a petition by the Union of India, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), challenging the impugned Award dated 31st July, 2008 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the... Petitioner and the Respondent Satya Prakash & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. arising out of a Contract Agreement dated 21st November, 2000 whereby the Contract of Construction of 6-Lane Marginal Bund Road from Vikas Marg to NH-24 Bypass (Phase-I), S.H. Road work, Footpath Work, Drainage Work and Retaining, was awarded by the... Petitioner to the Respondent.2. The work was to be completed ...
Suman Bagh vs.rekha Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~11 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA7972016 & C.M. No.37650/2016 SUMAN BAGH Through: None. versus REKHA SHARMA Through: None. ..... Appellant ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER2203.2017 1. The matter was passed over on the first call as none was present on behalf of the appellant. The position remains the same even on the second call.2. A perusal of the record reveals that appellant has not deposited till date the decretal amount in terms of the orders dated 06.10.2016, nor did he file the process fee for effecting service on the respondent, returnable on 08.12.2016. On 08.12.2016, the appellant was granted another opportunity to serve the respondent by filing the process fee within one week, returnable before the learned Registrar on 01.2.2017. On 01.2.2017, it was recorded that notice could not be issued as the process fee filed by the appellant had remained under objection. The appellant was granted yet another opportunity to remove the ob...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »