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.
The Delhi Transporters Association and Anr. Vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:22. 03.2017 + W.P. (C) 2882/2013, CM APPL.5417/2013, 24904/2016 THE DELHI TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Vertika Sharma with Mr. Ravi Chandhok, Advocates. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC (Civil), Mr. Vikas Kr. Gupta, Advocate for Trade & Taxes, Deptt. Mr. Nikhil Goel, proxy for Mr. L.R. Garg, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner - a transporter association is aggrieved and seeks several reliefs - all primarily based upon the complaint that in the absence of any statutory basis and the publication of relevant forms, the goods vehicles plied by its members cannot be subjected to detention, penalty or any coercive action.2. The petitioner is an integrated society which espouses the cause of goods vehicles owners and such like transporters. Interstate ...
Beena Arora vs.directorate of Education & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % BEENA ARORA W.P.(C) No.4692/2015 22nd March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha, Advocate. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS versus Through: Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC for respondent No.1. Ms. Karuna Chhatwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. 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 and who is a teacher with the respondent no.2/Sant Nirankari Public School, seeks the relief of being granted the Child Care Leave. Respondent no.2/school is an unaided private school.... Petitioner however claims that since in government schools, employees are entitled to Child Care Leave, therefore, by application of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter W.P.(C) No.4692/2015 Page 1 of 4 referred to as the Act) Child Care Leave is also to be grant...
Ravinder Kumar Khanna vs.prem Parkash Khanna & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d March, 2017. CS(OS) No.358/2016, IA No.8664/2016 (u/O39R-1&2 CPC) & IA No.8666/2016 (for condonation of 45 days delay) RAVINDER KUMAR KHANNA Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Adv. ..... Plaintiff Versus PREM PARKASH KHANNA & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Through: None. ..... Defendants The plaintiff has instituted this suit (i) for declaration that the Gift 1. Deed dated August, 2015 executed by defendants No.1&2 namely Sh. Prem Parkash Khanna and Smt. Krishna Kumari Khanna wife of Sh. Prem Parkash Khanna in favour of the defendant No.3 Smt. Anu Narula qua property No.M-174, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi is bad, illegal, void and non- enforceable document; (ii) for mandatory injunction to the Sub Registrar of Assurances with whom the Gift Deed aforesaid is registered to cancel the registration thereof; (iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.3 from claiming herself to be the owne...
Sarvesh Security Services Private Limited vs.the Comptroller & Auditor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~36 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:22. 03.2017 W.P.(C) 2473/2017 SARVESH SECURITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ........ Petitioner THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA versus .... Respondent : Mr Arjun Mitra, Ms Aastha Jain and Ms Jaskaran Kaur : Ms Biji Rajesh, Ms Eshita Baruah for Mr Gaurang Kanth Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA % SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) ORDER2203.2017 CM No.10704/2017 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2473/2017 & CM No.10703/2017(stay) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main reason for passing the impugned order of debarment for a period of five years is the allegation that the petitioner was aware of the blacklisting order WP(C) 2473/2017 Page 1 of 4 passed by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) on 17.02.2015 and the same was not disclosed at the time of the submission of the bid on 14.03.2015...
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs.saregama India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision March 22, 2017 RFA(OS)(COMM) 4/2017 ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Sudeep Chatterjee, Ms.Jaya Mandelia and Ms.Kangan Roda, Advocates versus SAREGAMA INDIA LTD ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.P.Chidambaram, Sr.Advocate and Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Ajay Bhargava, Ms.Vanita Bhargava, Mr.Ankur Sangal and Mr.Sharngan, A., Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The appellant obtained a license from the respondent commencement of rights whereunder was with effect from January 01, 2014. Agreed license fee in sum of `2.15 crores was paid. The license permitted appellant to use the repertoire of the respondent. The agreement was novated and the license fee was increased to `3.17 crores. Upon the expiry of the period of the license, the parties negotiated. R...
n.s. Sharma & Ors. Vs.south Delhi Municipal Corp. & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA1462017 Pronounced on:22. d March, 2017 N.S. SHARMA & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr. Mohan K. Kukreja, Advocate with Mr.B.L. Khatri, Advocate. Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Surender Sinha, Advocate with Mr.Rameez Siddiqui, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL JUDGMENT1 The present appeal arises out of the order dated 16.01.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.369/2017. The unsuccessful petitioners are the appellants before us.2. The appellants herein filed the said writ petitions challenging the order dated 25.05.2016 of the Executive Engineer (Bldg.), Central Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) thereby permitting installation of a lift in Nehru Apartments, Kalkaji, New Delhi.3. Admittedly, the appellants herein/writ petitioners raised various objections before the Exec...
M/S Vijay Sales vs.karamat Hussain & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~3 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:22. d March, 2017 FAO2292016 & C.M. Appl. 18945/2016 M/S VIJAY SALES ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate versus ........ RESPONDENTS KARAMAT HUSSAIN & ORS Through: Mr. Peeush Kulshreshtha, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Mahesh Ranjan, Advocate for Respondent no.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 29th February, 2016 whereby the Commissioner, Employees Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.11,71,044/- to respondents no.1 and 2.2.... RESPONDENTS no.1 and 2 are the parents of late Mehfooz Alam who fell down from the first floor of the appellants show room while installing a split air conditioner. The Commissioner, Employees Compensation held the appellant being the principal employer and respondent no.3 being the contractor to be jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation of Rs.11,71,044/- including the inter...
Oasis Films vs.doordarshan & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA4612016 Pronounced on:22. d March, 2017 OASIS FILMS Through: Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna, Adv. with Mr.Sumit Chander, Adv. .....Appellant Versus DOORDARSHAN & ORS ....Respondents Through: Mr.Rajeev Sharma,Adv.for R-1&3. Mr.Rakesh Kumar, CGSC for R-4/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL JUDGMENT1 The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2087/2016 is the appellant before us.2. The appellant/writ petitioner, which claims to be a firm engaged in business of making and producing Films, Documentaries, Short Films etc., filed the said writ petition on 23.02.2016 challenging the order of the respondent No.1/Doordarshan dated 09.06.2014 whereby the petitioner's proposal titled 'Code Eleven' as 3D animation series on Doordarshan Urdu Channel was rejected. By the order under appeal dated 14.03.2016, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding as under:-"6. In the opinion of this Court since an...
Priya Ranjan Samal and Anr. Vs.vice Chancellor Ignou and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.7380/2003 22nd March, 2017 PRIYA RANJAN SAMAL AND ANR. Through: None. VICE CHANCELLOR IGNOU AND ORS. versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate for R-1-3. 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 two petitioners seek the relief of quashing of the seniority list dated 11.9.2000 for the post of Technical Assistants in the Communication Division of the respondent no.2/IGNOU/employer, wherein the respondent No.4 has been shown as senior to the petitioners.2.... Petitioners were appointed to the post of Technicians in the Communication Division of the respondent No.2 with effect from 11.6.1993 and 25.6.1993, respectively. Respondent No.4 was, however, appointed earlier on 3.1.1992. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Technician for working under the Comput...
Praveen Kumar & Anr vs.rakshi Aggrawal & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2017
$~2. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA1232017 1. PRAVEEN KUMAR & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ashish Bhagat, Advocate with Mr. Brajesh Kumar and Mr. Akshat Kumar, Advs. versus RAKSHI AGGRAWAL & ORS Through: None ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % The appellants/plaintiffs are aggrieved by the judgment dated ORDER2203.2017 14.09.2016, passed by the learned trial court dismissing their suit for declaration, praying inter alia that they be declared as owners in adverse possession of the suit premises and for permanent injunction.2. It is pertinent to note that despite service, the respondents/defendants did not appear in the suit and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.05.2013.3. After addressing arguments at admission for some time, Mr. Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellants states that he does not wish to press the appeal on merits. He, however, states that in the event, a suit for possession in respect of the suit pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »