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.
Scg Contracts Indiapvt Ltd vs.engineers India Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
$~1 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 342/2016 SCG CONTRACTS INDIAPVT LTD ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Kshitiz Khera, Advocate. versus ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr Navin Kumar, Advocate for R-1. Ms Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate for NDMC (R-2). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER2003.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act), inter alia, praying that an arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the agreement dated 12.04.2010 (hereafter 'the Agreement') relating to Area Development Works for Inner and Outer Circle of Connaught Place for re-development of Connaught Place, New Delhi. The Agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause 2. which is set out below:-"83.0 ARBITRATION SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BY831 Settlement of Disputes by Arbitration other than AR...
Re-M/S Ganga Automobile Ltd. Vs.-
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
$~53 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced On:20. 03.2017 + CO.PET. 161/1997, CO.APPL.1231/2000, 311/2012, 616/2012, 617/2012, 618/2012, 619/2012, 622/2012, 1222/2014, 1717/2015, 2465/2015, 2466/2015, 534/2016 & 535/2016 RE-M/S GANGA AUTOMOBILE LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate with Ms. Swati Sinha and Ms. Prerna Chopra, Advocates for the petitioners Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Mr. Akshay Ringe, Ms. Kalyani Lal and Mr. Sangram Singh, Advocates Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarun Singh, Advocate for M/s Goyal M.G. Gases (P) Ltd. and M/s Poysha Oxygen (P) Ltd. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.K. Rustagi and Mr. Mayank Rustagi, Advocates for DAL Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Advocate for MSIL in CO.APPL.1231/2000 Mr. Alok Bachawat and Ms. TAvishi Chandra, Advocates for Mr. Ramesh Suri, Contemnor Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate for Income Tax Department CO.PET.161/1997 Page 1 of 1 CORAM: HONBLE MR JUS...
Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited vs.ideb Projects Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:20. 03.2017 O.M.P. (COMM) 576/2016 and IA No.15795/2016 + PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LIMITED versus IDEB PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : : ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Mr Puneet Taneja and Ms Shaheen. Mr Neeraj Sharma with Mr Seshagiri Vadnani, Mr. Adhish Rajvanshi & Mr. Ravinder Parsad. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited (hereafter PHHL) has filed the 1. present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act) impugning an arbitral award dated 06.09.2016 (hereafter the impugned award) rendered by the Sole Arbitrator, Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.).2. The impugned award was made and published in respect of the disputes raised by the respondent, IDEB Projects Private Limited (hereafter 'IDEB') in connection with the Contract dated 01.09.2004 entered ...
Umra Devi vs.north Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :16. 3.2017 Judgment delivered on :20. 3.2017 + W.P.(C) 8722/2015 UMRA DEVI ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Neha Garg and Mr. Nitin Garg, Advocates versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel for NDMC + W.P.(C) 8725/2015 INDERJEET SINGH ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Neha Garg and Mr. Nitin Garg, Advocates versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel for NDMC + W.P.(C) 8872/2015 DAYA WANTI ........ Petitioner Through Ms. Neha Garg and Mr. Nitin Garg, Advocates versus WP(C) Nos.8722/2015, 8725/2015, 8872/2015 & 8898/2015 Page 1 of 14 NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel for NDMC + W.P.(C) 8898/2015 KRISHNA & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through Ms. Neha Garg and Mr. Nitin Garg, Advocates versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Thro...
M/S Star Propwell Pvt. Limited vs.state Bank of Patiala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2507/2017 & CM Nos. 10830-31/2017 M/S STAR PROPWELL PVT. LIMITED Through: Mr. K. Sunil, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate. STATE BANK OF PATIALA CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER2003.2017 1. The limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the present petition is that despite repeated representations made by it to the respondent/Bank for sanction of a loan of Rs.40 crores, the Bank has not taken any steps to disburse the said amount.2. Mr. Sunil, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the court to the letter dated 03.3.2017, enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-13 and states that this was the last representation made by the petitioner to the respondent/Bank for sanction of the loan, but no response has been received from the respondent/bank so far.3. Mr. Kapur, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank, who appears on advance notice, assures...
Ravinder Singh & Anr. Vs.manoj Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
$R-1A & R-1 (Part A) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Decision on :20. h March, 2017 CS (COMM) 21/2016 RAVINDER SINGH & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Nemo. versus NARESH KUKREJA Through: Nemo. ..... Defendants + CS (COMM) 22/2016 RAVINDER SINGH & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Nemo. versus MANOJ KUMAR PRUTHI & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Mr. Sanjay S. Chhabra, Mr. Vijay Laxmi & Mr. Pradeep Chhindra, Advs. for D-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER1 These two suits filed by the same set of plaintiffs, one after the other, in respect of the same subject property it being shop bearing No.6A , Khan Market, New Delhi were consolidated for purposes of trial by common order dated 11.05.2009. It may be noted that Naresh Kukreja one of the two defendants in the second suit i.e. CS (Comm) CS (Comm)21 & 22/2016 Page 1 of 4was the sole defendant in the first suit, he having been described as the owner of the subject property, the other defendant in the seco...
Sh. Prabhu Lal vs.bses Yamuna Power Limited and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.2424/2017 20th March, 2017 + % SH. PRABHU LAL ........ Petitioner Mr. Anuj Soni, Advocate. Through: versus BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED AND ORS. ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.K. Sethi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate for respondent No.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 petitioner seeks the relief of quashing of the communication dated 22.2.2017 issued by the respondent no.1/employer refusing to release the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner on petitioners superannuation. The impugned order dated 22.2.2107 reads as under:-"HR(D) EAST/2016-17/278 Sh. Prabhu Lal, A-88, Nathu Pura, Near MCD Primary School, Delhi-84 DATE2202-2017 W.P.(C) No.2424/2017 Page 1 of 6 Sub: Request for releasing payment of...
Rameshwar @ Kanwar Singh vs.bses Rajdhani Power Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:31. t January, 2017 Decided on:20. h March, 2017 CRL.M.C. 1700/2016 & Crl.M.A. 7200/2016 (stay) RAMESHWAR @ KANWAR SINGH Represented by: Mr. Fanish K. Jain, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Puneet K.G., Mr. Sunil CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Fernandes, Advs.1. A complaint case was filed by the respondent under Section 151 read with Section 154 for offences punishable under Sections 135 read with Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short the Act) and for determination of civil liability under Section 154(5) of the Act. In the said complaint being CC No.148/2012 the petitioner was arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the name Kanwar Singh as owner and Rameshwar as registered consumer.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner Rameshwar @ Kanwar Singh is the owner and registered consumer of the premises in question....
Krishna & Ors. Vs.north Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :16. 3.2017 Judgment delivered on :20. 3.2017 + W.P.(C) 8898/2015 KRISHNA & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through Ms. Neha Garg and Mr. Nitin Garg, Advocates versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel for NDMC CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.For order see WP(C) 8722/2015. MARCH20 2017/A INDERMEET KAUR, J...
Chhotu vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Decided on:20. h March, 2017 CRL.A. 1567/2014 CHHOTU STATE Represented by: Mr.Krishan Kumar with ..... Appellant Ms.Vidushi Sharma, Advs. versus Represented by: Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for State. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 8 & 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act) and order on sentence directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and 5 years and to pay a fine of 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months on each count for offences punishable under Sections 8 & 10 POCSO Act respectively.2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though charged for offence defined under Section 5(m) and punishable under Section 6 POCSO Act, he has been convicted for offence punishable und...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »