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.
A.n. Buildwell pvt.ltd.(in prov.liqn.) vs.surender Kumar Hooda & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
40 to 43 & 48 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced On:15. 03.2017 + CO.APPL.(M) 115/2016 SUNIL GANDHI & ANR. ........ Petitioners versus A.N. BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent + CO.PET. 704/2014 SH. AMARPREET SINGH OBEROI & ORS......... Petitioner versus M/S A. N. BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + CO.PET. 948/2016 NEMIKA JHA ........ Petitioner versus A.N. BUILDWELL PRIVET LIMITED ..... Respondent + CO.PET. 1061/2016 VINEET GOEL versus ........ Petitioner A.N. BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent CO.APPL.(M) 115/2016 & ORS. Page 1 of 37 + CRL.O.(CO.) 11/2016 A.N. BUILDWELL PVT.LTD.(IN PROV.LIQN.)........ Petitioner versus SURENDER KUMAR HOODA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajit Warrier, Mr. Sidhant Kapur, Mr. Angad Kochhar, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj and Ms. Bani Brar, Advocates for Spirewoods Residents Association. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shreyans Singhvi and Ms. Ekta in CO.APPL.2089/2016 in CO.PET.70...
Bee Gee Enterprises vs.pushpinder Singh Senior Vice President Religare ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CONT.CAS(C) 161/2017 & CM APPL. 7307/2017 BEE GEE ENTERPRISES Through: Ms. Rubal Maini, Advocate. ........ Petitioner PUSHPINDER SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate. 6 to 10 $~ * + + + versus WITH versus CONT.CAS(C) 163/2017 & CM APPL. 7313/2017 BEE GEE ENTERPRISES Through: Ms. Rubal Maini, Advocate. ........ Petitioner PUSHPINDER SINGH SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate. ..... Respondent WITH CONT.CAS(C) 164/2017 & CM APPL. 7314/2017 SAI APARTMENTS & INFRASTRUCTURES Through: Ms. Rubal Maini, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus PUSHPINDER SINGH SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Advocate. ..... Respondent CONT.CAS(C) 161/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 6 + + % WITH CONT.CAS(C) 165/2017 & CM APPL. 7315/2017 BEE GEE ENTERPRISES Through: Ms. Rubal Maini, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus PUSHPINDER SINGH RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED Through: Mr...
Roshan Lal vs.state of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on : March 15, 2017 CRL.A. No.448/2000 ROSHAN LAL Through: Mr.H.P. Aditya, Advocate with appellant in person. ..... Appellant versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ashish Dutta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub- Inspector Sher Singh, Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI JUDGMENT P.S.TEJI, J.1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant Roshan for the offences under Sectionof IPC. He was also held guilty for commission of offence under Section 392 read with section 397 of IPC. The appellant has also challenged the order on sentence dated 04.07.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence un...
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.shiv Ram & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~4 * % + Date of Decision:15. h March, 2017 FAO2962016 & CM242182016 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD...... Appellant Through: Mr.A.K. Soni, Advocate versus SHIV RAM & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate along with respondent No.1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 8th March, 2016 whereby compensation of Rs.10,55,760/- has been awarded to respondent no.1.2. On 15th April, 2013 at about 1.00 a.m., respondent no.1 was driving vehicle No.DL-1K-5350 under the employment of respondent no.2 when he met with an accident at Bhopani village near Pula, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana which resulted in grievous injuries. The right leg of respondent no.1 was amputated at below knee level which resulted in 65% permanent disability relating to the right leg. The Commissioner, Employees Compensation took the permanent disability of respondent no.1 as 100...
Rajiv Kumar & Anr. Vs.budhpal Singh & Anr. (M/S Cholamandalam General ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 15, 2017 MAC.APP. 783/2016 & C.M.35831/2016 RAJIV KUMAR & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Alok Bhachawat and Ms. Tavishi Chandra, Advocates Versus DEVENDRA SINGH @ CHOTE & ANR (M/S CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD) ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for respondent No.2 + MAC.APP. 791/2016 RAJIV KUMAR & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Alok Bhachawat and Ms. Tavishi Chandra, Advocates Versus BUDHPAL SINGH & ANR (M/S CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD) .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % (ORAL) JUDGMENT The above captioned two appeals are directed against common MAC.APPS. 783/2016 & 791/2016 Page 1 of 6 impugned Award of 8th July, 2016 which grants compensation of 9,42,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to respondent-claima...
Ramaiah Life Style Cafe vs.eminent Entertainment & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:-"15th March, 2017. CS(COMM) 1433/2016 RAMAIAH LIFE STYLE CAFE ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Joseph Koshy, Ms. Sheetal Versus Srivastava and Ms. Divyani, Advs. EMINENT ENTERTAINMENT & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Siddhesh Kotwal,Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar and Ms. Urvashi Bandhu, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.13020/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit to restrain the three defendants (i) from infringing / using the trade mark RASTA of the plaintiff registered in Class 28 against Registration No.1875323 and in Class 43 against Registration No.1887336; (ii) from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff; and, (iii) for ancillary reliefs.2. It is the case of the plaintiff (a) that the plaintiff, a partnership firm is engaged in the business of running a chain of cafe and restaurants and is a part of Ramaiah Group; (b) that as per the Deed dated 9th December, 2009 of assi...
Sucheta vs.union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SUCHETA W.P.(C) No.2347/2017 15th March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. D.S. Chaudhary and Mr. Ajay Chaudhar, Advocates with petitioner in person. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anil Dabas, Advocate for UOI. 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 impugned order dated 3.3.2017 issued by the respondent No.2/employer cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that petitioner got employment with the respondent No.2 in the reserved Other Backward Classes (OBC) category under the Jat caste, but the Jat caste is no longer an OBC in the Central List of OBCs in view of the judgment in the case of Ram Singh and Others Vs. Union of India, (2015) 4 SCC697 The...
Raj Kumar @ Rocky vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:1. t February, 2017 Decided on:15. h March, 2017 CRL.A. 474/2002 RAJ KUMAR @ ROCKY ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Adit S. Pujari with Ms. Surabhi Dhar and Ms.Kriti Awasthi, Advocates STATE versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok K. Garg, APP for the State with ASI Rajender Prasad, PS Delhi Cantt. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 The appellant though charged for offences punishable under Sections 363/506/377/376/511 IPC has been convicted by the learned Trial Court for offences punishable under SectionsIPC vide the judgment dated 15th May, 2002 and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months vide order on sentence dated 17th May, 2002.2. Contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the false implication of the appellant in the above-noted case is evident from the case o...
Courts on Its Own Motion vs.neha Datta and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
$~4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % CONT.CAS.(CRL.)No.9/2016 Date of decision :15. h March, 2017 COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION ........ Petitioner Through : Ms. Leena Tuteja and Ms. Diksha Bhatia, Advs. for plaintiff in CS(OS)No.3379/2015. versus NEHA DATTA AND ANR. ...... RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Bharat Bhatia, Mr. Akshay Bhatia and Mr. Sharad Baijal, Advs. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP along with S.I. Sandeep Yadav and Insp. Kumar Kundan, P.S. Mehrauli. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, J.1. A suit being CS(OS)No.3379/2015 was filed by M/s Capitol Art House (P) Ltd. (the plaintiff) seeking, inter alia, a decree for injunction against the present respondents and others. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application being I.A.No.24089/2015 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C.) as well as I.A.No.24090/2015 (under Order XXVI Rule 9 Cont.Cas.(Crl.)No.9/2016 Page 1 of 8 of the C.P.C.). It is clarif...
Raju vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2017
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:15. h March, 2017 CRL.A. 435/2002 RAJU STATE CRL.A. 445/2002 SANJAY STATE ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Adv. versus Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the ..... Respondent State. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Adv. versus Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the ..... Respondent State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. Vide impugned judgment dated 21st March, 2002, Raju and Sanjay were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366/3IPC, however, the co - accused Sadanand and Ram Pal Singh were acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 368/376/201 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 5th April, 2002, Raju and Sanjay were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 3IPC and rigorous Crl. A. 435/2002 and 445/2002 Page 1 of 3 imprisonme...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »