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.
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:7. h March, 2017 CRL.M.C. 926/2017 RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: Mr. Rajat Bali, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with SI Vishal Tiwari, PS Ambedkar Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A. 3880/2017 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.C. 926/2017 & Crl.M.A. 3879/2017 1. By the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of show cause notice and summon dated 22nd April, 2016 issued by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), South East District under SectionsCr.P.C. and the proceedings pursuant thereto.2. The relevant portion of the show cause notice dated 22nd April, 2016 reads as under:-"Whereas from the report of S.H.O./Amb. Nagar, it appears, that you Rajesh Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Hari Ram R/o B-465, Ground & III Floor, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi along with Smt. Shalu and others had tension with Smt. Mohi...
Dr. Sumit Mehta vs.governing Body Kalindi College and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % DR. SUMIT MEHTA W.P.(C) No.3821/2016 7th March, 2017 Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, Advocate. ........ Petitioner Through: versus GOVERNING BODY KALINDI COLLEGE AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. R.P.Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav Mehra, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Disha Malhotra, Adv. for R-2. 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 the letter dated 18.1.2016 whereby the respondent no.1/erstwhile employer/Kalindi College informed the petitioner that since petitioner has been absorbed on permanent basis by the present employer being the University of Rajasthan (really it should be Commissioner Office, Higher Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan), hence lien of petitioner on his post as Lecturer with the respondent no.1 has ceased to exist w.e.f. 25.11.2015 being the date of...
Sangeeta Chadha & Ors. Vs.m/s Bansal Credits Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~9 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM) 456/2016 & IA Nos.13429-13430/2016 SANGEETA CHADHA & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr N. M. Popli, Advocate. versus M/S BANSAL CREDITS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Kunal Madan and Mr Shyam, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % VIBHU BAKHRU, J ORDER0703.2017 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act) impugning an arbitral award dated 19.10.2015 (hereafter the impugned award) rendered by the Sole Arbitrator, Sh. R.C. Vashist.2. The present petition was filed on 03.10.2016, which is apparently beyond the period of limitation as specified in Section 34(3) of the Act. However, the petitioners claim that they had not received a signed copy of the impugned award and, therefore, the present petition is within time. The petitioners further allege that respondent had played a fraud and 3. had secured the impugned award b...
Sh. Mahesh Kumar Rustogi and Ors. Vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
* + % W.P.(C) No.6758/2002 7th March, 2017 ........ Petitioners IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SH. MAHESH KUMAR RUSTOGI AND ORS. Through: Mr. Viresh Chaudhary, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for R-3 & R-10. Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate for R-4. Mr. Yuvan Gandhi, Advocate for R-6 and R-7. Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate for R-8. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6 and 7 has placed on record the hand written and signed letters of petitioner nos.1,3 and 4 stating that they do not want to pursue the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of as not pressed by petitioner nos. 1,3 and 4 by taking the hand written letters of these W.P.(C) No.6758/2002 Page 1 of 7 petitioners on record. This writ petition, therefore, will only stand pressed on behalf of petitioner no.2...
Murti Devi vs.ramesh Prakash & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:07. 03.2017 $~A-15 * % + CM(M) 645/2015 and CM No.12404/2015 (stay) MURTI DEVI ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Sunil Sabharwal and Mr.Rahul Sabharwal, Advocates. versus RAMESH PRAKASH & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Respondent No.1-in-person. Through Mr.Rajat Duhan, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to impugn the order dated 31.03.2015.2. The present proceedings have a needless chequered history revolving around a simple issue of court fees payable by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 on the plaint.3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the present suit for possession and permanent injunction. It was stated that in May 2003, he purchased the suit property. The consideration was agreed to be Rs.10 lakhs. However on the day of the sale transaction, the defendant/respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to allow h...
Bhagwan Singh vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~44 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 2067/2017 Judgment delivered on:07. 03.2017 BHAGWAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Ms. Zubeda Begum and Ms Sana Ansari with petitioner in person. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent: CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC for respondent No.1. JUDGMENT0703.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) CM No.9074/2017 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2067/2017 & CM No.9073/2017(interim direction) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent to allot a ground floor or first floor Quarter instead of third floor Quarter in R.K. Puram on medical grounds. W.P.(C) No.2067/2017 Page 1 of 3 2. It is contended that petitioner was earlier allotted a Quarter in Nauroji Nagar, however, in view of the Re-development Plan of Nauroji Nagar, the petitioner was allotted an alternative Qua...
Jyoti Anand vs.naresh Chander Tannan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA2012017 & CM65062017 and Caveat No.156/2017 JYOTI ANAND Through: Mr. Vineet Chadha and Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Advocates with appellant and her son in person. ..... Appellant versus NARESH CHANDER TANNAN ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sat Pal Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocates with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER0703.2017 1. Pursuant to the order dated 22.2.2017, the respondent is present along with his counsel.2. At joint request, the matter was passed over for the parties to interact with each other.3. On pass over, learned counsels state that the parties who are related to each other, have been able to negotiate a settlement whereunder, the appellant has agreed to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit RFA2012017 Page 1 of 3 premises to the respondent on or before 31.5.2017 and in lieu thereof the respondent has agreed not to claim any amount from her towards the use and occupation char...
Smt. Rajni Rathi vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
* + % SMT. RAJNI RATHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.5685/2016 7th March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. S.N. Bhardwaj, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Parag Chawla, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) W.P.(C) 5685/2016 and C.M. Appl. No.23523/2016 (for stay) 1. Essentially two reliefs are sought by the petitioner through this writ petition. One relief sought is for quashing of the inquiry proceedings by setting aside the orders dated 13.5.2016, 3.6.2016, 8.6.2016 and subsequent orders of the Inquiry Officer. The second relief sought is for payment of monetary emoluments to the petitioner as per Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission Reports which became applicable to schools in Delhi, including the respondent No.2/school wherein the petitioner was working as a Vice-Principal. W.P.(C) No.5685/2016 Page 1 of 5 2. Learned counsel ...
Nusrat Zafar vs.jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % NUSRAT ZAFAR W.P.(C) No.6514/2002 7th March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Javed Ahmad, Advocate with Mr. Anis Ahmad, Advocate. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Apurb Lal, 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 order dated 16.11.1991 of the respondent no.1/Jamia Millia Islamia cancelling the selection process for the post of Production Manager. The impugned order dated 16.11.1991 reads as under:-" I have considered the representations of Mr. Rizwan Afzal dated 17.9.1991 and 4.10.1991. It is apparent that some irregularity was committed while considering the cases of candidates for appointment on the post of Production Manager. Therefore, I set aside the selection made by the Selection Committee on 13.9.1991 and the con...
Kartar Singh vs.jagdish Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~7 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA6692015 & C.M. No.22855/2015 KARTAR SINGH Through: None. versus JAGDISH VERMA ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma son of the respondent/plaintiff is present. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER0703.2017 1. The appeal is listed in category of After Notice Miscellaneous Matters. The matter was passed over on the first call, as none was present on behalf the appellant. Same is the position even on the second call.2. It appears the appellant/defendant is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed in default and for non- prosecution, along with the pending application. HIMA KOHLI, J MARCH07 2017 ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »