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.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited vs.scn Sujla Channel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:23. d February, 2017 Pronounced on:7. h March, 2017 + CS (COMM) 67/2016 and IA No.1415/2016 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Advocate with Ms. Anjana Ahluwalia, Advocate versus SCN SUJLA CHANNEL ..... Defendant Through: Ex parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT1 The present suit has been instituted seeking reliefs in the nature of permanent injunction against infringement of the copyrights, rendition of accounts, damages, etc. by the plaintiff, a music company, having its registered office in Delhi against the defendant, a ground cable operator providing cable television services under the logo SCN SUJLA Channel and SCN Sardarsahar in the state of Rajasthan from its location in Sujangarh (Churu). Since the plaintiff asserts its CS (Comm) 67/2016 Page 1 of 13 copyrights respecting certain works, the infringement of which statedly has g...
Health Food Products Private Limited vs.siddhi Vinayak Industries Priv ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 19, 2017 Date of Decision: March 7, 2017 + HEALTH FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED O.M.P. 1409/2014 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Mr. Rajesh Chhetri, Ms. Meenakshi Rawat & Mr. Utsav Vaid, Advocates. versus SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent Proceeded ex parte vide order dated 3rd October, 2016. Through: CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR % JUDGMENT0703.2017 1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) by Health Foods Products Private Limited to an Award dated 14th July, 2014 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the... Petitioner and the Respondent/Siddhi Vinayak Industries Private Limited arising out of a Pre-Sale Contract dated 12th April, 2007 in terms of which the Respondent agreed to purchase from the... Petitioner 300 MT of vegetable oil.2. The background facts are that a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was executed...
Nazim vs.the State ( Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : MARCH07 2017 + CRL.M.C. 760/2016 NAZIM ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.R.P.S.Bhati, Advocate. VERSUS THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS........ RESPONDENTS Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.54/2010 under Sections 354/341/323 IPC registered at police Station Seelampur. It is stated that the matter has been settled with the respondents No.2 and 3 amicably.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have summoned the Trial Court record. On perusal of the Trial Court record, it reveals that all the prosecution witnesses have since been examined. Statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Arguments have been heard and the case is fixed for final disposal. No plausible explanation has been offered by the petitioner as to w...
Vandana Varma vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
* + % VANDANA VARMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.5480/2002 7th March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Sharda Sharma, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, 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) No.5480/2002 and C.M. Appl. No.8172/2016 (for placing on record certain facts, moved on behalf of the petitioner) 1. In this writ petition two prayers were made by the petitioner, and which read as under:-"i) Issue necessary order/direction thereby directing the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner on ad hoc/regular basis in the post of Stenographer Grade B. ii) Issue / pass orders thereby directing the respondents not to conduct any Review DPC to re fix the seniority in favour and ineligible employee namely Smt. Asha, by inducting her in the post of Stenographer Grade B and depriving the rightful claim ...
Rambeti vs.new Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~29 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:7. h March, 2017 + W.P. (C) 2151/2017 & C.M. No.9350/2017 RAMBETI Through Mr.Anand Shailani, Adv. versus ........ Petitioner NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Mananjay Mishra, Adv. with Ms.Nidhi Jain, Adv. for NDMC. Mr.Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Adv. for R-2. Mr.Ashish Mohan, Adv. for New Dehli Traders Association. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner claims that name of her husband was in the list of 628 squatters prepared by NDMC. Her husband died in the year 2014 and thereafter she has been vending near Gate No.1, Palika Bazaar, New Delhi.2. Learned counsel for the NDMC, who enters appearance on an advance copy, disputes each and every averment made by the W.P. (C) No.2151/2017 Page 1 of 4 petitioner in the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner has not been vending as of date. No supporting documents have bee...
Indul Shah vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. No.455/2001 INDUL SHAH STATE Date of Decision :7. h MARCH, 2017 ..... APPELLANT Through Mr.M.L. Yadav, Adv. with appellant in person. versus ..... RESPONDENT Through Mr.Ashish Dutta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 25th April, 1. 2001 convicting the appellant finding him guilty under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, 1985) and order on sentence dated 28th April, 2001 vide which the sentence was passed against the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, in default of payment of fine, convict was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, the present appeal has been filed.2. The facts in brief are that a secret infor...
Vinod Krishan Aggarwal vs.delhi Transport Corporation Through Chairman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2058/2017 Date of decision:7. h March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Advocate. VINOD KRISHAN AGGARWAL DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH CHAIRMAN versus ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.The petitioner Vinod Krishan Aggarwal, in this writ petition, partly impugns order dated 18th October, 2016, passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short), disposing of OA No.2676/2015.2. The petitioner, an employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation, has been chargesheeted in FIR No.291/2009 dated 19th November, 2009, Police Station Geeta Colony (Crime) under Sections 323/341/325/307/147/148/1of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As he was arrested and had remained under detention for more than 48 hours, he was suspended. The said suspension had continued till 16th July, 2011. He W.P. (C) No.2058/...
Suresh Chand Jain vs.rakesh Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MAC.APP. 269/2008 Date of decision: March 07, 2017 SURESH CHAND JAIN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. D.D. Singh and Mr. Navdeep Versus Singh, Advocates RAKESH SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT % ORAL Impugned Award of 8th February, 2008 grants compensation of `4,72,600/- with interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of one businessman-Yogesh Chand Jain, aged 23 years, in a road accident on the intervening night of 30th June and 1st July, 2005. The facts are already noted in impugned Award and so needs no reproduction. Suffice to note that deceased a shop-keeper, was engaged in business of selling garments at Pahari Dheeraj. To assess the income of deceased, learned Tribunal has relied upon Income Tax Return (Ex.PW-5/3), which is of a period prior to his death, and on its basis, the income of deceased has been quantified to be `73,200/- per annum. Pertinently, the Income T...
New Delhi Municipal Council vs.sarvesh Chand Gupta and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~A-33 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:07. 03.2017 C.R.P. 48/2017 and CM No.7398/2017 (stay) NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Kshitiz Karjee and Mr.Aditya Vikram Singh, Advocates. versus SARVESH CHAND GUPTA AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.P.K.Rawal and Mr. Tarun Agarwal, Advocates for R-1. Mr.Sunil Mittal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Dhruv Grover, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. The present petition is filed under Section 115 CPC to impugn the order dated 26.11.2016 by which an application filed by the petitioner/NDMC under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of Delhi in filing of the amended written statement after the amendment to the written statement was allowed was dismissed.2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent/mandatory injunction pertaining to a property located at Bengali Market, New Delhi. Respondent No.1 seeks a decree of permanent ...
Bhim Kumar @ Raju vs.state (Gnct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:20. h February, 2017 Decided on:7. h March, 2017 CRL.A. 75/2017 & Crl.M.A. 1126/2017 BHIM KUMAR @ RAJU ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Dhan Mohan, Ms. Tanu B. Mishra and Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Advocates. versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with SI Shiv Kumar, PS Sarai Rohilla Railway Station. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Convicted for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC Bhim Kumar @ Raju challenges the impugned judgment dated 14th October, 2015 and the order on sentence of the even date directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Bhim Kumar @ Raju submits that the prosecution has failed to establish any supporting evidence against Bhim @ Raju. Neither any eye witness nor the CCTV footage has been produced in evidence. Further, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- Next ›
- Last »