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.
Dushyant Kumar vs.state & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL M.C7572017 Date of Hearing & Order: March 7th, 2017 DUSHYANT KUMAR Through: Mr. Rajender Chhabra, Advocate, DHCLSC. ........ Petitioner versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub-Inspector Parvesh Kumar, Police Station K. Nagar, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section. 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by 1. the... Petitioner, namely, Sh. Dushyant Kumar for quashing of FIR No.50/2014, under Section 354A/354C/509 IPC registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi on the basis of a compromise arrived at between him and respondent No.2 namely Smt. Somi Aggarwal upon the intervention of the respectable society.2. the family members and members of respondent-State Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for CRL M.C7572017 Page 1 of 7 case is that The the present factual matrix of submitted that the respondent present in th...
Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd vs.todi Lal & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 07, 2017 FAO4752016 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Vandana Khalon and Mr. Rudra Kahlon, Advocates Versus TODI LAL & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for R- 1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % (ORAL) JUDGMENT Received on transfer. C.M.No.35516/2016 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M. 35517/2016 (delay) There is delay of 62 days in filing the accompanying appeal. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with as learned counsel for appellant submits that no relief is claimed againt him in this appeal against respondent No.2. Upon hearing, I find that averments made in paragraph No.2 of the Page 1 of 4 FAO4752016 instant application provide sufficient cause to condone the delay occasioned. The application is allowed and the delay stands condoned. The application is disposed of. FAO4752016 & C.M. No.35515/2016 (for stay) As per order of 2...
Neelam Bhalla vs.jagdish Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~A-37 * % + RC.REV. 115/2017 NEELAM BHALLA Date of decision:07. 03.2017 ........ Petitioner Through Dr.Anurag Kumar Agarwal and Mr.Umesh Mishra, Advocates versus JAGDISH KUMAR Through ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) CM No.9281/2017 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. RC.REV. 115/2017 1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) to impugn the order dated 11.01.2017 by which order the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred as the ARC) dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that there is no municipal identity of the premises and that the petitioner is in defiance of the Municipal Laws. It however permitted the petitioner to again approach the court after due compliance of the Municipal Laws.2. The petitioner filed the present eviction petition under Section RC...
Vipin & Anr vs.the State ( Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DECIDED ON :7. h MARCH, 2017 CRL.M.C. 685/2016 VIPIN & ANR ........ Petitioners Through : Mr.Anil Sethi, Advocate. versus Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP. THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG ........ RESPONDENTS S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) CRL.M.A.No.3957/2017 (Delay) 1. Issue notice.2. Mr.Amit Gupta, APP for the State accepts notice.3.4. State has no objection for condonation of delay. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of petition, the delay is condoned.5. The application for condonation of delay is disposed of. CRL.M.A.No.3956/2017 1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the petition is restored in its original number.2. The application stands disposed of. Crl.M.C.685/2016 Page 1 of 3 CRL.M.C. 685/2016 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.1114/2015 registered under Sections 392/4IPC a...
Mmtc Ltd. Vs.chauhan Jewellers & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:07. 03.2017 + O.M.P. (COMM) 371/2016 & IA No.9480/2016 ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS MMTC LTD. Versus CHAUHAN JEWELLERS & ORS. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : : Mr Chinmoy Pradip Sharma and Mr Sayan Ray. Mr Alok Kumar and Mr Nair Renjith Ramesh and Mr Jitendra Kumar. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 MMTC Ltd. (hereafter 'MMTC') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act) impugning an arbitral award dated 26.04.2016 (hereafter 'the impugned award') passed by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted of Justice S.N. Sapra (Retired), Presiding Arbitrator, Justice S.K. Mahajan (Retired) and Mr D.R. Jain. By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal has dismissed the claims made by MMTC against the respondents and further directed MMTC to release and handover the title deeds...
Ram Narayan vs.delhi Pinjra Pole Society (Regd)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2017
$~6 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 07, 2017 RSA662017 RAM NARAYAN Through: Ms.Seema Sharma, Advocate with appellant in person ..... Appellant versus DELHI PINJRA POLE SOCIETY (REGD) CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI Through: Mr.Gaurav Barathi, Advocate ..... Respondent JUDGMENT (Oral) RSA No.66/2017 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellant against the concurrent finding of the Courts below i.e. judgment dated 12th January, 2017 passed by the First Appellate Court and dated 04th August, 2016 passed by the learned Trial Court declaring the status of the appellant to be that of a licensee in the suit property and that the licence stood terminated by the respondent. Vide impugned judgment, the appellant was also directed to pay mesne profit/damages at the rate of 1000/- per month from the date of filing the suit till its realization with interest @ 6% per annum.2. In...
Iqbal Singh Vedi vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * + W.P. (C) 5593/2015 % IQBAL SINGH VEDI Reserved on:8. h February, 2017 Pronounced on:6. h March, 2017 Through: Mr. Malaya Kumar Chand, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate with petitioner in person. ........ Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: Mr. Vikram... RESPONDENTS No.1 and 2. ........ RESPONDENTS Jetly, CGSC for Mr. D.S. Rawat, Deputy Director Administration, DGCA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No.1075/2014, by which the Tribunal quashed the letter dated 11.11.2013 issued by PAO, DGCA and the letter dated 05.12.2013 by PAO, CPAO and directed the respondents to re-determine the petitioners basic pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in accordance with the P&PWs O.M. dated 01...
Kiran vs.government of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2017
$~57 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 2035/2017 & CM No.8984/2017 Judgment delivered on:06. 03.2017 KIRAN ........ Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA : Adv. (appearance not given) ..... Respondent : Mr. Rishi Kapoor and Mr. H. Tholia, Advocates. JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the respondents to return and deliver the original registered sale deed presented on 24.08.2016. It is contended that the said document was presented for registration with the respondent No.2 Sub Registrar IX and till date neither any objection has been received nor has the original title document been returned after registration.2. Since the relief is directed against only respondent No.1 and 2, Issue notice to respondent No.1 and 2. Learned counsel accepts notice W.P.(C) No.2035/2017 Page 1 of 2 appearing on behalf o...
Nirmal Siksha Kendra vs.new Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2017
$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2072/2017 & C.M. Nos. 9084-85/2017 NIRMAL SIKSHA KENDRA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. H.L. Tiku, Senior Advocate with Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Advocate. versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra and Mr. Jaskaran Kaur, Advocates. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER0603.2017 1. The petitioner/Society is aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the assessing authority of the respondent/NDMC, turning down its request for exemption from paying property tax under Section 62 of the NDMC Act and further, deciding a demand notice dated 3.2.2017 under Section 72 of the Act by fixing the rateable value of the said premises.2. Mr. Mitra, learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on an advance notice, raises a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternate remedy of filing an appeal ...
Varinder Katyal vs.simret Katyal & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(M) 267/2017 VARINDER KATYAL Date of decision:06.03.2017 .Petitioner $~A-37 * % + Through Mr.Vikas Aggarwal, Adv. versus SIMRET KATYAL & ORS. Through .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) CM No.8902/2017 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 267/2017 & CM No.8901/2017 1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 25.05.2016 and 04.11.2016.2. The background facts are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1/respondent No.2 Union Bank of India to substitute the name of the respondent No.1 in place of her late husband Shri Harinder Katyal with respect to operation of a locker. A decree of permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the bank from letting/permitting operation of the locker by the petitioner. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »