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.
Steven Sehgal vs.state of Nct of Delhi) & Anr .
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2017
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:3. d March, 2017 CRL.M.C. 2881/2014 STEVEN SEHGAL . ..... Petitioner Represented by: None versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR . ....... RESPONDENTS Represented by: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Purnima Raj, Ms. Saakshi & Mr. Neeraj, Advocates for Respondent No.2/applicant CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A.16857/2016 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C for recalling of order dated 4th July, 2014) 1. FIR No.6registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj for offences punishable under Sections 354/354-A/506/509 IPC and proceedings pursuant thereto were quashed by this court in Crl. MC28812014 vide order dated 4th July, 2014 on the ground that parties have settled the matter after respondent no.2, the complainant appeared in the court along with counsel and stated that the FIR had been lodged by her due to some misunderstanding and CRL.M.C2881/2014 Page 1 of 7 misappr...
Batuk Prasad Jaitly vs.rajesh Chugh & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:03. 03.2017 $~A-14 * % + CM(M) 289/2015 and CM No.5881/2015 BATUK PRASAD JAITLY ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Rajat Aneja and Mr.Chandrika Gupta, Advocates. versus RAJESH CHUGH & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Harpreet Singh, Mr.Rajesh Gupta and Mr.Pranjal Saran, Advocates. 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 challenge the order dated 20.01.2015 by which an eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord was dismissed.2. The petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) seeking eviction of the tenant/respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement. The eviction was sought regarding property No.V/884, Nai Sarak Road, Main Road, Delhi. It was averred by the petitioner that the petitioner is running a saree business ...
Prem Kumari vs.brij Lal & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2017
$~3 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA9422016 & C.M. No.44732/2016 PREM KUMARI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Nimesh Chib and Mr. Pallav Gupta, Advocates. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None. BRIJ LAL & ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER0303.2017 1. After addressing arguments at some length, learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the present appeal while reserving the right of the appellant to seek legal recourse against the respondent No.2 in terms of the order dated 14.8.2015 passed in RFA2902009.2. Leave as prayed for, is granted. The appeal is disposed of along with the pending application.3. As and when the appellant institutes a suit against the respondent No.2, the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned court in accordance with law. MARCH03 2017 ap HIMA KOHLI, J...
Charanjeet Arora vs.north Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2017
$~30 * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA1682016 CHARANJEET ARORA versus ..... Appellant Through : Mr., Shrey Chathly, proxy counsel for Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Sunil Goel with Ms. Supreet Bambra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % Counsel for the appellant states that during the pendency of the ORDER0303.2017 present appeal, RFA3542016 filed by the respondent/NrDMC was disposed of along with connected appeals by a consent order dated 1.12.2016 passed in the lead matter relating to NrDMC being RFA7862016. He therefore states that nothing further survives for adjudication in the present appeal, which may be disposed of.2. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The appeal is disposed of. HIMA KOHLI, J MARCH03 2017 sk/ap...
Sete Nepali vs.b.n.meena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :5. h DECEMBER, 2016 DECIDED ON :3. d MARCH, 2017 SETE NEPALI CRL.A.432/2013 Through : Ms.Sunita Arora, Advocate. ..... Appellant B.N.MEENA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG VERSUS Through : Mr.P.C.Aggarwal, Advocate. ..... Respondent + S.P.GARG, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 31.10.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.01/03/2010 by which the appellant Sete Nepali @ Sarki was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 20(c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (In short NDPS Act). By an order dated 19.11.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine `1 lac.2. Shorn of necessary details, the prosecution case was that on 25.11.2009 at about 12.45 p.m. the appellant was intercepted by the Custom Officers at the office of Himalyan Courier Company at House No.193, Shop No.17, New Camp, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi-54 and was found in possession of 20.774 k...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs.pinaki Misra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2017
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. 01.2017 Pronounced on:03. 03.2017 ITA1192004 COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, DELHI (CENTRAL-I)..... Appellant PINAKI MISRA ..... Respondent versus ITA4232004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SANGEETA MISRA versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel and Sh. Vikrant. A. Maheshwari, Advocate, for appellants. Sh. Akhil Sibal with Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocates, for respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. These appeals concern common questions of law. The question of law framed for decision by this court is: Whether the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter also referred to as AO) on the ground that the AO has no jurisdiction to pass the order under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also referred to ...
Mann Public School vs.shri Kumar Kant Jha and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI3d March, 2017 ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Saurabh Chadha, Advocate. W.P.(C) No.8253/2010 + % MANN PUBLIC SCHOOL SHRI KUMAR KANT JHA AND ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S.K. Jha, Advocate for R-1. 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 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/school, challenges the order of the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dated 10.8.2010 by which the DST has set aside the order of the petitioner/school dated 10.3.2008 terminating the services of the respondent No.1.2. The DST has set aside the order of termination of the respondent No.1 on the ground that the services of the respondent No.1 with the petitioner/school stood confirmed after one year of service in lieu of Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The W.P.(C) No.8253/2010 Page 1 of 5 relevant paragraph of th...
Suchita Kaur vs.vipin Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2017
$~A-1 * % + CM(M) 1216/2016 SUCHITA KAUR IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:03. 03.2017 ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Jagjit Singh, Mr.Preet Singh Mr.Sukhdev Singh amd Ms.Kiran Kaushik, Advocates versus VIPIN KAPOOR ..... Respondent Through Mr.R.C.Tiwari and Mr.Subhash Chand, Advocates alongwith respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) CM No.44019/2016 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.44020/2016 (delay) For the reasons stated in the application the delay in refilling the petition is condoned. Application is allowed. CM(M) 1216/2016 1. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 2.5.2016 by which an CM(M)1216/2016 Page 1 application filed by the respondent/defendant to amend the written statement was only partially allowed.2. The respondent had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages. The par...
Meera Saikia vs.punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2017
$~A-35 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:03. 03.2017 C.R.P. 53/2017 and CM No.8460-62/2017 MEERA SAIKIA ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Arunabh Chaodhur and Mr.Karma Dorjee, Advocates. Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Through Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present petition filed under Section 115 CPC, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 26.11.2016 and 02.06.2015 passed by the trial court. By order dated 02.06.2015, the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. By order dated 26.11.2016 an application filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC for review of the order dated 02.06.2015 was also dismissed.2. The petitioner filed a suit seeking a decree of cancellation of various documents regarding a guarantee alleged to have been executed in favour of the respondent and also for mandatory injunction to direct the respondent to return the file of the prope...
p.n. Shukla vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % P.N. SHUKLA W.P.(C) No.1927/2017 3rd March, 2017 Through: Ms. Advocate. ....... Petitioner Sachdeva, Garima versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Kavindra Gill, Advocate for CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA respondent No.1. 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, a retired employee of the respondent no.2/Canara Bank, seeks the relief of quashing of the reply dated 23.5.2016 issued by the respondent no.2/employer whereby petitioner has been denied the benefit of promotion.2. A reading of the writ petition shows that petitioner in effect challenges the seniority list which was circulated by the respondent no.2 around 22 years back on 16.4.1994. This seniority list dated 16.4.1994 shows that petitioner was not given the promotion for the year 1990-91.... Petitioner had filed a statutory appeal dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- Next ›
- Last »