Delhi Court April 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.
Ramesh Kumar vs.ram Lubhaya
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2017
$~R-3 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:20. 04.2017 RFA132010 RAMESH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Mohinder Madan, Adv. versus RAM LUBHAYA Through: Mr. Manmeet Singh, Mr. Kunal Aganpal and Mr. Yash Batra, Advs. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral) 1. The appellant had filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the respondent on the ground that immovable property No.T-139, Baljit Nagar, Delhi (the suit property) was orally agreed to be sold by the respondent to the appellant in the year 1987 for an amount of Rs. 1.65 lacs, of which Rs. 20,000/- had been accepted as part payment by the respondent. The date of the oral agreement had not been specified nor was this oral agreement ever proven. The appellant contends that subsequently a written agreement was arrived at with the intervention of respectables in the neighbourhood in the presence of the temple pujari Mr. Radha Krishan (P...
M/S. Iritech Inc vs.the Controller of Patents
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2017
* IN THE H IGH CO URT OF DE L HI AT NEW DE LHI % Judgment pronounced on:20. h April, 2017 + W.P.(C) 7850/2014 M/S. IRITECH INC versus THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Bansal with Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocates. For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr. Shivi Sanyam, Advocate. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGEMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J1 The... Petitioner by the present petition seeks quashing of the deemed to be withdrawn status of the application No.5272/DELNP/2008 under section 11B of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and seeks restoration of the said application and for proceeding further with the same. The... Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to correct the clerical/typographical error in the number of the Patent application in Form No.18 and other documents to read as 5272/DELNP/2008.2. The petitioner o...
Kamal Hasan vs.state (Govt of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2017
$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of hearing and order:20. h April 2017 + BAIL APPLN. 680/2017 KAMAL HASAN Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.K. Perwez, Mr.Abhimanyu Singh, Advocates ........ Petitioner versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) Through: Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Sub- Inspector Pooja Kumari, Police Station Ranhola, Delhi ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI ORDER % P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral) By this second application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., 1. the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.146/2017 under Section 363/376/506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Ranhola, Delhi. The case in hand was initially registered under Section 363 of 2. IPC on the statement of father of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix was of 16 years of age and the petitioner was specifically named in Bail Appln. No.680/2017 Page 1 of 7 the FIR. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr. ...
Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.smt. Shobha Devi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.259/2016 + % SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Acharya, 20th April, 2017 Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Versus SMT. SHOBHA DEVI AND ORS. Advocate. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vipin Kumar Mishra, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this first appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 the appellant/insurance company/respondent no.2 before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, impugns the judgment dated 17.2.2016 passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner whereby the Employees Compensation Commissioner has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 herein. The Employees Compensation Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.6,52,280/- on account of death of the driver Sh. Teju Chaupal, an employee of the respondent no.5 herein and who was FAO No.259/2016 Page ...
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd vs.tg Angles Media Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2017
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :17. 4.2017 Judgment delivered on :20. 4.2017 + CS(COMM) 66/2017 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Ms.Prachi Aggarwal and Ms.Anjana Ahluwalia, Advocates. versus TG ANGLES MEDIA PVT LTD ..... Defendant Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing his copyright besides rendition of accounts and damages. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant who had put his appearance. On 23.11.2011 an undertaking had been given by the defendant that they would have no objection to the suit being decreed in terms of prayer of the plaintiff provided that the plaintiff CS(COMM) No.66/2017 Page 1 of 5 gives up his claim for rendition of accounts and damages. This prayer could not be acceded to by the plaintiff. 2 The plaintiff had led his evidence, but the defendant...
National Highways Authority of India vs.hindustan Construction Co. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2017
$~ * + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: March 6, 2017 Date of decision: April 20, 2017 O.M.P. 1165/2014 O.M.P. 1556/2014 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar & Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Advocates. versus HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Malavika Lal, Advocate. O.M.P. (COMM.) 156/2016 + NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. A.B. Dial, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar & Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Advocates. versus HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Malavika Lal, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2004.2017 1. These are three petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) filed by the National Highways Authority of OMP Nos. 1165/2014; 1556/2014 & OMP (Comm.) No.156/2016 Page 1 of 14 India (NHAI) which give rise to c...
Saket Gupta vs.imrana Khatoon & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2017
+ % SAKET GUPTA20h April, 2017 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Suneel K. Atreya, Adv. versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.93/2016 and C.M. Nos. 102& 6677/2016 IMRANA KHATOON & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mohd. Ataher Khan, Adv. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 challenges the judgment of the Employees Compensation Commissioner awarding the claim/compensation to the respondents herein, and who were the claimants before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, on account of the death of one Mohd. Yameen. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of deceased Mohd. Yameen.2. The impugned judgment dated 18.11.2015 shows that the appellant had taken the objection that the deceased Mohd. Yameen was in fact an employee of M/s Gupta Traders which is a sole proprietary concern, not of the appellant, but of the father of t...
The State Govt. Of Nct of Delhi vs.javed
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2017
$~7 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:20. h April, 2017 CRL.A. 527/2016 & Crl. M.A. No.8855/2016 THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Appellant Through Mr.Rajat Katyal, APP for the State along with Insp. Dhan Singh, ATO & SI Md.Inam, PS Jama Masjid, in person. versus JAVED Through None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been filed by the State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The challenge in the appeal is to the order on sentence dated 26.11.2015, by which the respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 years and a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine, t...
Mcd vs.d.r. Parashar & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2017
$~5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. 05.2016 Decided on:20. 04.2017 + RFA4092004, C.M. APPL.9099/2004 D.D.A. & ORS. ..... Appellants versus RAM KAUR & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS + L.P.A No.58/2005, CM No.749/2005, 7754/2013, 7727-7729/2016 MCD .......Appellant versus D.R. Parashar & Ors .......Respondents Present: Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Standing counsel for appellant/ North DMC in Item no.5. Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA. Ms.Shalini Kapoor, Ms.Promil Seth, Ms.Ruhini Dey and Mr.Dikshant Khanna, Advocates for respondents in item no.4. Ms.Asha Jain Madan and Ms.Nivedita Grover, Advocates for respondent Mr.D.R.Parashar. Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mrs.Kiran Kaomudi Pathak, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr.Kushal Raj Tater, Advocates for R-5 in item no.5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA % 1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals No.RFA No.409/2004 (which challenges a common judgment and decree of the lea...
Meetu vs.sunil Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2017
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : APRIL20 2017 + CRL.REV.P. 423/2016 & CRL.M.A.No.94MEETU Through : Mr.Vishwendra Verma, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus SUNIL VERMA Through : Mr.S.P.Aggarwal, Advocate. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. By an order dated 19.03.2016 in Complaint Case No.93/2014 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent was directed to pay interim maintenance @ `3,000/- p.m. from the date of filing of the application i.e.21.12.2012; litigation expenses were assessed `11,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner for its enhancement. The petition is contested by the respondent. Crl.Rev.P.423/2016 Page 1 of 3 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Dispute between the parties is over quantum of maintenance granted by the Trial Court. The petitioners claim is that the respondent along with his father earns...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »