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.
Balbir Singh & Anr. Vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :17. h JANUARY, 2017 DECIDED ON :19. h APRIL, 2017 CRL.A.1268/2013 BALBIR SINGH & ANR. Through : Mr.K.K.Sud, Sr.Advocate with versus Ms.Vaishali Soni, Advocate. ..... Appellants STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG + S.P.GARG, J.The present appeal is allowed in terms of a detailed common judgment delivered today which is placed in the file of Crl.A.1382/2013 (S.P.GARG) JUDGE titled Jaishree vs. State. APRIL19 2017 / tr...
Mukesh vs.state (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:19. h April, 2017 CRL.M.C. 2744/2016 MUKESH ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Puneet Singhal, Adv. versus DHCLSC. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kr. Garg, APP with SI Karan Pal, ASI Om Prakash PS Hauz Khas. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.97/2014 under Sections 354D/509/352 IPC registered at PS Hauz Khas, Delhi on the complaint of respondent No.2 on the ground that parties have settled the matter.2. Learned APP for the State on instructions submits that in the above- noted FIR the petitioner is the only accused and respondent No.2 the only complainant/ victim. The petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into a settlement before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts on 29th January, 2015 certified copy whereof is annexed at pages 21 to 23 of the paper book.3. The proceedings of the Medi...
Sunita vs.ramphal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.116/2017 & CM No.14694/2017 (exemption) and 14695/2017 (stay) * + % SUNITA19h April, 2017 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent RAMPHAL CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant no.1/daughter-in-law impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 3.9.2014 and the First Appellate Court dated 25.2.2017; by which the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff/father-in-law for mandatory injunction to handover vacant physical possession of the suit property has been decreed. The suit property/premises is two rooms, kitchen, toilet and bathroom on the ground floor on the property bearing No.A-425, Ground Floor, 25 ft. road, Gali No.1, Meet Nagar, Delhi-110093 RSA No.116/2017 Page 1 of 4 ...
Itd Cementation India Ltd. Vs.public Works Department
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2017
$~34 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 108/2017 ITD CEMENTATION INDIA LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Manish Dembla, Advocate. versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr Siddhartha Shankar Roy, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1904.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the 1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act), inter alia, praying as under:-""(a) restrain the Respondent from implementing and/or enforcing or otherwise giving effect to its letters letter nos. 23(28)/CPM/F1/PWD/2016/2671 and 23(28)/ CPM/F1/PWD/2017/496 and 27.02.2017 respectively; 03.11.2016 dated (b) (c) restrain the Respondent from deducting any amounts from the payments due to the... Petitioner or otherwise recovering any amounts in pursuance of the said letters until the eventual resolution of the dispute between the... Petitioner and the Respondent; restrain the Respondent ...
Jagdish Singh vs.indian Airlines & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2017
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % LPA402017 Date of decision :19. h April, 2017 JAGDISH SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv. for Kamgar Sangathan versus INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra and Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT (ORAL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 The appellant assails the order dated 9th December, 2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.670/2006 whereby the appellants application for early hearing was rejected.2. It appears that apart from W.P.(C) No.670/2006 filed by the present appellant, one Kamgar Sangathan has filed W.P.(C) No.5202/2010 raising the same issues as have been raised in W.P.(C) No.670/2006.3. Aggrieved by orders dated 5th October, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.5202/2010, an intra-court appeal bearing LPA No.784/2010 was LPA No.40/2017 Page 1 of 2 filed. This appeal was disposed of by an order dated 3rd February, 2011 by t...
Sitar Singh & Ors. Vs.new Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~7 * % + W.P.(C) 1888/2017 Date of Order:19. h April, 2017 ........ Petitioners SITAR SINGH & ORS. Through Mr.Sumit Kumar Singh and Ms. Renu Singh, Advocates versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, ASC with Mr. Mananjay Mishra and Ms. Vidhi Jain, Advocates. Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for Sarojini Nagar Market Association. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by 31 petitioners seeking a direction to the New Delhi Municipal Corporation(NDMC) to hand over the respective vending sites allotted to them in terms of a draw held on 10.05.2012.2. Mr. Sumit, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been squatting in the Saro jini Nagar Market since a long period of time. The petitioners had approached this Court in the year 2011 and in some cases protection was granted to them by t...
Ravi Kumar vs.m/s Ashok Kumar & Bros. And Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RAVI KUMAR FAO No.498/2016 19th April, 2017 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate with appellant in person. versus M/S ASHOK KUMAR & BROS. AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate for R-2. 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 has been filed by the employee impugning the judgment of the Employees Compensation Commissioner dated 30.3.2016. In this first appeal appellant contends that the disability of 23% in the left leg of the appellant/claimant on account of fracture of two bones, should be taken as 100% disability, inasmuch as because of the disability, the appellant cannot perform his occupation/duties of a driver. FAO No.498/2016 Page 1 of 6 2. The facts of the case are stated in para 2 of the impugned judgment and para 2 reads as under:-"2. The case ...
The Management of M/S Delhi Transport Corporation vs.ambika Ram & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2017
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: April 19, 2017 W.P.(C) 5590/2003 THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S.DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Through: Mr. U.N. Tiwary, Advocate .....Petitioner versus AMBIKA RAM & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal and Mr. Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % (ORAL) JUDGMENT Impugned order of 18th December, 2002 rejects petitioners application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while holding that petitioner has failed to produce the passenger, who had allegedly disclosed before Checking Staff that he had paid `2, but ticket of `1 was issued to him. Impugned rejection is assailed on the ground of non-checking of cash despite offer made by respondent-herein. The Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has proceeded on the assumption that this would give rise to an inference that cash of respondent-conductor was intact. It is...
Khushi Sewa Santha vs. The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2017
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on:19. h April, 2017 + W.P.(C) 7857/2014 KHUSHI SEWA SANTHA Through : Mr.Gian Dev Gupta (in person) ........ Petitioner versus THE COMMISSIONER, SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr.Ajay Digpaul, Standing Counsel Sr. for SDMC Mr.Ajay Verma, Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr.Vaibhav Mishra, Advs. for DDA Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr.Bhav Arora and Ms.Nisha Sharma, Advs. for UOI Mr.Santosh Kr.Tripathi, ASC with Mr.Rizwan, Adv. for GNCTD Mr.Sumit Bansal, Ms.Richa Oberoi and Mr.Prateek Kohli, Advs. for R-5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(Oral) The petitioner claims that rampant unauthorised construction has taken place in village Arakpur Bagh Mochi established in khasra WP(C) No.7857/2014 Page 1 of 5 No.225. The petitioner represented by its President submits that despite the declaration the essenti...
Sarthak Enterprises and Ors vs.national Council for Educational Resear ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2017
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on :19th April, 2017 + W.P.(C) 1642/2017 & CM Nos.7307/2017, 14728/2017 SARTHAK ENTERPRISES AND ORS ........ Petitioners Through : Mr.Jayant Bhushan, Sr Advocate with Mr.Vivek Gupta & Mr.Ketan Paul, Advocates. versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH TRAINING (NCERT) AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr.R.K.Singh and Ms.Deepa Rai, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J (Oral) 1. The petitioners grievance is that the tender conditions that were amended by corrigendum issued upon their representation, has arbitrarily shortened the time granted for inspection of the equipments that the respondents wish to procure.2. The brief facts are that on 22.12.2016, the National Council for Educational Research Training (NCERT) issued one e-Tender for the procurement of 16 educational kits containing 833 items which are to be used as teaching aids. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »