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.
Chhotey Lal & Ors. Vs.manohar Lal & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2017
+ % CHHOTEY LAL & ORS. Through: versus MANOHAR LAL & ORS. 27th April, 2017 Mr. Jagat Rana, Advocate. ..... Appellants * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.170/2008 & C.M.No.No.14512/2017 ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. V.P.Rana, Advocate for R- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA23 and 4. 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 appellants/defendants impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 31.8.2005 and the First Appellate Court dated 11.4.2008; by which the suit for injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed and appellants/defendants were restrained from interfering within peaceful possession of the suit land admeasuring 311 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No.304/2014, extended abadi of Village Bawana, Delhi. RSA No.170/2008 Page 1 of 8 2. The facts of the case are that the respo...
M/S Dejero Logix Pvt. Ltd. Vs.commissioner of Customs (Imports) Air Ca ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2017
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI PRONOUNCED ON:27.04.2017 RESERVED ON:09. 03.2017 W.P. (C) 2575/2015 M/S DEJERO LOGIX PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Jain with Mr. Shubhankar Jha, Advocates. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) AIR CARGO, NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE NEAR IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel for Resp-1 with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate. Mr. Tarun Gulati with Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Mr. Vinayak Mathur, Mr. Anupam Mishra and Mr. Vipin Upadhyay, Advocates for Resp-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution claims for directions to payment of the declared value of imported goods that were confiscated, by an order of the respondent customs authorities, and later sold at a vastly reduced price. The confiscation order was later set aside. The petitioner asks for an appropriate res...
Amrish Agarwal Trading as Mahalaxmi Product vs.m/s Venus Home Applianc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2017
$~42 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: April 27, 2017 CM(M) No.238/2017 AMRISH AGARWAL TRADING AS MAHALAXMI PRODUCT ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr.S.K.Bansal, Mr.Ajay Amitabh Suman and Mr.Veerendra Sinha, Advocates. versus M/S VENUS HOME APPLIANCES PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr.R.K.Aggarwal and Ms.Parul Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT (Oral) CM(M) No.238/2017 1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23rd January, 2017 whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner (who is defendant in case bearing TM No.1111/2016) under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for recalling of DW-3 Sh.Vinod Sindhwani to produce the original documents.2. Mr.Akhil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the o...
Spacevision Impex Pvt Ltd vs.arun Vyapar Udyog Pvt Ltd & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2017
$ 8, 9 & 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decision on :27. h April, 2017 + CRL.L.P. 86/2015 + + SPACEVISION IMPEX PVT LTD ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Parvinder Khatra & Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advs. versus ARUN VYAPAR UDYOG PVT LTD & ORS........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Tanveer A. Mir, Adv. CRL.L.P. 88/2015 SPACEVISION IMPEX PVT LTD ........ Petitioner Through : Ms. Parvinder Khatra & Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advs. versus ARUN VYAPAR UDYOG PVT LTD & ORS........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Tanveer A. Mir, Adv. Through: CRL.L.P. 89/2015 SPACEVISION IMPEX PVT LTD ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Parvinder Khatra & Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advs. versus ARUN VYAPAR UDYOG PVT LTD & ORS........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Tanveer A. Mir, Adv. Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. These three criminal leave petitions arise out of three identical judgments rendered on 30.10.2014 by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (South)-01 on the files of three similarly placed complaint Crl. L.P. Nos...
Dara Projects Private Limited vs.business India Exhibitions Pvt. Limit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27th April, 2017. CS(COMM) No.211/2016 DARA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Dua, Adv. Versus ..... Defendants * % + BUSINESS INDIA EXHIBITIONS PVT. LIMITED & ANR. Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of Rs.2,35,30,495.70p 1. jointly and severally from the defendant No.1 Business India Exhibitions Pvt. Limited (BIEPL) and defendant No.2 Ashok H. Advani, pleading: (i) that the defendant No.2 Ashok H. Advani had approached and represented to the plaintiff that he is the founder and chairman of Business India Group and the defendant No.1 BIEPL is under his complete control and he is one of the Directors of the defendant No.1 BIEPL and in exclusive charge and control of the defendant No.1 BIEPL and responsible for the conduct of day to day affairs and functioning of the defendant No.1 BIEPL; CS(C...
Gautam Wason vs.reena Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2017
$~23. * + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 73/2017 GAUTAM WASON ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vivek Luthra, Advocate IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI versus ..... Respondent Through: None REENA CHOPRA CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL % ORDER2804.2017 CM APPL. 16158/2017 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 73/2017 1. The appellant/husband is aggrieved by an order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Guardianship Petition No.12/2017, whereunder an application filed by him praying inter alia for advancing the date of hearing in the petition was turned down on the ground that the date already fixed, i.e., 09.05.2017, is not far away.2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that on 31.1.2017, the appellant had filed a petition before the court of the learned Judge, Family Court under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for seeking custody of his two...
Madhulika Sharma vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:27. 04.2017 $~12. * + % W.P.(C.) No.90/2015 MADHULIKA SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Romy Chacko & Mr. Girijesh Pandey, Advocates. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC & for Advocate Iyer, Mr.R.A. respondent No.1/ GNCTD. Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Mr. Lokesh Kumar & Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.2631/2012. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the petitioners Original Application. The petitioner applicant had preferred the said Original Application to seek a declaration that her promotion to the post of Deputy Director in the FSL which was W.P.(C.) No.90/2015 Page 1 of 10 made on 24.05.20...
Manmohan vs.ekta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2017
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 29/2017 & CM APPL. Nos.6753-6754/2017 Through: Mr. Vishal Bansal, Advocate. Through: MANMOHAN EKTA versus Nemo. ..... Respondent ..... Appellant CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL The appellant/husband is aggrieved by an order dated 07.12.2016 passed by ORDER2704.2017 % 1. the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North-East Delhi whereunder, he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent/wife and minor child w.e.f. 23.04.2016 on a month to month basis. He was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the respondent/wife towards litigation expenses incurred by her.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition while reserving his right to appear before the executing court in the execution proceedings initiated against her by the respondent/wife for recovery of money in te...
Indusind Bank vs.lt. Col. m.p.s. Bhatia & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Ex. FA No.14/2016 27th April, 2017 Through: Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate. ..... Appellant + % INDUSIND BANK LT. COL. M.P.S. BHATIA & ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Arun Mahajan, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Avinash Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Execution First Appeal is filed by the appellant/objector against the order of the executing court dated 9.5.2016 by which the executing court has directed the appellant/bank to seek discharge of the bank guarantee issued by it in the favor of the Union of India so that the executing court thereafter in execution would be able to seek encashing of the fixed deposit amount lying with the appellant/bank as lien for the bank guarantee issued in favour of the Union of India and in order to satisfy the money decree in favor of the respondent no.1/decree holder. Putting it in other words...
Ved Parkash vs.govt of Nct of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2017
$~26 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA7122016 Date of Decision:27. 04.2017 VED PARKASH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Gautam Narayan, ASC for R-1, 2 and 3 Mr.Gagan Gupta, Advocate for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 The appellant, before us, assails the judgment dated 28th JUDGMENT(ORAL) November, 2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.6766/2016 whereby his writ petition seeking quashing of an order dated 25th July, 2016 passed by the Directorate of Education as well as the prayer for benefit of re-employment upto the age of 62 years was rejected.2. So far as the factual background is concerned, admittedly, the appellant on 15th November, 1983, joined as a Yoga Teacher with the Commercial Senior Secondary School (respondent No.4 herein). The respondent No.4 is a government aided school within the meaning of the expres...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »