Delhi Court May 2017 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Jitendra @ Jitu vs.state Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2017
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 1123/2015 JITENDRA @ JITU Reserved on:9. h May , 2017 Decided on:31. t May, 2017 .... Appellant Represented by: Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the CRL.A. 1138/2015 State. DARPAN Represented by: Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate. .... Appellant versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA State.1. Vide impugned judgment dated 27th August, 2015, Jitendra @ Jitu and Darpan were convicted for the offences punishable Section 328 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 8th September, 2015, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of `15,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- for offen...
M/S Image Advertising vs.delhi Wakf Board & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:31. t May, 2017 + W.P.(C) 8501/2016 M/S SAI ASSOCIATES versus DELHI WAKF BOARD & ORS AND + W.P.(C) 8499/2016 M/S IMAGE ADVERTISING versus DELHI WAKF BOARD & ORS Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioners: Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, & Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocates. For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for MCD CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J1 Both these petitions impugn two separate orders dated 24.08.2016. The orders are identical in nature and seek to terminate WP(C) 8501/2016 & W.P.(C) 8499/2016 Page 1 of 12 the respective license deeds executed in favour of the petitioners. Since common questions of fact and law arise in these petitions, they have been taken up together for disposal.2. The petitioners impugn the respective orders ...
M/S Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs.m/s Maritime Energy Heli Air Service ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2017
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:09. h May, 2017 Pronounced on:31. t May, 2017 FAO(OS) (COMM) No.102/2017 and CM No.17671/2017 M/S PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LTD ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Puneet Taneja and Ms.Shaheen, Advs. versus M/S MARITIME ENERGY HELI AIR SERVICES PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through : Mr. M.C.Dhingra with Ms. Priya Puri, Mr. Muhammed Riyazudeen, Mr.Ranjay Kr. Dubey with Ms. Swatantra Rai, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 01.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP(COMM) No.281/2016 whereby the learned Single Judge had rejected the claim of the appellant qua the liquidated damages, primarily, on the ground that time was never an the essence of the agreement.2. The brief facts are on 09.04.2010, the appellant had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Andaman and FAO(OS)(COMM) 102/2017 Page 1 of 17 Nicoba...
Krishna Kumar Singh vs.sanjay Mitra & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2017
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 31, 2017 CONT.CAS(C) 439/2017 KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj and Md. Jangra, Advocates versus SANJAY MITRA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advocate with Mr. A.K. Mishra, Executive Engineer (Selection Grade) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % (ORAL) JUDGMENT Vide order of 24th April, 2017, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 3477/2017 titled Krishna Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors., had directed respondents to issue requisite document to facilitate the joining of petitioner at the place of posting given to him.... Petitioner had filed an Original Application No.3562/2016 (for short O.A.) titled Krishna Kumar Singh v. M/o Defence and vide interim order of 4th February, 2016, it was directed that no coercive action be taken against petitioner. The action which was sought to be taken against petitioner was to move him out of D...
Rahul Dev vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:22. d May, 2017 Decided on:31. t May, 2017 CRL.A. 229/2015 Through Mr. Ravi Varma, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. S. Lal, Advs. ..... Appellant RAHUL DEV CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA STATE versus Through Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for State. ..... Respondent MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. By the present appeal, Rahul Dev challenges the impugned judgment dated 29th August, 2014 convicting him for offences punishable under SectionIPC and the order on sentence dated 30th August, 2014 directing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of `5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of `2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that despite the fact that the incident took place at around 12.30 AM on the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd June, 2009 the three alleged eye-w...
Ravikant vs.public Works Department and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2017
$~5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:31. 05.2017 + W.P.(C) 5041/2017 RAVIKANT ........ Petitioner versus PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS ....... RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra with Mr. Vishal Kalra and Mr. Lal Babu Lalit, Advocates. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi with Mr. Rizwan , Advocates for respondent Nos.1, 4 to 6. Mr. Ajjay Aroraa with Mr. Kapil Dutta and Ms. Diksha Lal, Advocates for respondent No.2. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan with Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocates for DUSIB. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT3105.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) CM No.21688 /2017 (permission to file lengthy synopsis) WP(C) 5041/2017 Page 1 of 4 For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The lengthy synopsis is taken on record. W.P.(C) 5041/2017 & CM No.21687/2017 (permission to represent all the persons concerned in Annexure P-1) 1. The petitione...
Siddharth Jain vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2017
$ 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :31st May, 2017 + W.P.(Crl.) 1673/2017 SIDDHARTH JAIN ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Anjali J.Manish & Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rishabh Sahu & Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advs. For R-1. Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC for State/R-2. Mr. Aditya Singla, Sr. Standing Counsel for R-3 & 4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner herein has been summoned by the fourth respondent in ongoing investigation in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence case, the process having been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. By the petition at hand, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer is made for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the said summons dated 24.05.2017 and/or writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to allow the presence of the W.P(Crl.) 1673/2017 Page 1 of 5 co...
Arun Sahani vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 36/2016 Reserved on:2. d May, 2017 Decided on:31. t May, 2017 ARUN SAHANI STATE Represented by: Mr. F.K. Jha, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with SI Sandeep Singh,PS Adarsh Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 326 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Arun Sahani challenges the impugned judgment dated 16th November, 2015 and the order on sentence dated 24th November, 2015 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of `50,000/- for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel contends that Arun Sahani has been convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of Akhilesh. No mens rea has been prov...
Smt. Gyatri Devi vs.sh. Jag Ram & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SMT. GYATRI DEVI RSA No.162/2017 31st May, 2017 ..... Appellant Ms. Monica Kapoor, Advocate. Through: versus SH. JAG RAM & ANR. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ........ RESPONDENTS To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.22129/2017 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RSA No.162/2017 and C.M. Nos. 22127/2017 (stay) & 22128/2017 (for additional evidence) 2. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 17.5.2016 and the First Appellate Court dated 29.11.2016; by which the suit for possession and mesne profits with respect to suit property bearing no.Y-330, Mangol Puri, Delhi has been decreed and as is shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.DW1/D. Trial court by its RSA No.162/2017 Page 1 of 9 judgment date...
Anil Kumar Yadav vs.suman Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2017
* % + CRL.REV.P.390/2013 ANIL KUMAR YADAV Versus SUMAN YADAV IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. 05.2017 Delivered on:31. 05.2017 ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: : Mr.P.S.Rao. For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr.Dinesh Chander Yadav with Mr.A.S.Rishi. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR JUDGMENT ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J1 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.05.2013 passed by the learned Judge-01, Family Courts, Saket, New Delhi in Maintenance Petition No.285/2011 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay to the respondent a monthly sum of Rs.6000/- from the date of filing of the petition which is 22.05.2006 to 28.05.2010 when the respondent got remarried. The order further directs that the maintenance amount be cleared within two months from the date of the passing of the order. CRL.REV.P.390/2013 Page 1 of 6 2. The petitioner was allegedly married to the respondent on 26.06.2004. The allegation aga...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »