Delhi Court May 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.
M/S Maxposure Media Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.m/s. Go Airlines (India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2017
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2017 Date of decision:30. h May, 2017 M/S MAXPOSURE MEDIA GROUP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant M/S. GO AIRLINES (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR Through Mr. Tushar A. John, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abdhesh Chaudhary and Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH PRATHIBA M. SINGH J.(ORAL): The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the Appellant had entered into an arrangement to publish the in-flight magazine for Go-Air. The arrangement commenced with a Letter of Intent dated 22nd December, 2015. Thereafter, two bank guarantees for Rs. 41,48,034/- dated 18th January, 2016 and the second for Rs. 5,51,996/- dated 28th March, 2016 were submitted at the behest of the appellant to the first respondent. The long-form final agreement did not get executed bet...
Strategic Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs.ratnakar Bank Ltd. &Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 1180/2017& C.M.No.5358/2017 (stay) STRATEGIC CREDIT CAPITAL PVT. LTD. & ORS. Reserved on:25. h May 2017 Pronounced on:29. h May 2017 Through: Mr.P.Chidambaram, ........ Petitioners Sr.Advocate with Mr.Siddhartha Das, Ms.Astha Nigam, Advocates Versus $~ * + RATNAKAR BANK LTD. &ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Ateev Mathur, Advocate with Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advocate for RBL. + AND W.P.(C) 2375/2017& C.M.No.10202/2017 (stay) VEENA SINGH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.V.Lakshmikumaran, Mr.Tapas Ram Misra, Mr.Saurav Sood, Mr. Shashank Sharma, Mr.Subhashreer, Advocates. Versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION)-I& ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Rahul Kaushik, Counsel for Revenue. Mr.Ateev Mathur, Advocate with Sr.Standing W.P.(C) 1180/2017& W.P.(C) No.2375/2017 Page 1 of 54 Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advocate for RBL. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR % JUDGMENT2905.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. These two writ petitions ...
Sudama Devi & Anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.112/2017 + % SUDAMA DEVI & ANR. 29th May, 2017 Mr. N.K.Gupta, Adv. ..... Appellants Through: versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Preet Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.8647/2017 (delay of 30 days in filing the appeal) For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. FAO No.112/2017 1. This first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed impugning the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 18.10.2016 dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants/applicants. FAO No.112/2017 Page 1 of 5 2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants are that the deceased Manoj Kumar, who was the son and brother of the appellants/applicants, was travelling from New Delhi to Shakurbasti by EMU Tr...
Satish Kumar Mangla vs.angel Broking Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.251/2017 + % SATISH KUMAR MANGLA29h May, 2017 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate. versus ANGEL BROKING PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the judgment of the court below dated 17.12.2016 which has allowed the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the respondent herein, and which company was the objector in the proceedings in the court below under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the respondent should not get the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act with respect to the arbitration proceedings which has resulted in the award dated 19.3.2014. FAO No.251/2017 Page 1 of 7 2. The facts of the case are that appellant was the customer of the respo...
Devender Saini vs.nirmala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2017
$~4. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 100/2017 and CM APPL.20865-68/2017 DEVENDER SAINI ..... Appellant NIRMALA Through: Mr. K.D. Saini, Advocate. versus Through: None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL ORDER2905.2017 % 1. The present appeal has been listed before this Court with an office objection with regard to its maintainability.2. A perusal of the prayer clause of the present appeal reveals that instead of challenging a particular order passed by the Family Court, the appellant seeks dismissal of the Matrimonial Appeal No.62/2015 and Execution Petition No.56510/2016 filed by the respondent/wife, which is impermissible.3. Counsel for the appellant states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal while reserving the right of the appellant to file a fresh appeal, wherein he shall specify the orders passed by the Family Court sought to be assailed by him. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 100/2017 Pag...
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. Limited vs. Hindustan Power Projects ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2017
$~ * % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:22. d May, 2017 Pronounced on:29. h May, 2017 CO.PET. 584/2014 CHANGZHOU TRINA SOLAR ENERGY CO. LIMITED versus ........ Petitioner HINDUSTAN POWER PROJECTS (P) LTD. ..... Respondent CO.PET. 585/2014 CHANGZHOU TRINA SOLAR ENERGY CO. LIMITED versus ........ Petitioner HINDUSTAN POWER PROJECTS (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Presence : Mr.Vivek Sibal, Ms.Pooja M.Saigal, Advocates for petitioner. Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Mr.KPS Kohli and Mr.Milin Singh Negi, Advocates for respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.CA No.9/2016 in CO.PET. 584/2014; CA Nos.10/2016 in CO.PET. 585/2014 1. These applications have been moved by the petitioner under Rule 6 & 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 praying for revival Co.P.Nos.584-585/2014 Page 1 of 8 of the Company Petitions bearing Nos.584 and 585 of 2014 and consequently for the liquidation of respondent company. The petitions were disposed of vide order dated 12.01.201...
Muslim Khan vs.the State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2017
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on : May 29, 2017 CRL.A. 846/2001 MUSLIM KHAN Through: Mr. R.K. Sonakiya, Advocate ..... Appellant versus THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J1 Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 16th August, 2001 convicting the appellant finding him guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and order on sentence dated 11th September 2001, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,500/-, and in default of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Crl. A. No.846/2001 Page 1 of 16 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are within the narrow compass. It emerges from the record that on 3rd October, 1999, when the injured Smt.Sheela Devi ...
Eric Kamau Mulhai Kenyatta vs.state Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2017
$~20 & 21 (common order) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Decided on:29. h May, 2017 + W.P.(CRL) 1285/2017 and Crl.M.A.7121/2017 ABIGAIL LOUISA CLARK & ANR ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Annirudh Sharma, Advocate with petitioner no.1 & Ms. Anju Raheja, AR of... Petitioner no.2. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.R.S. Kundu, ASC (Crl.) for Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC (Crl.) + W.P.(CRL) 1453/2017 ERIC KAMAU MULHAI KENYATTA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate along with petitioner in person. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.R.S. Kundu, ASC (Crl.) for Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC (Crl.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. Both these cases have given rise to identical questions for consideration, the prayer made invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal W.P. (Crl.) 1285/2017 & 1453/2017 Page 1 of 9 Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) being similar, in almost id...
Kusum Sharma vs.mahinder Kumar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2017
$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:29. h May, 2017 FAO3691996 & CM150832014 KUSUM SHARMA Through: None. ..... Appellant versus MAHINDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Mr. C.K. Bhatt, Advocates. Mr. Sunil Mittal, Senior Advocate as amicus curiae with Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advocate. Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate as amicus curiae. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) Vide order dated 14th January, 2015, 1. this Court formulated the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure to be filed by both the parties in matrimonial cases. This Court had directed the Courts below to send their response to the working of the guidelines as well as their suggestions.2. The Family Courts have sent their response as well as suggestions with respect to the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure. Mr. Sunil Mittal and Ms. Anu Narula, learned amici curiae have also given valuable FAO3691996 Page 1 of 1 suggestions.3...
Imtiyaz @ Toe vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2017
CRL.A.589/2015 * % + ABID THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. 05.2017 Delivered on:29. 05.2017 ..... Appellant ..... Respondent : Mr.Shrikant Tyagi. : Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP. CRL.A.820/2015 Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent + IMTIYAZ @ TOE STATE versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR : Mr.Sitab Ali Chaudhary. : Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP. JUDGMENT ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J1 Both the criminal appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. CRL.A.589/2015 & Crl.A.820/2015 Page 1 of 6 2. Appellants Abid and Imtiyaz @ Toe have been convicted under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, SI for six months under both the counts by judgment and order dated 16.04.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »