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.
Paramount Surgimed Limited vs. Paramount Bed India Private Limited & O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :19.05.2017 Judgment delivered on :25. 05.2017 CS(COMM) 222/2017 PARAMOUNT SURGIMED LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Bitika Sharma, Mr. Kapil Midha, Mr. Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Mr. Rohan and Ms. Isha Tyagi, Advs. versus PARAMOUNT BED INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Pravin Anand, Ms.Tusha Malhotra and Mr. Kanak Bose, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.I.A. No.3682/2017 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code) & I.A. No.4425/2017 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code) in CS(COMM) 222/2017 CS (COMM) 222/2017 Page 1 of 22 1 The plaintiff Paramount Surgimed Limited is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The products of the plaintiff are manufactured and sold under the mark and name PARAMOUNT which is also the prominent part of the corporate name of the plaintiff ...
Sita Ram & Anr. Vs.the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2017
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI GULFAM Reserved on: March 06, 2017 Decided on: May 25, 2017 CRL.A. 524/2016 Represented by: Mr.K.Singhal, Ms. Vani ..... Appellant Singhal, Mr. Sachin Agarwal and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with SI Manoj, PS Kanjhawala. + CRL.A. 1726/2014 SHAHBUDDIN Represented by: Mr. Harsh Prabhakar and Mr. ..... Appellant versus Salman Hashmi, Advocates. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP with SI Manoj PS Kanjhawala. + CRL.A. 1744/2014 RAJESH @ PUTIYA ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Sanjam Chawla, Ms. Gulshan Khan and Mr. Munawwar Naseem, Advocates. versus CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 1 of 45 STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with SI Manoj PS Kanjhawala. + BHOLU CRL.A. 10/2015 Represented by: Mr. F. Haq. and M...
Jagat Narain Saraf & Anr. Vs.anjani Kumar Sharma Through Lr’s and An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.194/2004 + % JAGAT NARAIN SARAF & ANR. Through: versus 25th May, 2017 Mr. Manish Bishnoi, Adv. ..... Appellants ANJANI KUMAR SHARMA THROUGH LRS AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. M.M.Kalra and Ms. Sonali Kumar, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Shipra Garg, Adv. for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. 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 Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 22.3.2003 and the First Appellate Court dated 22.4.2004; by which the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for injunction has been dismissed. The subject suit for injunction was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 should not raise walls of his property towards the eastern side which RSA No...
Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd vs.commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2017
$~50-64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 525/2015 GANPATI FINCAP SERVICES PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 527/201547 GANPATI FINCAP SERVICES PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ..... Respondent Page 1 of 30 SHREY INFRADEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX + W.P.(C) 529/2015 SHUSHRE SECURITIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX + W.P.(C) 2220/2015 SHUSHRE SECURITIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX + W.P.(C) 2221/2015 SHUSHRE SECURITIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX + W.P.(C) 2224/2015 Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX W.P.(C) No.525 of 2015 & connected matters + W.P.(C) 2225/2015 SHREY INFRADEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 2226/2015 SHREY INFRADEVELOPE...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.sushila Devi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:25th May, 2017 FAO5342016 and CM Appln.42805/2016 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...... Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate. versus SUSHILA DEVI & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.J.P. Sikka, Mr. M.K. for Advocates Rathee, respondent no.1. Mr. Rhishabh Jetley, Advocate for Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for GNCTD. Ms.Deepali Dwivedi, Advocate as amicus curiae. $~22 * % + CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner, Employees Compensation whereby compensation of Rs.4,23,580/- has been awarded.2. On 11th August, 2005, Pappu @ Vinod was driving Tanker No.MH04 CA3697which met with an accident with truck bearing No.MP05 RD2859near Chikhal-Ohol Guest House near, Km.stone no.298/6, Mumbai Agra Road. The driver, Pappu suffered fatal injuries due to the accident. The police registered FIR No.1under Sections 279/304A/337/427 IPC at P.S. Malegaon Taluka,...
Naresh Kumar Chandera vs.delhi University & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: May 18, 2017 Judgment delivered on: May 24, 2017 + W.P.(C) 1177/2014, CM Nos. 2464/2014 NARESH KUMAR CHANDERA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. with Ms. Namrata Chauhan, Adv. versus DELHI UNIVERSITY & ANR Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. with Ms. Disha Malhotra, Adv. for-1 ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 In the present petition, the petitioner has impugned notification dated October 10, 2012 whereby it has been decided by the respondent No.1 that the application for grant of special chance beyond the stipulated span period, shall not be considered by it.2. The case of the petitioner is, that he was admitted to the B.Sc course in July 2002 at Kirorimal College respondent No.2, which is a three years course but having a span period of six years to complete the same. In 2005, the petitioner had a paralytic attack thereby leading to several complica...
M/S Torque Bikes Pvt. Ltd. Vs.harsha Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.21/2017 & CRP No.56/2017 FAO No.21/2017 + % + M/S TORQUE BIKES PVT. LTD. Through: versus HARSHA GUPTA CRP No.56/2017 + M/S TORQUE BIKES PVT. LTD. Through: versus HARSHA GUPTA24h May, 2017 Mr. Ashin Mittal, Advocate. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr. Adv. with ..... Respondent Mr. Mr. Ashin mittal, Advocate. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr. Adv. with ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Mr. To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) FAO No.21/2017 1. This first appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant impugning the order of the trial court dated FAO No.21/2017 & CRP No.56/2017 Page 1 of 10 27.10.2016 by which the trial court in exercise of powers under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Order XVA CPC (as applicable to Delhi) has directed the appellant/defendant/tenant to pay the admitted rate ...
Sudhir Yadav and Ors vs.surjeet Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2017
$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: May 24, 2017 CM(M) 241/2017 SUDHIR YADAV AND ORS Through: Mr.Nitin Khanna, Advocate. ........ Petitioners + versus Through: Mr.O.P.Aggarwal, Advocate. ..... Respondent SURJEET YADAV CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT (Oral) CM(M) 241/2017 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 (Defendant No.2 is not petitioner before this Court) has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court and their right to file written statement has also been closed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners (defendant Nos.1, 3 &5) submit that the reasons for not being able to file the written statement have been duly explained by the petitioners while filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte order and in the in the interest of justice, one opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to file written statement subject to such ter...
Deepak Malhotra vs.deepti Malhotra & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * % + DEEPAK MALHOTRA DEEPTI MALHOTRA & ORS. versus CRL.REV.P.363/2016 & Crl.M.A.8005/2016 Reserved on:18. 05.2017 Delivered on:24. 05.2017 ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Ms. Neena Malhotra, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Pardeep Kumar with Mr. Ramesh Gupta along CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR with respondent No.1 in person JUDGMENT ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J1 The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 06.04.2016 passed in M.T No.110/2015 by the Judge, Family Court (North), Rohini, Delhi whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay to the respondent, as an interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.22,000/- per month from the date of the filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C i.e. from 23.07.2014 till the disposal of the petition. The petitioner has been directed to deposit the aforesaid amount directly in the bank acco...
Surjit Singh vs.state (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2017
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :24. h MAY, 2017 + CRL.M.C. 4889/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.17496/2015 SURJIT SINGH ........ Petitioner Through : Ms.Aishwarya Rao, Advocate. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) 1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.613/2014 registered under Section 376 IPC at PS Kotwali. Status report is on record.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the allegations levelled by the prosecutrix in the instant case against the present petitioner are false. The petitioner is aged around 65 years and has served the Indian Army for around 20 years. Thereafter, he worked as a teacher since January, 1989 and retired in September, 2009. The FIR lodged by the prosecutrix is at the behest of Mr.Manoj Vashisht (si...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »