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.
I K Saini vs.the Central Information Commission and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2017
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 577/2017 & CM. APPL. No.27141/2017, 3976, 7803, 7805, 21523-21524/2018 Date of Decision:22. 5.2018 I K SAINI THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS... Petitioner in person. Through: versus ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narual, CGSC with Ms. Anumita Chandar, Adv. for R-1/CIC. Ms. Suruchi Suri, Adv. for MTNL. ..... Respondent CORAM:-"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER % RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) On the previous date, i.e. 27.2.2018, the following observations were 1. noted by me: on appeals 1. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1/ Central Information Commission (for short "CIC") and respondent no.3/Department of Post.2. The order impugned in the writ petition is dated I9.5.2014. By this order, respondent no.I/ CIC has closed five the complainant/applicant, one, Mr. K.K. Saini had expired. 2.1 To be noted that Mr. K.K. Saini is the father of the writ petitioner.3. The writ petitioner says that the ord...
Pradip Yadav & Anr. Vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2017
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on : May 22, 2017 CRL.A.306/2001 PRADIP YADAV & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr.N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Varun Deswal, Adv., Mr.S.S. Yadav, Adv., Mr.Aditya Singh, Adv. & Mr.Dhananjay, Adv. for appellant No.1/Pradip Yadav. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Adv., Ms.Ruchira Mr.Dhananjay Arora, Adv., Mehlawat, for appellant Adv. No.2/Rajesh Yadav. versus STATE Through: Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. ..... Respondent CRL.A. 307/2001 BRAHM PRAKASH & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr.K.K. Manan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ankush Narang, Adv., Ms.Anjali Rajput, Adv., Ms.Shweta Sain, Adv. & Ms.Devyani Khosla, Adv. for Appellant Brahm Prakash. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Adv., Ms.Ruchira Arora, Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Adv. for appellant No.2/Jagdish. Adv., STATE versus Through: Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, Additional ..... Respondent Crl. A. Nos.306/2001 & 307/2001 Page 1 ...
Rajeev Oberoi vs.employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RAJEEV OBEROI FAO No.231/2017 22nd May, 2017 ..... Appellant Mr. Shivam Garg, Advocate. Through: versus EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ........ RESPONDENTS To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act) is filed by the petitioner before the ESI court, challenging the impugned judgment dated 15.3.2017 which has dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant under Sections 75 and 76 of the ESI Act impugning the assessment order dated 19.1.2012 assessing demand of Rs. 1,68,025/- upon the appellant/petitioner. I may note that in fact the order is not the order dated 19.1.2012 inasmuch as the document dated 19.1.2012 is the show-cause notice and the assessment order which has thereafter been issued against the appellant/petitioner is dated 26.4....
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.dinesh Devi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2017
$~11 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:22. 05.2017 MAC.APP. 302/2016 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anshum Jain and Mr. Amol Sihna, Advs. versus DINESH DEVI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral) 1. The Award dated 24.02.2016 has been impugned on the ground that minimum wages as applicable in Delhi were taken into consideration instead of the minimum wages of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.), since it was the normal place of residence of the deceased. Ordinarily this argument would be tenable only if it was shown that the deceased was a resident of U.P. However, the residence of the deceased is shown in Delhi i.e. House No.D- 691, Gali No.1, Ashok Nagar, Delhi, as claimed in the claim petition. The Court is not to see whether the person owned the premises. All that is to be seen is the place of residence. Interestingly, the deposition of the landlord of...
Chintpurni Construction Co. Vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2017
$~OS-14 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. 05.2017 O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 16/2017 CHINTPURNI CONSTRUCTION CO. ........ Petitioner Through Mr.S.W.Haidar, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr.N.Prashant Kumar Nair, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. The present petition is filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking termination of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal constituted by the respondent and appointment of an independent arbitrator in its place to adjudicate upon the claims of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 36,75,738/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Seventy Five Thousands Seven Hundred Thirty Eight Only).2. The case of the petitioner is that on 07.12.2006, the petitioner was awarded the work pertaining to linking of track from Km. 37.000 (excluding) Cholang to Km. 42.883 (including) Tanda' Urmur Yard in connection with Ja...
Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs.raiganj Cable Tv Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2017
7 $~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 1222/2016 SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Anunaya Mehta with Mr.K.K.Khetan, Advocates. versus ..... Defendant RAIGANJ CABLE TV PVT. LTD. Through ex parte Date of Decision :22. d May, 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral):1. Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyright, mandatory injunction, damages and for rendition of accounts. The prayer clause in the present suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-"i. Pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their officers, servants, agents, partners and representatives and all other acting for and on their behalf from either engaging in themselves or from authorizing the recording, distributing, broadcasting, public performance/communication to the public or in any other way exploiting the cinematograph films, sound recording and/or literary works (lyrics) and Mu...
Ram Singh vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :8. h MAY, 2017 DECIDED ON :22. d MAY, 2017 RAM SINGH STATE CRL.A. 414/2015 Through : Mr.S.K.Sethi with Ms.Dolly Sharma, ..... Appellant Advocates. versus Through : Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG + S.P.GARG, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 22.12.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.42/2013 arising out of FIR No.43/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh by which the appellant Ram Singh was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 10 POCSO Act and Section 342 IPC. By an order dated 23.12.2014, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine `5,000/- under Section 10 POCSO Act and RI for one year under Section 342 IPC. The sentences were to operate concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is projected in the charge- sheet was that on 26.01.2013 at around 08.30 a.m. the appellant sexually assaulted the victim X (chan...
State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) vs.nitin Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2017
$~18 * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL. L.P. 541/2016 Date of Judgment:22. d May, 2017 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ....... Petitioner Through : Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP. versus NITIN KUMAR CORAM: Through : Mr.Dinesh Garg, Adv. .... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A. 15529/2016 (Condonation of Delay) 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the present leave to appeal. For the reasons stated in the application and since we have considered the leave to appeal on merits, the delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.2. Application stands disposed of. Crl. L.P. 541/2016 3. The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.06.2016 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case 44618/2015 by virtue of which the respondent has been acquitt...
Suman Sharma vs.hari Ram Sharma & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SUMAN SHARMA RSA No.142/2017 19th May, 2017 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. G.S. Sharma and Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocates. versus HARI RAM SHARMA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. Appl. No.19052/2017 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RSA No.142/2017 and C.M. Appl. No.19051/2017 (for stay) 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant no.2/daughter-in-law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 30.9.2016 and the First Appellate Court dated 13.4.2017; by which the courts below have decreed the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent No.RSA No.142/2017 Page 1 of 5 1/plaintiff/father-in-law and directed the appellant/defendant no.2 to vacate the suit premises of wh...
Parmanand Lal vs.the Secretary, Department of Telecom
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:19. h May, 2017 $~SB-2 * % + PARMANAND LAL W.P. (C) No.4639/2012 Through... Petitioner in person. ........ Petitioner versus THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM CORAM: Through Mr.Vivekanand Mishra, Adv. ..... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) Brief Background 1. This writ petition was finally decided by a judgment dated 11.01.2013. Thereafter, a review petition being R.P. No.333/2013 was filed which was decided on 25.07.2013. A second review petition being R.P. No.476/2013 was filed which was dismissed on 27.09.2013. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application being C.M. No.16398/2013 complaining that the respondent had violated the directions contained in the judgment dated 11.01.2013 and reiterated in the order dated 25.07.2013 in Review Petition No.333/2013. This application was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.04.2014. W.P. (C ) No.4639/2012 Page 1 of 5 2. There...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »