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 Adecco India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.shriram & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2017
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.461/2016 & CM Nos. 34927/2016 & 5936/2017 15th May 2017 Mr. M.S.Sharma, Advocate. ..... Appellant % M/S ADECCO INDIA PVT. LTD. Through: versus SHRIRAM & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv. for R-1. Ms. Upasana Talwar, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is filed by the employer impugning the judgment of the Employees Compensation Commissioner dated 17.5.2016 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein/claimant and awarded compensation of Rs. 23,942/- along with interest at 12% per annum.2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 herein, claimant before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, filed the claim petition stating that he was the employee of the present FAO No.461/2016 Page 1 of 7 appellant. On 12.10.20...
Bharat Bhushan Sharma & Ors. Vs.mohinder Bal (Deceased) Through Lr’s ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA No.43/2007 + % BHARAT BHUSHAN SHARMA & ORS. 15th May, 2017 ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Ms. Promil Seth, Ms. Ruhini Dey and Mr. Dikshant Khanna, Advocates. versus MOHINDER BAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S.C. Juneja, Advocate for LRs. of R-11. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA 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) impugns the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 5.10.2006. By the judgment dated 5.10.2006 the first appellant court held that issue No.5(b) framed by the trial court with respect to the parentage of one of the plaintiff Sh. Mohinder Bal (respondent no.1 in this appeal, and who is now deceased and represented by his legal heirs) ought not to have been framed and no finding could be given with respect to issue No.5(b), RSA No.43/2007 Page 1 of 7 a...
Vikas Nirmal vs.state (Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2017
$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment dated:15th May, 2017 CRL.REV.P. 417/2015 & CRL.M.A.9730/2015, 10342/2016 VIKAS NIRMAL ........ Petitioner + CORAM: Through: Mr.M.Hasibuddin, Adv. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for State Counsel for R-2 (appearance not given) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA I.S.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The instant revision petition is preferred by the petitioner under SectionCr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, CBI-III, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Crl.Appeal No.70/2014 and the interim maintenance order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as The D.V. Act) in Complaint Case No.47/wherein the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees T...
Manjit Dayal & Anr. Vs.gautam Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2017
$~19. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO(OS) No.113/2016 Date of decision:15. h May, 2017 MANJIT DAYAL & ANR. ..... Appellants Through Mr. Siddhant Asthana & Mr. Peeyush Ranjan, Advocates. versus GAUTAM VERMA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Nikhlesh R., Mr. Dinesh Kumar & Ms. Archana Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): This intra-Court appeal impugns the order dated 23rd February, 2016 whereby application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by Gautam Verma, the plaintiff, who is the respondent before us, has been allowed and the application filed by the appellants, who are the defendants in the suit, for vacation of ex parte interim stay, has been dismissed.2. The respondent has filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5th October, 2013 in respect of property No.430, Forest Lane, Neb Sarai, Sainik Farm, New Delhi. The total sal...
Nur Singh & Ors vs.govt of Nct of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: December 05, 2016 Judgment delivered on: May 15, 2017 + W.P.(C) 10612/2016 & CM416542016 + W.P.(C) 10613/2016 & CM416552016 + W.P.(C) 10615/2016 & CM416572016 + W.P.(C) 10753/2016 & CM421062016 NUR SINGH & ORS LAL BACHAN SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS MOHD NAFISH KHAN & ORS MOHD NAFISH KHAN & ORS Through: Mr. V.P. Rana & Mr. Gaurang Bindra, Advs. ........ Petitioners versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Hem Kumar, Adv. for GNCTD with Mr. Vinod Kr. Pandey, Halka Patwari (in W.P.(C) Nos. 10612/2016 & 10613/2016) Mr. Khalid Arshad, Adv. (in W.P.(C) Nos. 10615/2016 & 10753/2016) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 These four writ petitions are being decided by this common order as they involve common issues with identical facts and the challenge is also to a common order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner. W.P.(C) 10612/2016 and connected matters Page 1 of 17 2. Th...
Sh. Vishwa Nath Gupta vs.principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:23. 01.2017 Pronounced on:15. 05.2017 + W.P.(C) 5185/2016 SH. VISHWA NATH GUPTA ........ Petitioner Through : Sh. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Prakash Kumar, Advocate. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, KANPUR AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Sh. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order of 03.05.2016, passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench -II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Settlement Commission" or "ITSC") under Section 245D(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The said order had rejected the petitioner's application under section 245C(1) of the Act. The petitioner also claims a writ of mandamus directing the ITSC to treat the appl...
Pushpender Singh vs.central Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2017
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4099/2017 & C.M. No.17979/2017 PUSHPENDER SINGH Through: Mr. Vineet Chadha and Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocates, ........ Petitioner versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Through: Mr. S.A. Khan, Advocate with Mr. J.C. Bunkar, Chief Manager, Central Bank of India ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL % ORDER1505.2017 1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 12.5.2017, on which date it had been enquired from learned counsel for the petitioner if his client was ready and willing to pay 25% of the demand notice issued by the respondent/Bank, which would come to Rs.10 lacs (approximately).2. Learned counsel for petitioner had stated on instructions from his client that he may be granted some reasonable time to do so. To test the bonafides of the petitioner, he was permitted to bring with him a demand draft of Rs.5 lakh drawn in favour of the respondent/Bank, on the next date of he...
Department of Customs vs.ram Mohan Gulati & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2017
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:15. h May, 2017 + W.P. (CRL.) 1021/2013 DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate with Ms. Pooja Bhaskar, Advocate versus RAM MOHAN GULATI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through:... RESPONDENTS in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The department of customs (petitioner), had statedly seized worn clothes from seven godowns in March, 2007 and in the wake of investigation carried out filed a criminal complaint, pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi, on 03.07.2008 against four persons. An application was moved on 04.07.2011 praying for an inventory to be prepared of the seized items under Section 110 (1B) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said application addressed to the ACMM was made over to a Metropolitan Magistrate. By order dated 26.03.2013, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed it giving liberty to the applicant (the petiti...
Greenko Budhil Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs.central Electricity Regulatory ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2017
$~9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:15. 05.2017 W.P.(C) 4145/2017 GREENKO BUDHIL HYDRO POWER PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner versus CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ANR. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Mr Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr Matrugupta Mishra and Mr Hemant Singh : : Ms Suparna Srivastava for R-2. For the... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT % SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 15.05.2017 CM Nos.18156-58 /2017 (all applications for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 4145/2017 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.05.2017 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. WP(C)4145 /2017 Page 1 of 4 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petition was filed, the order dated 11.05.2017 was not available to the parties as the same had not been uploaded by the Commission as is the normal practice.3. Th...
Rajesh Khanna vs.sachin Goel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RAJESH KHANNA FAO No.219/2017 15th May, 2017 ..... Appellant Mr. Mahendra Rana, Advocate. Through: versus SACHIN GOEL CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ..... Respondent To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.18284/2017 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.18286/2017 (for condonation of delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of two days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. FAO No.219/2017 and C.M. No.18285/2017 (stay) 3. By this first appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the appellant and who was the petitioner in the court below who had filed FAO No.219/2017 Page 1 of 5 objections under Section 34 of the Act, impugns the judgment dated 21.1.2017 by which the objections under Section 34 of the Act have been dismissed.4. The facts of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »