Delhi Court September 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.
Union of India & Anr. Vs.rashid m.h. Jung
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.794/2017 + % UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 18th September, 2017 ..... Appellants Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC for appellants. ..... Respondent Through: versus RASHID M.H. JUNG CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.34104/2017 (delay of 12 days in filing the appeal) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.34103/2017 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. RFA No.794/2017 & CM No.34102/2017 (stay) 1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the RFA No.794/2017 Page 1 of 4 trial court dated 27.4.2017 whereby the trial court has decreed the suit for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.33 per sq. ft. The suit premises are Park Mansion, Sir Syed Ahmed Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002 admeasuring 2834...
Irmeet Singh Kohli & Ors vs.ashok Kumar Batra & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2017
$~J * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:18.09.2017 CM(M) 1179/2015 & CM No.29169/2015 IRMEET SINGH KOHLI & ORS ........ Petitioners Through Mr.Ajay Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Harshbir Singh Kohli, Adv. versus ASHOK KUMAR BATRA & ANR Through Mr.Samrat ........ RESPONDENTS K.Nigam and Mr.Abhimanyu Walia Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.CM(M) 1179/2015 & CM No.29169/2015 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to impugn the order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned trial court dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners/defendants.2. Brief relevant facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance and injunction on 18.08.2011. As per the suit, it is claimed that sometimes in November, 1984 the respondents/plantiffs sought physical possession of the suit property being 3rd Floor, Flat No.3, formerly known as Scindia House, Conna...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.mala Rani & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2017
$~R-221 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:18. h September, 2017 + MAC APPEAL No.444/2010 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. versus MALA RANI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The only issue pressed at the hearing by the appellant insurance company is that since the award was granted by the tribunal, by judgment dated 20.05.2010, on a claim petition (bearing Suit No.111/2009) that was instituted on 14.10.1999 by the claimants (first to fourth respondents), the delay being primarily of the claimants, the interest should not have been levied to the extent of nine per cent (9%) per annum.2. A perusal of the record of the tribunal reveals that the claimants cannot be faulted entirely for the delay which occurred on account of judicial process and evasion by the other parties.3. The appeal is therefore dismissed. MAC Appeal No.444/2010 Page 1 of 2 4. By order dated 26.0...
Kalanithi Maran vs.spicejet Limited & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2017
$~65 & 66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:18. 09.2017 O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) -71/2016 KAL AIRWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED. versus SPICEJET LIMITED & ANR. + O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) -72/2016 KALANITHI MARAN versus SPICEJET LIMITED & ANR. Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate and Dr. Abhshiek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Mr. Bharat Chugh, Mr. Aditya Vikram and Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samar Kachwaha, Ms. Hansa Kaul, Mr. Deepak Joshi, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Shweta Kakkad, Ms. Pallavi Kumar and Mr. Angad Baxi, Advocates. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1809.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 71/2016 & O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 72/2016 Page 1 of 11 in OMP...
Gopal vs.new India Assurance Co Ltd & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2017
$~1, 13 & 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 742/2017 Decided on:18. h September, 2017 GOPAL .... Appellant Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Ms. Pankaj Kumari, Advocates versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vijay Singh and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates for R-1 + MAC.APP. 1110/2016 and CM479712016 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vijay Singh and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates versus GOPAL & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Ms. Pankaj Kumari, Advocates for R-1 + MAC.APP. 197/2017 RAMESH CHAND JAIN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. versus MAC A74217, 11& 197/2017 Page 1 of 4 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vijay Singh and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates for R-1 Mr. S.N. Parashar and Ms. Pankaj Kumari, Advocates for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Insurer (appellant in MACA11102016), and the claimant (appel...
Ravinder Kumar @ Rinku & Ors vs.state of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2017
$~55 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 2708/2017 RAVINDER KUMAR @ RINKU & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners along with petitioners in person. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC for the State with ASI Mithlesh, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. Mr. Sachita Dixit, Advocate for R-2 along with respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL ORDER1809.2017 % Crl.M.A. 15560/2017 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 2708/2017 1. Notice. Learned ASC, who appears on an advance copy having been served, accepts notice. Notice to respondent No.2 also. She is being represented by her counsel. She appears in person and accepts the notice. She is duly identified by IO ASI Mithlesh. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court 2.3. W.P. (Crl.) 2708/2017 Page 1 of 3 under Article 226 of the ...
Jk Technosoft Limited vs.ramesh Sambamoorthy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2017
$~OS-6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. 09.2017 % + ARB.P. 342/2017 JK TECHNOSOFT LIMITED RAMESH SAMBAMOORTHY Through Ms. Gayatri Verma, Adv. versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under Sections 11(4) and 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. Some of the relevant facts are that on 20.01.2004 and 22.01.2004 a letter of employment was issued by the petitioner to the respondent which was followed by detailed terms of the letter of employment dated 22.01.2004. The respondent joined the petitioner as 'Senior Vice President, ERP- Practices'. On 01.04.2015, as the respondent was reaching the age of 60 years the parties executed an agreement whereby the respondent was to continue his association with the business of the petitioner as a full-time consultant. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent resigned fro...
u.o.i vs.p.k.sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2017
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9515/2006 U.O.I ........ Petitioner Through: Mr J.K. Singh, Standing Counsel and Ms Madhulika Agarwal, Adv. versus P.K.SHARMA Through: Ms Meenu Mainee, Adv. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA % 1. ORDER1809.2017 The petitioner, Ministry of Railways/Union of India is aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.05.2006, pronounced by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No.869/2006, filed by the respondent herein praying inter alia that he be considered for appointment to the post of Additional Member (Staff). The Respondent approached the learned Tribunal for an appointment to the post of Additional Member (Staff) on the basis of judgement of the Tribunal in S.C. Manchanda v. Union of India, OA No.211/2002, decided on 08.07.2002 on the premise that he being the senior most in the IRPS cadre, he ought to be appointed on the post of Additional Member (Staff). The lear...
Kripa Shanker vs.ld Central Information Commission and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2017
$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8315/2017 & CM No.34196/2017 KRIPA SHANKER ........ Petitioner Through: Ms Tripta Kanojia, Advocate. versus LD CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS Through: ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1809.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 19.07.2017 (hereafter 'the impugned order'), whereby the Central Information Commission (CIC) had imposed a penalty of 25,000/- on the petitioner for failure to supply the information as sought by respondent no.4 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act').2. Ms Kanojia, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced submissions on three fronts. First, she submitted that the CIC was considering a complaint that had been treated as Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act and, therefore, no penalty would be imposed in such proceedings. She referred to the decision of the Supreme ...
State vs.mahesh Chand & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2017
$~10 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: September 18, 2017 CRL.REV.P. 594/2017 STATE ........ Petitioner Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with Insp.Meena Yadav, PS Palam Village. Versus MAHESH CHAND & ANR. Respondents Through : Mr.Ajit Kumar, Advocate. PRATIBHA RANI, J.(Oral) 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29th March, 2017 whereby respondents/accused persons have been discharged in case FIR No.249/2016, PS Palam Village for the offence punishable under Section 376 andIPC, which are triable by the Court of Session, the State has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to set aside the order whereby both the accused/respondents have been discharged for the aforesaid offences..2. Vide impugned order dated 29th March, 2017, the learned Addl Sessions Judge has discharged the accused persons/respondents No.1 and 2 for the following reasons: 11. It is the settled law that order framing the charges does substantially affe...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »