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.
National Human Rights Commission vs.central Information Commission & A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2017
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 349/2015 & CM Appln. No.554/2015 NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Through: Ms. Shobha and Ms. Joyshree versus Barman, Advocates. ........ Petitioner CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR. Through: Mr. Feblin Mathew, Advocate for R2. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1209.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner (hereafter the NHRC) has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the order dated 04.12.2014 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).2. By the impugned order, the CIC had disposed of the second appeal preferred by respondent no.2 under section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the Act) by directing the NHRC to provide a complete and categorical information to respondent no.2, as requested in his application filed under the Act.3. Respondent No.2 had filed an application dated 28.02.2011, inter alia, seeking the following i...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.arvind Kumar & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2017
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:12. h September, 2017 + MAC.APP. 414/2016 and CM186562017 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Saurabh Kr. Tuteja and Mr. Onkar Nath, Advocates versus ARVIND KUMAR & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Lakhmi Chand, Adv. for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The only issue urged and pressed at the hearing by the appellant / insurance company in appeal is that the rate of interest (12% p.a.) levied by the tribunal on the awarded compensation in favour of the first respondent is excessive.2. On being asked, the learned counsel representing the first respondent fairly concedes that there were no special reasons for such rate of interest being levied, which is higher than the ordinary. Following the consistent view taken by this court, the rate of interest is reduced to 9% p.a. (nine percent) [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011, Oriental Insuran...
State vs.anjum Khanna & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2017
$~8 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: September 12, 2017 CRL.REV.P. 504/2017 STATE ........ Petitioner Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with Inspector Usha Sharma PS Hari Nagar. versus ANJUM KHANNA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.C.P.Malik, Advocate. PRATIBHA RANI, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.11230/2017 1. For the reasons stated in the application, 26 days delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.2. Application is disposed of. Crl.Rev.P.No.504/2017 1. The State has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under SectionCrPC feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18th March, 2017 whereby respondents/accused persons have been discharged for the offence punishable under SectionIPC in case FIR No.347/2016, PS Hari Nagar.2. As against respondent No.2 Mona Katyal (wife of main accused Anjum Khanna/respondent No.1), in the chargesheet it is mentioned that during investigation no proof in respect of the offence punishable under Section 50...
Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd vs.assistant Commissioner, Servic ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2017
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) No.11569/2016 Reserved on: August 28, 2017 Date of decision: September 12, 2017 VERIZON COMMUNICATION INDIA PVT. LTD. ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R. Satish Kumar, Advocate. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX, DELHI III, DIVISION-XIV & ANR. ...... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate. + WITH W.P. (C) No.11572/2016 VERIZON COMMUNICATION INDIA PVT. LTD ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R. Satish Kumar, Advocate. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX, DELHI III, DIVISION-XIV & ANR. ...... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate WITH W.P. (C) Nos. 11569/2016, 11572/2016, 11575/2016 & 11577/2016 Page 1 of 29 + W.P. (C) No.11575/2016 & CM No.45598/2016 VERIZON COMMUNICATION INDIA PVT. LTD ...Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. A...
Anil Kumar Bhutani vs.manya Bhutani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2017
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:12. 09.2017 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 130/2017 and CM No.27084/2017 ANIL KUMAR BHUTANI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Adv. versus Through: None. MANYA BHUTANI CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA ..... Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA1 The appellant/husband has assailed the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the Family Court, whereby his petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the HMA), was dismissed.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the parties had got married at Delhi on 11.10.2000, as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated and two children, namely, Aniket and Kavya were born from out of this wedlock. In the petition for divorce, the husband has alleged that the marriage was a simple one; no dowry was given or accepted in the marriage or at any time after the marriage ...
Nikhil Kumar Singh vs.dav College Managing Committee & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.365/2017 and CM Nos. 32556/2017(Exemption) & 32557/2017 (for condonation of delay) % NIKHIL KUMAR SINGH12h September, 2017 Mr. Sagar Saxena, Advocate ..... Appellant Through: versus DAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ....... RESPONDENTS To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The plaintiff/appellant impugns the order of the Trial Court dated 01.04.2017 by which the trial court has held that the civil court in Delhi would have no jurisdiction because either appellant/plaintiff/teacher will have to approach the Delhi School Educational Tribunal under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 or the appellant/plaintiff will have to approach the concerned Educational Tribunal in Bihar. FAO No.365/2017 Page 1 of 10 2. As per the plaint, the appellant/plaintiff seeks the following reliefs: - a) Pass a decree of recovery for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) al...
m/s.fedders Electrical & Engineering Limited vs.m/s. Ahluwalia Contrac ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2017
$~OS-58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of decision:12. 09.2017 O.M.P. (COMM) 336/2017 M/s.FEDDERS ELECTRICAL & ENGINEERING LIMITED ...... Petitioner Through Mr.P.S.Bindra and Ms.Rishika Arora, Advs. M/s. AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LIMITED. versus .... Respondent Through Mr.Rishi Kapoor and Mr.Raunak Satpathy, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to impugn the Award dated 6.6.2017 passed by the learned Arbitrator in the proceedings held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.2. Some of the brief facts are that the respondent issued a work order dated 22.4.2009 on the petitioner for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of HVAC work of Radisson Hotel at Jaipur for contract value of Rs.2,56,36,182/-. Subsequently the contract value was changed/enhanced. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner...
Sukhbir Singh Panchal & Anr. Vs.amandeep Singh Chhabra & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.737/2017 and CM Appls. 29749-51/2017 + % SUKHBIR SINGH PANCHAL & ANR. 12th September, 2017 ..... Appellants Suneja, Sudhir K. Through: Mr. Advocate versus AMANDEEP SINGH CHHABRA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 18.4.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the appellants/defendants under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC and has decreed the suit for the sum of Rs.13 lacs along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum. The principal amount claimed in the suit of Rs.13 lacs is the total amount due on six dishonored cheques. Appellant no.1/defendant no.2 is the sole proprietor of the appellant no.2/defendant no.1. RFA No.737/2017 Page 1 of 6 2. The facts of the...
Sanjeev Kumar vs.new Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2017
$~9, 10, 11, 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:12. h September, 2017 + W.P. (C.) 930/2017 BHIKKI RAM Through Mr.Satish Kumar Tripathi and Mr. ........ Petitioner versus Amit Kumar Dubey, Advocates NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, Standing + W.P.(C) 1181/2017 Counsel with Mr. Mananjay Mishra and Ms. Vidhi Jain, Advocates KUNWAR PAL SINGH ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Satish Kumar Tripathi and Mr. Amit Kumar Dubey, Advocates versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, Standing + W.P.(C) 1191/2017 Counsel with Mr. Mananjay Mishra and Ms. Vidhi Jain, Advocates SANJEEV KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Satish Kumar Tripathi and Mr. Amit Kumar Dubey, Advocates versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent W.P. (C) No.930/2017 etc. Page 1 of 9 Through Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, Standing Counsel with Mr. Mananjay Mishra and Ms. Vidhi Jain, Advocates + W.P.(C) 1218/2017 BA...
Iffco Tokio General Ins. co.ltd. Vs.babu Lenka & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2017
$~R-189 & 190 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:12. h September, 2017 + MAC APPEAL NO.163/2010 and CM Nos.4802/2010 & 14562/2010 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO.LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Harsh Lata for Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate versus BABU LENKA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary, Adv. for R-1 & 2 + MAC APPEAL NO.169/2010 and CM49572010 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .... Appellant Through: Ms. Harsh Lata for Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate versus BABU LENKA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Adv. for R-1 & 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Pradeep Kumar Lenka, a bachelor, then aged about 26 yrs, son of the first and second respondents (collectively, the claimants) suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on MAC A No.163/2010 & 169/2010 Page 1 of 6 28.05.2006 due to the negligent driving of two vehicles, one being Santro Car bearing registration no.DL-3C-AG...
- ‹ Prev
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- Next ›
- Last »