Delhi Court January 2018 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.
Hughes Communications India Ltd. & Ors. Vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:29. h January, 2018 CS(COMM) 439/2017 & IA No.14152/2017 (u/O VIII R-1 r/W Sections 148 & 151 CPC) HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS INDIA LTD. & ORS. .... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Ankur Mahindru, Ms. Aarzoo Aneja & Mr. Shresth Chaudhary, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Naveen Kumar Jain, Mr. Sachin Kumar Jain & Mr. Kamal Pandey, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.13734/2017 (of the defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996) 1. The three plaintiffs viz. i) Hughes Communications India Ltd., ii) Hughes Communications India Ltd. Comtel (sic), and, iii) Hughes Network Systems India Ltd. have instituted this suit for recovery of Rs.1,15,66,360/- along with interest from the defendant.2. The defendant, not later than submitting its first statement on the substance of the dispute has filed this application for reference of the parties to arbitra...
Birla Academic of Art and Culture vs.south Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: January 10, 2018 Judgment delivered on: January 29, 2018 + W.P.(C) 9603/2017 BIRLA ACADEMIC OF ART AND CULTURE ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit, Proxy Counsel for Mr. H.D. versus Sharma, Adv. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 Present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is, respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be please to issue writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) directing the respondent Corporation to refund amount of Rs.1,71,54,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand only) along with interest to petitioner and / or pass any other relief or order which this Honble Court may deems fit, proper and expedient in the circumstance of the case. 2. It is the case of the petit...
National Fertilizers Limited vs.indo Gulf Industries Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (COMM) No.143/2016 + % NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED29h January, 2018 . Plaintiff Through: Mr. P.K. Mittal, Advocate. Versus INDO GULF INDUSTRIES LIMITED .. Defendant Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam and Mr. Abhimanyu Walia, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1.(i) The Plaintiff/National Fertilizers Limited is a Government owned company. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Urea, Ammonium Nitrate (Lumps) and Ammonium Nitrate (Melt). Plaintiff has one of its units at Naya Nangal at Ropar in Punjab. (ii) The defendant company is engaged in the manufacture of explosives. The name of the defendant originally was Indo Gulf Explosives Limited and thereafter it was changed to Indo Gulf Industries Limited. For the manufacture of explosives Ammonium CS (COMM) No.143/2016 Page 1 of 15 Nitrate is used as a major raw material and hence this was purchased by the ...
Ram Chander Singh & Ors vs.lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2018
$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9805/2017 Date of Judgment :29th January, 2018 RAM CHANDER SINGH & ORS ........ Petitioners Through Ms.Esha Mazumdar & Mr.Nishant Verma, Advocates. versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: Through Mr.Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC with Mr.C.M. Sundaram, Advocate for R-1. Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B/LAC. Mr.Ajay Verma, Mr.Kush Sharma & Mr.Ekant Luthra, Advocates for DDA. Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms.Vasundhara Nayyar, Advocate for NDMC. Ms.Tulika Bhatnagar, Adv. for R-6. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners claim that lands measuring 3,000 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No.165, revenue estate of village Chaukri, Mubarikabad, Delhi with abadi known as Jai Mata Market, Trinagar, Delhi-110035, should be declared free from acquisition in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fa...
Krishan Singh vs.govt of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2018
$~42 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:29. h January, 2018 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Shitiz Agnihotri, Advocate. KRISHAN SINGH + W.P.(C) 10226/2016 versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate for LAC/L&B. MS. Peehu Singh, Advocate for Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect of the land of petitioner i.e. 02 Bighas and 19 Biswas comprised in Old Khasra No.172 [New Khasra No.169]. (2-19), situated in the revenue estate of Village Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Subject Land) are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ...
Tushar Mittal vs.union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2018
$~45 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11326/2017 & CM No.46265/2017 % Date of decision :29. h January, 2018 TUSHAR MITTAL Through : Mr. Manish Jain with Mr. Alok ........ Petitioner Kucchal, Mr. Rukban Tyagi, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for R-1/UOI CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 The writ petitioner complaints that he had been appointed a Director in a company registered under the name and style of ARPQ Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) wherefrom he resigned in the year 2009. The company failed to submit Form 32 regarding his resignation in accordance with the provisions of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar of Companies-respondent no.2. In this regard, the petitioner had made a complaint to the respondent no.2 vide an Investor Complaint Form dated 22nd December, 2...
Sh. Rajender Singh & Ors vs.satnam Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2018
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:01. 12.2017 Judgment Pronounced on:29. 01.2018 RFA4632017 SH. RAJENDER SINGH & ORS ..... Appellants/defendants Through: Mr.Yograj Gullaiya, Advocate. versus SATNAM SINGH ..... Respondent/plaintiff. Through: Mr. Atul Sheopuri, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J.1. Challenge in this Regular First Appeal is the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2016 in Civil Suit No.458/2016 passed by the Court of Dr. Hardeep Kaur, Additional District Judge-02, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (in short learned ADJ) by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed in his favour against the appellants/defendants in respect of property bearing No.1/10426 measuring 100 square yards out of Khasra No.388 situated in the area of village Udhanpur in Mohan Park (Rohtash Nagar) Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-32.2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent filed a suit for Declaration, Possession, Permanent ...
Vikram Sharma vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: January 04, 2018 Judgment delivered on: January 29, 2018 + W.P.(C) 10588/2016 VIKRAM SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. H.S. Sharma, Adv. with petitioner in person versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Shipra Shukla, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Honble Court be pleased to: a) A writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ by quashing circular No.5 of 2016 (Annexure P1) and letter dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure P2) and the letter dated 03.06.2016 (Annexure P3) be issued. The license of the petitioner, which has been terminated be ordered to be continued/restored. b) Any other direction or order as deemed fit and proper for meeting the ends of justice and equit...
Sh. V. Bhaskar vs.ministry of Minority Affairs Ans Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2018
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 29, 2018 W.P.(C) 763/2018 & C.M320405/2018 W.P.(C) 764/2018 & C.M320607/2018 SH. V. BHASKAR ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate versus MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIRS ANS ORS. Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) 1. Since the challenge to impugned orders of 18th September, 2017 in the above-captioned two petitions is on similar grounds, therefore, these two petitions have been heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of.2. In the above-captioned first petition, vide impugned order of 18th September, 2017 (Annexure P-1) recovery of `7,57,503/- is sought to be made from petitioner regarding assets issued to Ex-Chairman & Managing Director of respondent-NMDFC whereas in the above- captioned second petition, vide impugned order of even date (Annexure P-1), recovery of `7,27,000/- is sought to be made from pet...
P vs.m
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2018
$~42 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:29. h January, 2018 CM(M) 107/2018 & CM No.3387/2018 P M Through: Mr. Nalin Tripathi and Mr. A. ........ Petitioner Vashishtha, Advs. versus Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) CM No.3387/2018 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. MAC.APP.107/2018 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th December, 2017 whereby the learned Family court has allowed the respondents application under Order VII Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure and has taken 33 additional documents on record.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues were framed on 15th April, 2017 and the documents have been filed after the framing of issues on 17th May, 2017. It is submitted that the documents should not be taken on record because of the delay in filing the same. It is further submitted that the documents are well within the possession of the CM(M) 107/2018 Page 1 of 2 respondent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »