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.
Nancy Gill vs.state of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2018
9# & 10#$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Decided on:17. h January, 2018 BAIL APPLN. 459/2016 NANCY GILL Represented by: Mr. Sidheshwar Rai, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus STATE REPRESENTED BY: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for the State with Inspector Rajender, PS Karol Bagh. Mr. Kuldeep Goel, Advocate for complainant. + CRL.M.C. 3661/2015 and Crl. M.A. No.12974/2015 (Stay) NANCY GILL Represented by: Mr. Sidheshwar Rai, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Represented by: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for the State with Inspector Rajender, PS Karol Bagh. Mr. Kuldeep Goel, Advocate for complainant/respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By bail application No.450/2016, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail and by Crl. M.C. No.3661/2015, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.576/2015 under Section 420 IPC registered at PS Karol Bagh, New BAIL...
Vishal Kapur & Anr. Vs.emaar Mgf Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2018
$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 41/2018 VISHAL KAPUR & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through Mr.Dhruv Gupta and Mr.Ujjal Banerjee, Advs. versus EMAAR MGF CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through Ms.Manmeet Arora, Ms.Samapaha Biswal, Mr.Taran Gupta, Mr.Arjun Jain and Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA % ORDER1701.2018 In view of the order passed today by this Court in Arbitration Petition No.32/2018 titled Sudesh Prabhakar vs. Emaar MGF Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and the connected petitions including the present one, the present petition is also dismissed with all pending applications with no order as to cost. A copy of the aforesaid order in Arbitration Petition No.32/2018 is placed below. JANUARY17 2018 Arya NAVIN CHAWLA, J $~31 to 34 and 36 to 49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17 th January, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ARB.P. 32/2018 ARB.P. 33/2018 ARB.P. 34/2018 ARB.P. 35/2018 ARB.P. 3...
Mi2c Security Facilities Pvt. Ltd. Vs.north Delhi Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * + W.P.(C) 10993/2017, CM APPL.44962-44963/2017 MI2C SECURITY FACILITIES PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Date of Decision:17. 01.2018 Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna with Ms. Vipra Bhardwaj, Ms. L. Gangmei and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocates. versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. The present writ petition challenges a tender rejection by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC or Respondent) whereby the technical bid submitted by M/s. MI2C Security Facilities Pvt. Ltd. (MI2C or Petitioner) was rejected on the ground that M12C did not qualify the technical parameters stipulated in the tender conditions (NIT).2. MI2C is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing security services. On 23.10.2017, the NDMC issued an NIT inviting bids under the two-bid system from ...
Oriental Bank of Commerce vs.additional Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2018
$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. 01.2018 + ITA572018 ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Through Mr. Rajat Navet, Adv. ..... Appellant versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.... Respondent and Through Mr. Rahul Chaudhary Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) % CM APPL. 1856/2018 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions ITA572018 Admit.1. The following questions of law arise : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in remanding the issue relating to interest on overdue deposits back to the file of the Assessing Officer?. ITA572018 Page 1 of 13 (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the claim of the Appellant with respect to provision made for interest on overdue deposits was not acceptable until it is ascertained that the ac...
M/S r.k. Profiles Pvt Ltd vs.m/s Vente Industries Produits Services & ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2018
$~OS-14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CS(COMM) 511/2016 Date of decision:17. 01.2018 M/S R.K. PROFILES PVT LTD Through Mr.Asit Tewari, Adv. ..... Plaintiff versus M/S VENTE INDUSTRIES PRODUITS SERVICES & ANR defendant is ex parte Through ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. Present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to recover a sum of Rs.1,10,26,364/- from defendants No.1 and 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is a limited company registered under the provisions of laws of France. Defendant No.2 is the single Director and shareholder of defendant No.1 and is actively engaged in the management and day to day affairs of defendant No.1 company and is also personally responsible for the dealings with the plaintiff. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff has been engaged in the business dealings with the defendants for a period of about 12 years and has been exporting/supplying EPDM Rubber Profiles to the de...
Adhyapak Shakti Manch, Delhi vs.govt of n.c.t. Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2018
$~2 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8922/2017 and CM No.36502/2017 % Date of decision :17. h January, 2018 ADHYAPAK SHAKTI MANCH, DELHI ........ Petitioner GOVT OF N.C.T. DELHI AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Adv. versus Through : Ms. Manika Tripathi Pandey and Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 This writ petition has been filed by a registered body of Teachers in Delhi, in public interest, complaining that trained graduate teachers (TGTs) under the Directorate of Education are entitled to minimum pay of Rs.17,140/- per month in terms of the Pay Fixation Rules, 2008. However, the respondents are interpreting the rules to mean that only teachers who were appointed on or after 1st January, 2006 are entitled to this minimum pay. So far as the teachers who were appointed prior to 1st January, 2006 are concerned, their pay was f...
Pawan Kumar vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: January 17th, 2018 CRL.A. 639/2017 PAWAN KUMAR ..... Appellant STATE Represented by: Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate. versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Ravinder Singh, PS Bhalaswa Dairy. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 26th July, 2016 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') and Sections 363/366A/376(1) IPC and the order on sentence dated 30th July, 2016 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of 5,000/...
Geeta Sharma and Anr. Vs.emaar Mgf Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2018
$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 38/2018 GEETA SHARMA AND ANR ........ Petitioners Through Mr.Dhruv Gupta and Mr.Ujjal Banerjee, Advs. versus EMAAR MGF CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through Ms.Manmeet Arora, Ms.Samapaha Biswal, Mr.Taran Gupta, Mr.Arjun Jain and Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA % ORDER1701.2018 In view of the order passed today by this Court in Arbitration Petition No.32/2018 titled Sudesh Prabhakar vs. Emaar MGF Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and the connected petitions including the present one, the present petition is also dismissed with all pending applications with no order as to cost. A copy of the aforesaid order in Arbitration Petition No.32/2018 is placed below. JANUARY17 2018 Arya NAVIN CHAWLA, J $~31 to 34 and 36 to 49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17 th January, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ARB.P. 32/2018 ARB.P. 33/2018 ARB.P. 34/2018 ARB.P. 35/2018 ARB.P. ...
Mahindra Kumar Rohatgi vs.emaar Mgf Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2018
$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 48/2018 MAHINDRA KUMAR ROHATGI ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Dhruv Gupta and Mr.Ujjal Banerjee, Advs. versus EMAAR MGF CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through Ms.Manmeet Arora, Ms.Samapaha Biswal, Mr.Taran Gupta, Mr.Arjun Jain and Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA % ORDER1701.2018 In view of the order passed today by this Court in Arbitration Petition No.32/2018 titled Sudesh Prabhakar vs. Emaar MGF Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and the connected petitions including the present one, the present petition is also dismissed with all pending applications with no order as to cost. A copy of the aforesaid order in Arbitration Petition No.32/2018 is placed below. JANUARY17 2018 Arya NAVIN CHAWLA, J $~31 to 34 and 36 to 49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17 th January, 2018 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ARB.P. 32/2018 ARB.P. 33/2018 ARB.P. 34/2018 ARB.P. 35/2018 ARB.P....
Neeta Aggarwal vs.shashi Jindal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2018
$~12 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:17. 01.2018 + RFA(OS) 34/2017 NEETA AGGARWAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Ms. Ridhi Munjal, Ms. Saumya Gupta and Mr. Sudhanshu Suman, Advocates. versus SHASHI JINDAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Advocate along with Mr. Siddharth, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.(ORAL) CM No.1978/2018 (for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing reply of CM No.45475/2017) 1. The present application has been instituted on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of about 10 days in filing the RFA (OS)34/2017 Page 1 reply to the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the respondent, and a direction that the same be taken on record.2. Notice. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent accepts notice.3. Although a perusal of the averments made in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »