Delhi Court October 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.
Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd vs.vistar Constructions Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:16. h July, 2018 Date of decision :09. h October, 2018 O.M.P. (COMM) 186/2016 DIVINE INFRACON PVT LTD ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Sandeep P. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Pani, Ahmed, and Mr.Soumyajit Singh with Mrs.Rehana Mr.Chittaranjan Mr.Inayat Ahmed, Advs. Ahmed, Advs. versus VISTAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Through: Mr.Ranvir Singh, Adv. ..... Respondent 1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 23.08.2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Award) awarding a total amount of Rs 3,01,07,609/- along with future interest @ 9% on the principal amount of Rs 2,25,30,812/- as also cost of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. The counter claims of the petitioner have also been rejected by the Impugned Award. OMP(COMM) 186/2016...
Raj Kumar Bhardwaj vs.ritesh Sharma & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:9. 10.2018 + ARB.P. 546/2018 RAJ KUMAR BHARDWAJ ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari, Adv. versus RITESH SHARMA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) read with Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 1996 Act) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in place of a named Arbitrator, one, Sh. Sanjeev Gulati.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the named Arbitrator has failed to act for the past three years and, therefore, his mandate ought to be terminated in terms of Section 14 and 15 of the 1996 Act.3. Notice in this petition was issued on 1.8.2018. 3.1 The record shows that the respondents have been served. 3.2 Despite service, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. ARB. P. 546/2018 Page 1 of 4 4. It appears that the petitioner has also taken rec...
Bhupinder Singh and Anr. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 3632/2018 Judgment delivered on:09.10.2018 BHUPINDER SINGH AND ANR. STATE & ANR. versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners : For the... RESPONDENTS : Parmod K. Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Raghuvender Verma, APP for State. SI Vikram Singh, PS Rajouri Garden. Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0910.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.189/2018 under Sections 323/341/5IPC, Police Station Rajouri Garden based on a settlement.2. Subject FIR was filed registered to a quarrel that took place in a restaurant.... Petitioners are alleged to have threatened the complainant with a pistol.3. Status report has been filed and the same is taken on record which indicates that there were no cartridges either in the pistol or in the possession of the petitioners and the weapon was empty. The pistol was appr...
Rajeev Dhingra vs.fiancial Commissioner & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Date of Decision: October 09, 2018 + W.P.(C) 10471/2009 1. RAJEEV DHINGRA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. K.G.Bhagat, Mr. Shreshtha Nanda & Mr. D.R. Kishore, Advocates Versus FIANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. N.S.Dalal, Mr. Sunit Choudhary & Ms. Aakansha Bansal, Advocates for respondent No.3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL)... Petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order of 26th June, 2009 wherein the finding returned is as under:-"In fact, as per the Scheme, for allotment of the land within the Lal Dora, there is a provision that the person should be the resident of the Village for more than 20 years and the respondent No.5 is not the resident of the Village and as such he is not entitled for allotment of any land. In lieu of withdrawal, he can be easily allotted agricultural land. After all, he cannot be given any benefit of allotment of the land within the Lal Dora. If he is being given the ben...
Junglee Pictures Limited vs.joy Thomas Proprietor of M/S Jubilee Pictu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2018 + CS (COMM) 1163/2018 & I.A. 13817/2018 JUNGLEE PICTURES LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati Kohli and Ms. Aarushi Tiku, Advocates. (M:9818690207) versus JOY THOMAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S JUBILEE PICTURES ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta with Mr. Ankur Kulkarni, Mr. Susheel Cyriac, Mr. Chacko Simon nad Mr. Rahul Kukreja, Advocates. (M:9819876406 & 9920753202) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. The Plaintiff, claiming to be the producer of the Hindi feature film BADHAAI HO has filed the present suit. The film is slated to be released on 19th October, 2018. Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the Defendant, who claims that the Plaintiffs film infringes his copyright in the script and movie PAVITHRAM. The plaint seeks the following reliefs: i. Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant...
Rameshwar Dayal vs.shyam Sunder Chopra & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :3. d August, 2018 Date of decision :9. h October, 2018 RFA12007 & CM APPL.13531/2018 RAMESHWAR DAYAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Joydeep Sharma, Advocate (M- 9910035893). Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharm & Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for LRs.(M-9910611005). versus SHYAM SUNDER CHOPRA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Kartik Nagarkatti & Mr. Rohan Gangpathy, Advocates for R-1 (M-8826787980). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J.The present appeal has been preferred challenging the final judgment 1. and decree dated 20th September, 2006 by which the suit for possession filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff was dismissed with costs.2. The Plaintiff Shri Rameshwar Dayal filed the present suit for possession of property bearing No.A-2/23, Mianwali Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi with recovery of mesne profits. Since the Plaintiff himself is of infirm mind and is unable to look after the prop...
In the Matter of Carrefour India Master Franchise Company Pvt. Ltd. (I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$~CP-45 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.PET. No.21/2018 IN THE MATTER OF CARREFOUR INDIA MASTER FRANCHISE COMPANY PVT. LTD. (IN VOL.LIQN.) ..Petitioner Date of decision:09. 10.2018 Through Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advs. for OL. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under section 497(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (herein referred to as the Act) by the Official Liquidator (OL), seeking voluntary winding up of the Company CARREFOUR INDIA MASTER FRANCHISE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED (IN VOL.LIQN.) (herein referred to as the said company) from the date of filing of the present petition.2. The said Company was incorporated under the provisions of the Act with Registrar of Companies (ROC), NCT of Delhi & Haryana at Delhi on 19.09.2007 with an authorized capital of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakh only) divided into 50,000 (Fifty Thousand) equity share of Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten) each. The authorized...
Jitendra Kumar Gopalia vs.the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 4741/2018 JITENDRA KUMAR GOPALIA Judgment delivered on:09.10.2018 ........ Petitioner versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Ajay Kumar Mayer, Advocate. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the... RESPONDENTS : CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State. SI Kartar Singh, PS Bindapur. Mr. Vipin Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person. JUDGMENT0910.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.1108/2014 under Sections 498A/4IPC, Police Station Bindapur.2. The subject FIR emanates out of matrimonial discord.... Petitioner is the husband of respondent No.2. CRL.M.C. 4741/2018 Page 1 of 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled their disputes before the Trial Court on 11.12.2017. Parties have already been divorced by way of a decree of divorce ...
Huntsman International (India) Pvt Ltd vs.kleur Speciality Chemicals P ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 109/2018, CM Nos. 20510/2018 & 20512/2018 Date of Judgment:09. 10.2018 HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shravan Sahny and Mr. Nakul Gandhi, Advs. versus KLEUR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS PVT LTD (ABISS TEXTILE SOULUTIONS PVT LTD) & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Soumya Kumar, Mr. Sanjeevi, Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Mr. Armaan Grover and Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Advs. for R-1 to 4 along with R-4 in person. Ms. Palak Nenwani, Adv. for R-5, 6 and 10. Mr. Sreenath S. and Mr. Anshul Kulshrestha, Advs. for R-9 & 13. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff for return of the plaint, on the ground that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The suit was filed against fifteen defendants, namely (i) Abiss Textile Solutions Private Ltd; ...
Hdfc Ergo Genral Insurance Co Ltd vs.pawan Sharma @ Pawan Kumar Sharma ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: October 09, 2018 + MAC.APP. 364/2018 & 14380/2018 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate Versus POOJA KUMARI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.N.Prashar, Advocate for respondent-Pooja Kumari Mr. Pratap Singh & Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, Advocates for newly added respondent-Shalu + MAC.APP. 365/2018 & C.M. 14382/2018 HDFC ERGO GENRAL INSURANCE CO LTD .... Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate Versus PAWAN SHARMA @ PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. Through: Mr. Shrey Chathly, Advocate for respondent No.1 ........ RESPONDENTS + MAC.APP. 366/2018 & C.M. 37034/2018 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate Versus DINESH SHARMA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS MAC.APP. 364/2018 MAC.APP. 365/2018 MAC.APP. 366/2018 Page 1 of 10 Through: Ms. Indu Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Jatinder Kamra, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »