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.
Sunny @ Gattu vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29. h August,2018 Decided on:9. h October, 2018 CRL.A. 379/2017 SUNNY @ GATTU ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, Mr. Pranjal Shekhar and Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Nipender Kumar, PS Madhu Vihar CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By the present appeal, Sunny @ Gattu challenges the impugned judgment dated 21st August, 2015 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 3IPC in FIR No.92/2014 registered at PS Madhu Vihar and the order on sentence dated 7th September, 2015 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of 5,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 397 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that no c...
Lic of India vs.ajeet Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2018 LIC OF INDIA W.P.(C) 11823/2016 Through: Mr. Soumyajit Pani ........ Petitioner and Mr. Chittaranjan Singh, Advs. versus AJEET KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prabhat Kumar proxy counsel for Mr. Pankaj Kumar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 23rd July, 2016 in RCA No.84/2016 (Old No.05/14) of the District Judge, Delhi acting as the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)]. allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent against the order [dated 30th December, 2013 of the Estate Officer of the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Act]. assessing damages payable by the respondent for unauthorised occupation of Flat No.J-11, Jeevan Sarita Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi for the period from September, 2010 to ...
Vinod Kumar vs.the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:09.10.2018 CRL.M.C. 5174/2018 VINOD KUMAR THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Baljeet Kumar & Mr. Dinesh Aggarwal, Advs. Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for State. Mr. Pradeep Chauhan & Mr. Arun Raghav, Advs. for R.2 ASI Digpal Singh, PS Sonia Vihar, New Delhi. Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0910.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.141/2017 under Section 325 IPC, Police Station Sonia Vihar.2. Parties are husband and wife. Subject FIR was registered on a complaint made by respondent no.2-wife that her husband beaten her.3. Parties have settled their disputes before the Counselling Cell, Karkardooma Court. As per the settlement, petitioner had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.4,60,000/- to the respondent no...
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs.umesh Devi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: October 09, 2018 + MAC. APP. 777/2013 & CM210342018 UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Garima Prashad and Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocates Versus + MAC. APP. 166/2015 UMESH DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sushant Mukund, Advocate UMESH DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Sushant Mukund, Advocate Versus UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Garima Prashad and Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocates for respondent No.1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) The above captioned two appeals are directed against Award of 1. 14th March, 2013 vide which compensation of `12,33,250/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded to Claimants.2. In the above-captioned first appeal, appellant- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as the Owner) MAC.APPs.777/2013 & 166/2015 Page 1 of 6 seeks reduction in th...
Dr. Ashok Singhal vs.dr. Inder Kumar Gupta & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % DR. ASHOK SINGHAL RFA No.484/2018. 9th October, 2018 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manu Nayar, Ms. Maitreyee Joshi and Mr. Chetan Kakkar, Advocates (9811146073) DR. INDER KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: R-1 in person. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 20.09.2017 by which the trial court, during the course of leading of evidence, has dismissed the suit by suo moto framing a preliminary issue and holding that the suit as filed is not maintainable in the present form.2. At the outset, I would like to note that a preliminary issue cannot be framed by a court when the preliminary issue is not a RFA4842018 Page 1 of 7 preliminary issue which falls under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC. An issue can be a preliminary issue only if ...
M/S Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$~10 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:9. h October, 2018 O.M.P. (COMM) 116/2016 M/S RISHABH AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashim Vachher, Ms. Achal and Mr. Pawash Piyush, Gupta Advocates. (M:9811023217) versus UNION OF INDIA Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal Himanshu (M:8447299705) Sharma, ..... Respondent and Mr. Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 34 of 1. the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, challenges the award dated 26th August, 2008 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, a nominee of the Respondent.2. The proceedings arose out of a contract for supply of milk by the... Petitioner to the Respondent for use in the Delhi Milk Scheme (`DMS). The... Petitioner had agreed to supply 25,000 kgs of milk per day. The tender was floated on 31st December, 1993, and was to be in effect till 31st December, 1994. However, on 28th December, 1994, the Respondent unilaterally exte...
Bdr Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs.nirmala Modi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$-32 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2018 EX.P.72/2017 & EA(OS) 431/2018 BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Decree Holders Through: Mr.Sanjay Goswami, Adv. alongwith Mr.Rajesh Gupta and Mr.Shreyansh Gupta, Directors in person. versus NIRMALA MODI ..... Judgement Debtor Through: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Mr.Ravinder Singh, Mr.Nilesh Deep, Mr.Koj Yassung and Ms.Eleni Marwein, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) 1. The parties have exchanged the draft format of the Sale Deed between them.2. Learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor has the following objections against the draft of the Sale Deed that was circulated by the counsel for the Decree Holder: a. He submits that as the sale consideration has been received from two companies namely M/s BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s BDR Build Tech Pvt. Ltd in EX.P.72/2017 Page 1 different proportion, the Sale Deed must clearly state the proportion of the...
Narender Gautam & Ors vs.the State & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 5167/2018 Judgment delivered on:09.10.2018 NARENDER GAUTAM & ORS versus THE STATE & ORS ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Verma with Ms. Pooja Chauhan, Advocates. For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State. SI Karamvir, PS Narela. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0910.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.33903/2018 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 5167/2018 The... Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.114/2018 under 1. Sections 452/323/325/5IPC, Police Station Narela based on a settlement. CRL.M.C. 5167/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Subject FIR emanates out of disputes between the family. The petitioners are the daughter-in-law and the family of the daughter-in- law and respondent no.2 is the mother-in-law and respondent nos. 3 to 5 are the family o...
Ram Kumar vs.gnct of Delhi and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:9. h October, 2018 ........ Petitioner $~49 * % + W.P.(C) 10787/2018 RAM KUMAR GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS CORAM: Through Mr. M. Saif Islam Israily & Mr. M. versus Mohsin Israily, Advocates. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Darpan K.M. & Mr. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocates for R-1 & R-4. Mr. Ramkumar, Standing Counsel for North MCD with Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate for R-3 & R-4. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 22.05.2018 and 29.05.2018 passed by Public Grievances Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). By order dated 29.05.2018, following direction has been issued: 4. Directions of the PGC Honble Delhi High Court has also vide its orders dated 28.5.2018 ordered for removal of barbar shop. The action has already been taken by the MCD authorities. In the light of the ATR and High Court order no such encroachm...
M/S Eicher Motors Ltd vs.nirdesh Kumar @ Nirdesh & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2018
* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: October 09, 2018 CM(M) 673/2016 & CM247722016 M/S EICHER MOTORS LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocates versus NIRDESH KUMAR @ NIRDESH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Samaksh Goyal, Advocate for respondent-GNCTD S.I. Naveen, P.S.Khanjawala Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Impugned order of 7th April, 2016 (Annexure- A) impleads petitioner as presumed owner of the tractor involved in the accident, which took place way back on 10th May, 2009.... Petitioner had filed an application for deletion of its name from the array of parties, which stands dismissed vide impugned order of 28th May, 2016. The impugned order calls upon petitioner to file its reply mentioning as to whom the said tractor was sold.2. The challenge to the impugned orders of 7th April, 2016 and 28th May, 2016 by learned counsel for petitioner is on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »