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.
Bata India Limited vs.subhash Kapoor & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2018
$~OS-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CS(COMM) 56/2017 BATA INDIA LIMITED Date of decision:05. 10.2018 ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Neeraj Grover, Mr.Abhishek and Ms.Mehak Nakra, Advs. Versus SUBHASH KAPOOR & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Munish Mehra, Mr.Kunal Seth and Ms.Tishya Pandey, Advs. for D-1 to 5 & 8. Mr.Sahil Narang and Mr. Bharat Gupta, Adv. for D-7. Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Adv. for PVR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) IA No.10852/2017 and 15042/2017 1. Both these application are filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint.2. IA No.10852/2017is filed seeking to add certain additional facts which, it is stated, have arisen after filing of the suit. These facts relate to the steps taken by defendants No.2 and 3 to delete the word Bata from the trailer/film.3. As far as IA No.15042/2017 is concerned, by this application the plaintiff seeks to add that defendant No.5 has applied for registration of the CS(COMM) 56/2017 Page 1 of 4...
Sunil @ Guddu vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:5. h October, 2018 CRL.A. 785/2018 SUNIL @ GUDDU ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Richa Dhawan, Standing STATE versus Counsel, DHCLSC. Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State with ASI Kailash, PS Timarpur. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1.2. Admit. By this appeal the appellant challenges his conviction for offence punishable under Section 392 IPC passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 15th January, 2010 and the order on sentence dated 15th January, 2010 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a sum of 5,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months.3. Case of the persecution is based on the testimony of the complainant PW-6 who stated that on 4th August, 2009 at 9.55 PM when he de-boarded the bus at Balak Ram Bus Stand and was going towards his house at Tima...
S. K. Diploma Ind Education College vs.national Council for Teacher Ed ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2018
#72 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:05. 10.2018. W.P.(C) 10601/2018 S. K. DIPLOMA IND EDUCATION COLLEGE ........ Petitioner versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Divyank Rana and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocates : Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Standing Counsel with Ms. Preeti Kumra, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, belatedly impugns the action of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short NCTE), respondent No.1 herein, whereby, the latter returned the petitioner institutions seeking recognition for B.Ed courses all in the year 2013, along with the fee, on the ground of the W.P. (C ) 10601/2018 Page 1 of 6 ban imposed by the State of Haryana on granting of recognition for inter alia, B.Ed an...
Jatinder Pal Singh vs.harinder Singh Jaggi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % JATINDER PAL SINGH RFA No.344/2006. 5th October, 2018 Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Amit Bhatia and Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advocates. HARINDER SINGH JAGGI & ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: 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 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 24.01.2006 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for possession, damages and injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants. Respondent no.1/Defendant No.1 was the tenant inducted by the appellant/plaintiff in the suit property being the RFA3442006 Page 1 of 8 ground floor of the property bearing No.53/6, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter 'suit property'). The respondent no.2/defendant no.2 is pleaded to...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs.jai Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2018
$~ * % + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:20.09.2018 Judgment Pronounced on:05.10.2018 ITA1522001 ITA2182002, C.M. APPL.5766/2013 ITA6792004, C.M. APPL.5757/2013 ITA1632005 ITA7502007 ITA7522007 ITA7512007 & ITA7632007 ITR1371983, ITR781981 & ITR3971983 ITR29798/1981 ITR91982 & C.M. APPL.5772/2013 ITR4647/1982 ITR9598/1983 & ITR2211984 ITR13739/1983 C.M. APPL.5770/2013 IN ITR1511983 (disposed off case), ITR15253/1983, ITR2711983 & ITR4381983, C.M. APPL.5775/2013 ITR17071/1985 ITR22124/1985 ITR182000, C.M. APPL.5762/2013 + WTA21999 + WTR32834/1984 & C.M. APPL.5773/2013 + ITR28388/1985 ITA1522001 & connected matters Page 1 of 3 + WTR3001987, C.M. APPL.5759/2013; WTR4042/1987 & WTR10608/1990,C.M. APPL.5767/2013 + WTR31992 & C.M. APPL.5765/2013 + WTR41992 & C.M. APPL.5763/2013 + WTR241995 & C.M. APPL.5758/2013 + WTR2832/1995 & C.M. APPL.5768/2013 + WTR41997 & C.M. APPL.5771/2013 + + + + + + + C.M. APPL.5769/2013 IN ITR2971981 C.M....
c.i.t. Vs.maharaja Jai Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2018
$~ * % + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:20.09.2018 Judgment Pronounced on:05.10.2018 ITA1522001 ITA2182002, C.M. APPL.5766/2013 ITA6792004, C.M. APPL.5757/2013 ITA1632005 ITA7502007 ITA7522007 ITA7512007 & ITA7632007 ITR1371983, ITR781981 & ITR3971983 ITR29798/1981 ITR91982 & C.M. APPL.5772/2013 ITR4647/1982 ITR9598/1983 & ITR2211984 ITR13739/1983 C.M. APPL.5770/2013 IN ITR1511983 (disposed off case), ITR15253/1983, ITR2711983 & ITR4381983, C.M. APPL.5775/2013 ITR17071/1985 ITR22124/1985 ITR182000, C.M. APPL.5762/2013 + WTA21999 + WTR32834/1984 & C.M. APPL.5773/2013 + ITR28388/1985 ITA1522001 & connected matters Page 1 of 3 + WTR3001987, C.M. APPL.5759/2013; WTR4042/1987 & WTR10608/1990,C.M. APPL.5767/2013 + WTR31992 & C.M. APPL.5765/2013 + WTR41992 & C.M. APPL.5763/2013 + WTR241995 & C.M. APPL.5758/2013 + WTR2832/1995 & C.M. APPL.5768/2013 + WTR41997 & C.M. APPL.5771/2013 + + + + + + + C.M. APPL.5769/2013 IN ITR2971981 C.M....
M/S/ Rana Chairs vs.director General (Town Planning) Kolkatta Municipa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2018
$~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 1090/2013 M/S/ RANA CHAIRS ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr Dharmendra Sharma, Advocate. versus DIRECTOR GENERAL (TOWN PLANNING) KOLKATTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr Sujoy Mondal, Advocate for D-1. Date of Decision:05. hOctober, 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) I.A. 4957/2016 Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 4956/2016 1. Present application has been filed by the applicants/defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 17th September, 2015.2. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendant states that after receiving the summons in the plaintiffs suit on 11th December, 2013, the law CS(OS) 1090/2013 Page 1 of 5 department of the defendant contacted the local advocate who assured the applicants/defen...
Fahad Ullah & Anr vs.state & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2018
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 3312/2018 Judgment delivered on:05. 10.2018 FAHAD ULLAH & ANR STATE & ORS versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : : Mr. Shahbaz Ahmed, Advocate For petitioner nos. 1 and 2 along with petitioner nos.1 & 2 in person. Mr. Jauhar Ali, Advocate for... Petitioner no.3. Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for State Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Standing Counsel for BSES/RPL with Mr. Amav Vidyarthi, Advocate for R-2 with R-2, present in person. Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, Assistant Manager, (Legal)/BSES/RPL. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0510.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.996/2014 under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, based on a settlement.2. Subject FIR was registered for theft of electricity consequent to a raid that had taken p...
Hansraj & Ors vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:05. 10.2018 + W.P.(C) 8437/2015 HANSRAJ & ORS ........ Petitioners Through: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Padma Kumar S., Adv. & Ms.Tinu Bajwa, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Adv. Through: Mr.Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr.Rajat & Mr.Shravan Kumar Shukla, Adv. for UOI. Mr.Deepak Verma, Adv. for R-7, 9 & 10. Gava, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL) C.M. No19427/2018 (for clarification) 1. The present application has been filed by the writ petitioners seeking clarification of the order dated 16.03.2018, passed by this Court disposing of Review Petition No.89 of 2018, in the light of the assurance given by the learned counsel for the respondents qua the grievance raised by the petitioners regarding their repatriation to their parent cadre without being given an opportunity to exercise their option to remain in Subordinate Statistical Service (herein...
Radhey vs.state & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2018
* % + RADHEY IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:5. h October, 2018 CRL.L.P. 641/2018 Represented by: Mr. ........ Petitioner Keshav Kumar, versus Advocate STATE & ANR. Represented by: Mr. Ashok K. Kumar, APP for ........ RESPONDENTS the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A. No.33565/2018 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 13 days in filing the leave to appeal petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 641/2018 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 5th June 2018, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in CC No.56titled as "Radhey v. Kuldeep Kumar", the petitioner/complainant has preferred the present leave petition.2. Facts leading to the present case as per the complaint are that the petitioner gave a friendly loan of 1,00,000/- for a short period to the respondent No.2 on his request...