Delhi Court November 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.
Ahsan Ali vs.the State Govt of Nct of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:22. d November , 2018 CRL.L.P. 72/2018 Represented by: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus AHSAN ALI CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for State. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2&3. CRL.L.P. 72/2018 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10th November, 2017 whereby the complaint of petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution as complainant was absent, the petitioner prefers the present leave petition.2. Considering that the petitioner had been pursuing the remedy of the complaint leave to appeal is granted.3. Petition is disposed of. CRL.A.________/2018 (Registry to number the appeal) 1. The appellant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court being CC No.96/1/15 New Case No.5305titled as Ahsan Ali Vs. Khalid Parvez & Ors.. The said complaint was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th...
M/S Sushi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs.ceat Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % M/S SUSHI ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD22d November, 2018 RFA No.314/2018 CEAT LTD ..... Appellant Mr. Shyam D. Nandan, Advocate (M. No.9654848621). Through: versus Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate (M. No.9878001254). ..... Respondent 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/landlord impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 22.11.2017 by which the trial court while passing a decree for mesne profits for the period from 01.06.2008 till 14.07.2011 has granted mesne profits only at Rs.60/- per sq. ft. per month, and the case of the appellant/plaintiff is RFA No.314/2018 Page 1 of 9 that higher mesne profits should have been decreed on the average rate between the rates of rent proved by the appellant/plaintiff in terms of the Lease Deeds Ex.P-2 (Rs. 230/- per sq. ...
Monika Hurt vs.smita Arora and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2018
$~11. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 567/2018 & IA No.15292/2018 (of the plaintiff u/O XXXIX R- 1&2 CPC). MONIKA HURT ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. S. Mukerjee, Mr. R.K. Joshi, Mr. S. Joshi and Mr. Bhagwat Prasad, Advs. versus ..... Defendants Through: None. SMITA ARORA AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % ORDER2211.2018 1. This suit came up first before this Court on 2nd November, 2018, order of which date records that the plaint in the suit as filed was incomprehensible and seemed to be copy pasted from some other document. Listing of the suit itself was subject to office objection as to valuation and deficiency in court fees. On request of the counsel for the plaintiff that an opportunity be given for filing a fresh plaint, the suit was adjourned to today.2. Today, the counsel for the plaintiff states that he has filed a fresh plaint dated 16th November, 2018.3. 4. The same is taken on record and has been perused. The plaintiff, in the plaint h...
Udaipur Cement Works Ltd vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2018
$~23 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d November, 2018 UDAIPUR CEMENT WORKS LTD O.M.P. 384/2012 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sushant Pushkar & Mr. Anchit Oswal, Advocates (M- 8527607062). UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocates for R-1 (M-9891363718). Mr. Arvind Minocha & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocates for R-3 (M- 9811048012). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) The present Section 34 petition has been filed challenging the award 1. dated 4th January, 2012 passed by the Learned Arbitrator. The operative portion of the award reads as under: 8. Keeping in view of the relevant provision(s) in the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & arguments advanced by Respondent Nos.1,2,3 & the Govt. Counsel appearing for Claimant/UOI, I have come to the conclusion and pass the Order on the reply filed by the Respondent NO.3...
Anselem Lyke Nwoso vs.directorate of Revenue of Intelligence
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:22. d November, 2018 CRL.A. 284/2016 ANSELEM LYKE NWOSO versus Represented by: Mr.J.S.Kushwaha, Advocate ... Appellant DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE OF INTELLIGENCERespondent Represented by: Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.B. No.1600/2018 (suspension of sentence) Since arguments have been heard in the appeal itself, application seeking suspension of sentence is dismissed as infructuous. CRL.A. 284/2016 1. Appellant challenges his conviction for offence punishable under Section 21(C) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (in short NDPS Act).2. Case of the prosecution initiated on receipt of a secret information on 17th May, 2009 that a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.DL8 D5616 was parked unattended and unlocked near the bus stop Vikas Kunj Society, Vikas Puri on the road leading to Piragarhi. A shoulder bag containing narcotic drugs is also kept in th...
Raj Rani vs.prafulla Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.1056/2017 and C.M. No.46210/2017(stay) + % RAJ RANI22d November, 2018 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Arun Baali, Advocate (M. No.9999315171). PRAFULLA KUMAR versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sucharita Ghosh, Advocate Sinha, and Ms. Swati Advocate (M. with Mr. Naveen Advocate Verma, No.9899090109). 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 defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 30.08.2017 by which RFA No.1056/2017 Page 1 of 23 the trial court has decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/plaintiff with respect to property bearing No.BH-269, Shalimar Bagh (East), Delhi. Specific performance has been decreed by simultaneously directing payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 27,...
Jai Prakash Singh vs. State & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2018
$~9&10 (common order) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + + Decided on:-"22nd November, 2018 CRL.M.C. 3258/2016 and Crl.M.A.13911/2016 CRL.M.C. 3298/2016 and Crl.M.A.14031/2016 JAI PRAKASH SINGH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajit Rajput, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. for R2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner claims to have been appointed in 1984, on the basis of a selection process of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to the post of Assistant Engineer (AE) in erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU), at times when it was statedly a department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Subsequently, DESU was re-established as an entity under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and restyled as Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) in 1997 and the petitioner continued to serve in said department. Pursuant to enactment of Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000, not...
State vs.rama Dhall
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2018
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:22. 11.2018 CRL.REV.P. 970/2018 STATE RAMA DHALL versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner :Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP with Inspector Dhiraj Singh, P.S.Ashok Vihar. For the Respondent : None. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2211.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.35658/2018 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.REV.P. 970/2018 1. State has filed the subject revision petition impugning the order dated 24.08.2018 whereby the Trial Court has discharged accused Rama Dhall of the offences under Sections Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the JJ Act) and has opined that because of the maltreatment, Section 323 of the IPC would be attracted and accordingly she has to face trial for Section 323 IPC and not Section of the JJ Act. CRL.REV.P. 970-2018 Page 1 of 2 2...
Max Hypermarket India Private Limited vs.curo India Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d November, 2018 CS(COMM) 95/2016 MAX HYPERMARKET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Saransh Jain and Mr. Madhavan Sharma, Advs. Versus CURO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ...Defendant Through: Mr. U.K. Shandilya and Mr. Pawan Verma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW OA No.70/2018 (of defendant) 1. The defendant has preferred this Chamber Appeal against the order dated 8th May, 2018 of the Joint Registrar allowing IA No.3307/2018 of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(1) and (5) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for filing additional documents and permitting the additional documents of the plaintiff to be taken on record.2. This Chamber Appeal first came up before this Court on 13th July, 2018, when it was the contention of the counsel for the defendant/appellant that the Joint Registrar did not have the power to permit additional documents to be taken on record. Ho...
Biofarma vs.bal Pharma Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:22. d November, 2018. CS(COMM) 1668/2016 & IAs No.16066/2016 (u/O XXXIX R- 1&2 CPC) & 4813/2018 (of defendant u/O XI R-10 CPC) BIOFARMA Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Ms. Shreyasi Pal and Ms. Navya Chopra, Advs. ..... Plaintiff BAL PHARMA LIMITED Versus ..... Defendant Through: Ms. Rajeshwari H. and Ms. Swapnil Gaur, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW The plaintiff has sued for permanent injunction restraining the 1. defendant from passing off its medicinal preparation as that of the plaintiff by use of the plaintiffs trade mark MEX/trade dress/packaging or any deceptive variations thereof, whether as a trade mark, service mark, trade name, trading style etc. and from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff and for ancillary reliefs.2. The suit came up first before this Court on 23rd December, 2016 and thereafter on 12th January, 2017. Summons of the suit and notice of the application for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »