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.
Construction Industry Development Council vs.subhash Chandra Agarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:16. 11.2018 + W.P.(C) 7289/2015 & CM Nos. 13391/2015, 30884/2017 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Petitioner versus SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL Advocates who appeared in this case:... RESPONDENTFor the... Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Kantawala with Ms. Nimisha Menon, Advocates. For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr. T. Sudhakar, Advocate. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 The petitioner (hereafter CIDC) has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 25.06.2015 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter CIC). By the impugned order, the CIC has held CIDC to be a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the RTI Act).2. The respondent had filed an application dated 08.04.2013 under the RTI Act, inter alia, seeking information about file notings/ correspondences/ documents regarding the establishment ...
Fis Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.principal Commissione ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12277/2018, C.M. APPL.47539/2018 FIS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. Decided on:16. 11.2018 Through : Sh. Piyush Kaushik and Sh. Tanveer Zaki, Advocates. ........ Petitioner versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, NEW DELHI & ANR. Through : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. Issue notice. Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate accepts notice. With parties consent, the writ petition was heard finally.2. The assessee in its writ petition challenges a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (hereafter the Act) for Assessment Year 2011-12, complaining that the original return [which had declared `49,67,00,907/- and subsequently revised to `49,23,54,662/-]. was assessed under scrutiny under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act on 31.12.2015, at ` 61,92,17,179/-. The impugn...
Rekha Sabharwal & Anr. Vs.jitender Sabharwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2018
REKHA SABHARWAL & ANR versus JITENDER SABHARWAL + CRL.M.C. 5473/2014 JITENDER SABHARWAL versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :29. h August, 2018 Judgment delivered on:16. h November, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 3646/2014 ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner SMT REKHA SABHARWAL & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners : Mr.Dinesh Malik with Mr.Puneet Jain, Advocates for the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 3646/2014 Mr.Rajiv Ghawana with Ms.Akshita Chatwal, Advocates for the... Petitioners in CRL.M.C. 5473/2014 For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr.Rajiv Ghawana with Ms.Akshita Chatwal, Advocates for the respondents in CRL.M.C. 3646/2014 Mr.Dinesh Malik with Mr.Puneet Jain, Advocates for the... RESPONDENTS in CRL.M.C. 5473/2014 CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT CRL.M.C. 3646/2014 & CRL.M.C. 5473/2014 Page 1 of10 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. These cross petitions, one by the wife and the other by the husban...
Ashok Kaushik vs.state (c.b.i.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2018
$~14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4777/2016 Decided on:-"16th November, 2018 ASHOK KAUSHIK ....... Petitioners Through: Mr. Avinash Kumar Tyagi, Advocate versus STATE (C.B.I.) Through: Mr. Narender Mann, SPP with .... Respondent Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner herein is one of the several accused persons who were sent up for trial by the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), on a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted upon conclusion on investigation into case (RC No.3/2012 ACU-VI/CBI) New Delhi. The matter came up before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) for consideration of charge. By order dated 06.01.2015, the ACMM found sufficient material available on record to put, inter alia, the petitioner herein on trial for offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Section 419/420/384 Indian Penal Code (IPC), and for the subs...
Amardeep Singh Chadha vs.nirmeet Kaur @ Naina
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2018
$~8 * % + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 297/2018 AMARDEEP SINGH CHADHA IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:16. h November, 2018 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.G.K.Bharti, Mr.Charitarth Bharti and Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocates. Versus Through: None. NIRMEET KAUR @ NAINA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH ..... Respondent G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) CM. No.47438/2018 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. The application stands disposed of. CM. No.47439/2018 (Delay of 17 days) 3. This is an application filed by appellant seeking condonation of 17 days delay in filing the appeal.4. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.5. The application stands disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 297/2018 6. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby an application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafte...
Suruchi Rawat & Ors. Vs.supreme Court of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:1. t November, 2018 Decided on:16. h November, 2018 + SUDHIR KUMAR TYAGI & ORS. .....Appellants LPA8102017 and CM No.47340/2017 Through: Mr R.K. Saini, Advocate. versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr Waize Ali Noor and Ms Shruti Dutt, Advocates for R-1 and 2. Mr Waize, Mr Anuj Aggarwal and Mr Himanshu Sharma, Advocates for R + SURUCHI RAWAT & ORS. LPA2022018 and CM No.14426/2018 .....Appellants Through: Mr Avadh Kaushik, Advocate. versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr Waize Ali Noor and Ms Shruti Dutt, Advocates for R-1 and 2. Mr Waize, Mr Anuj Aggarwal and Mr Himanshu Sharma, Advocates R-3. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA LPA Nos. 810/2017 and 202/2018 Page 1 of 7 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: JUDGMENT1 These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 25th October, 2017 passed by the learned Si...
Marwar Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs.surya Enterprises, Through Its Proprietor Sh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.879/2018 + % MARWAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. 16th November, 2018 Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Choudhary, Advocate (M. No.9899750209). Sunil versus SURYA ENTERPRISES, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH. VINOD KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.44912/2018(exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.879/2018 and C.M. No.44911/2018(stay) 2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit RFA No.879/2018 Page 1 of 10 impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 30.01.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for recovery of moneys filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the work of water-proofing treatment done for the appellant/defendant at the hotel site of the appellant/defendant at Jodhpur in Rajasthan. The suit ...
Dilshad @ Moni & Ors. Vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2018
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + BAIL APPLN. 2016/2018 Judgment delivered on:16. 11.2018 DILSHAD @ MONI & ORS. versus STATE ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : : Mr. M.N.Dudeja, Adv. Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP with SI Poonam Tomar, P.S.Geeta Colony. Mr.Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Adv. for the complainant. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1611.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate has been appointed by Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee. The prosecutrix who is present in Court in person submits that she has engaged private counsel Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Advocate who is also present in Court.2. In view of the fact that the prosecutrix has appointed a private counsel, Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate, appointed by DHCLSC is discharged.3.... Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No.246/2018 under BAIL APPLN. 2016/2018 Page 1 of 3 Sections 323/354D/5IPC read wi...
Atul Kanti Tripathi vs.kuber Media Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:30. h October, 2018 Decided on:16. h November, 2018 LPA1482017 + ATUL KANTI TRIPATHI Through: Mr. ..... Appellant Pankaj Vivek with Mr.Shashank Shekhar Jha and Ms. Bidya Rani, Advocates. KUBER MEDIA LTD. Versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Asim Naeem, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25th November, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP (C) No.6008/2014 filed by the Appellant/Workman and upholding an order dated 7th June, 2014 passed by the Labour Court rejecting the Appellants execution petition (Ex. No.50/2013) on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation.2. The background facts relevant to the present appeal are that an award was passed by the Labour Court on 10th March, 2010 directing the Respondent Management to reinstate the Appellant with full back wages, continuity of service and co...
Sasumorov Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs.odeon Builders Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16. h November, 2018. CS(COMM) 927/2016 & IA No.11845/2018 (of defendant u/O XXXVII R-3(5) CPC) SASUMOROV ENTERPRISES PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. K.S. Lather and Mr. Mukul Lather, Advs. Versus ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Through: Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Adv. ..... Defendant The application of the sole defendant for leave to defend this suit for 1. recovery of Rs.4,06,35,429/- filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is for consideration.2. The counsel for the defendant and the counsel for the plaintiff have been heard and the counsel for the defendant has also been heard in rejoinder.3. The plaintiff has instituted the suit inter alia pleading (i) that the defendant approached the plaintiff for supply of TMT Bar (FE500 by placing Purchase Orders dated 6th May, 2013, 26th July, 2013 and 1st October, 2013 on the plaintiff; (ii) that the said Purchase Or...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »