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.
M/S Gupta Enterprises vs.ghansyam Tewari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:15. h November, 2018 CRL.L.P. 271/2018 M/S GUPTA ENTERPRISES ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate versus GHANSYAM TEWARI .....Respondent Represented by: None CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A. No.7627/2018 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application delay of 26 days in filing the leave to appeal petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 271/2018 1. Aggrieved by judgment dated 12th January 2017, whereby learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Imstruments Act, 1881 in CC No.46732/2016 titled as 'Naveen Gupta v. Ghanshyam Tiwari', petitioner has preferred the present leave to appeal petition.2. Brief facts as per the complaint are that the petitioner and the respondent had business transactions as they were running firms under the name and style of M/s Multi Sales Corporation and Gu...
Itc Limited vs.arora Offset Printers & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:15. h November, 2018. CS(COMM) 1512/2016 & IAs No.14230/2016 (of the plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) & 13699/2018 (of the plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-2A CPC) ITC LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Ms. Nupur Lamba, Ms. Drishti Chatterjee and Ms. Aishwarya Chaturvedi, Advs. Versus ARORA OFFSET PRINTERS & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Dimple Vivek, Adv. for D-1,5,6&7. Mr. Akhilesh Dixit and Ms. Karuna Sharma, Advs. for D-2,3,4&8. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW The senior counsel for the plaintiff and the counsels for all the eight 1. defendants (defendants no.9 to 12 are Ashok Kumars) have been heard on IA No.14230/2016 of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).2. The counsels for the defendants, during the course of hearing stated that it is only the defendants no.3,5&8 namely Durga Trading Co., Meena Agarbatti Comp...
Anshu vs.the State Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARIF Reserved on:5. h July, 2018 Decided on:15. h November, 2018 CRL.A. 927/2017 Represented by: Mr. M.R. Chanchal, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP + WAHID for the State CRL.A. 1015/2017 Represented by: Mr. Prashant Diwan with Mr. Brajesh Dwivedi, Advocates. ..... Appellant versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP + ANSHU for the State CRL.A. 1132/2017 ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Sandesh Singh Bagga, versus Advocate. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP + CRL.A. 5/2018 for the State NARENDER @ BHOLA ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.V.K. Mishra, Advocate. versus CRL.A. 927/2017, 1015/2017, 1132/2017 &5/2018 Page 1 of 12 THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'B...
Smt. Aarti Tomar vs.state (Government of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2018
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:15. 11.2018 BAIL APPLN. 1687/2018 SMT. AARTI TOMAR versus ........ Petitioner STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Ms. Anushree Kapadia with Mr. Ajeet Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent : CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State. JUDGMENT1511.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.61/2018 under Sections 379/394/397/411/120-B IPC, Police Station Jama Masjid.2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant along with the driver of his employer was taking the goods worth approximately Rs.15 lakhs in a van for delivery to the factory. On the way, an altercation took place with three boys, who were driving an Eeco Car and after the altercation was over when the boys left, the complainant and the driver found that the backdoor of the van was open and la...
Dr. Surendra Narain Raizada vs.state & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2018
13 $~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI TEST.CAS. 44/2013 & I.A. 9806/2013 DR. SURENDRA NARAIN RAIZADA Through: Mr. Manu Padalia, Advocate. ........ Petitioner Versus STATE & ORS. Through: None ........ RESPONDENTS % Date of Decision:15. h November, 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral):1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 276 read with Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate in respect of registered Will dated 31st March, 1992 of deceased Mrs. Sudesh Madan.2. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner is a British citizen and the husband of the testatrix, late Mrs. Sudesh Madan, who expired on 08th February, 2011 at Romford, England. The testatrix is stated to have executed a Will dated 31st March, 1992, which was duly attested by Mr.Stuart P. Mallinson and Mr. Rajinder Kumar Jain in England. It is stated that the petitioner is the sole executor of the Will dated 31st March, 1992 ...
North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs.dr. Santosh Sharma and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2018
$~26, 29, 30 & 36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of decision : November 15, 2018 W.P.(C) 8704/2017 with CM No.35693/2017 (stay) (Arising out of the order passed in OA27122016) NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Ms. Biji Rajesh, Ms. Eshita Baurah and Mr. Diwanker Sethi, Advocates. versus SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. Vijay Through: Mr. ........ RESPONDENTS and Sharma Sharma Bhardwaj Ms.Swagati, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Shashwat and Mr.Nikhil and Ms.Gauraan, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kumar Singh, Standing Counsel for EDMC/R Mr. Advocate. Abhaya Behera, Rajesh K. + W.P.(C) 637/2018 with CM APPL. 2760/2018 (for stay) (Arising out of the order passed in OA40662016) NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Ms. Biji Rajesh, Ms. Eshita Baurah and Mr. Diwanker Sethi, Advocates. versus W.P.(C) 8704/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 8 DR. R...
Delhi Transport Corporation vs.m/s Competent Placement Services (Regd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2018
$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:15. h November, 2018 + O.M.P. 501/2008 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Jyotindra Kumar, Advocate. (M:9971588963) versus M/S COMPETENT PLACEMENT SERVICES (REGD.) & ANR. Through: None. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) I.A. 4573/2017 (Delay in filing Restoration Application) 1. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 101 days in filing of I.A. 4572/2017 for restoration of the petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.2. I.A. is allowed. I.A. 4572/2017 (Restoration Application) 3. This is an application seeking restoration of OMP5012008 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 2nd December, 2016. For the reasons stated in the application, OMP5012008 is restored.4. I.A. is allowed. O.M.P. 501/2008 5. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...
Uoi and Ors. Vs.central Administrative Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:15. 11.2018 + W.P.(C) 3092/2003 Through : Sh. R.V. Sinha with Sh. A.S. Singh and Sh. Amit Sinha, Advocates. ........ Petitioners UOI & ORS. versus CENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ..... Respondent Through Tejaswini Chandrashekhar, Advocate, Respondent No. Sh. Sanjeev Saraswat with Ms. for CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner [hereafter referred to as the Union]. in directing the withholding of his pension, the second respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in an application, contending that his previous 29 years employment which culminated in the voluntary retirement being sanctioned with effect from 19.04.1999 entitled him to draw pension.2. The salient facts are that the second respondent [hereafter the applicant]. had joined the Union Department of Telecommunications in 1970 where ...
ex.const. Krishan Kumar Dubey vs.uoi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2018
$~5 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 9326/2006 EX.CONST. KRISHAN KUMAR DUBEY ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocate. Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate. ..... Respondent versus UOI & ORS. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA % ORDER1511.2018 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: C.M. Appl No.18359/2018(restoration) 1. The affidavit filed by counsel for the... Petitioner has been perused.2. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed.3. The order dated 4th April, 2018 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file. W.P.(C) 9326/2006 4. The... Petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 20th Novemember, 2004 of the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) and the decision W.P.(C) 9326/2006 Page 1 of 8 communicated to the... Petitioner vide letter dated 27th October, 2005 rejecting his statutory petition against his conviction by the SSFC and the sentence of dismissal from service.5. The petitioner joined the Border Security Force (...
Vipin Bansal Sole Proprietor Om Prakash Fatehchand & Co vs.exquisite D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.67/2015 + % VIPIN BANSAL SOLE PROPRIETOR OM PRAKASH FATEHCHAND & CO. Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate. versus (9810152774) 15th November, 2018 ..... Appellant EXQUISITE DECOR PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Dhingra, Ms. and Ms. Advocates Shalini Dhingra Hitendha, (9667939822) 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 the Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 09.01.2015 by which the trial court has rejected the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by holding that the suit is barred by limitation. In fact, when a suit is dismissed on admitted facts as being barred by time, the suit is RFA No.67/2015 Page 1 of 8 dismissed actually under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Dismissal of a suit on limitation is if the court has jurisdiction a...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »