Delhi Court February 2018 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Yogesh vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2018
Judgment delivered on:28. 02.2018 $~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + YOGESH BAIL APPLN. 2468/2017 ........ Petitioner versus ..... Respondent STATE Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent : Mr Jai Gupta and Ms Sunita Yadav. Ms Anita Abraham, APP. Insp Naresh Kumar, PS Burari. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2802.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.103/2016 under Sections 376/313/506 IPC, Police Station Model Town.2. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner befriended the prosecutrix, whose is aged about 30 years. It is contended that the petitioner is alleged to have made physical relationships with the complainant on the false promise of marriage. BAIL APPLN. 2468/2017 Page 1 of 3 3. It is alleged that they had relationship for nearly three years. It is when the petitioner is alleged to have refused to marry the prosecutrix that the subject c...
Apoorv Ranjan Sharma & Anr. Vs.union of India & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2018
$~34 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:28. 2.2018 W.P. (C) 1939/2018, CM APPL.8047/2018 APOORV RANJAN SHARMA & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Sameer Rastogi with Mr. Ankit Parashar, Ms. Pooja and Mr. Yatin Sachdeva, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC for R1 and R2. CORAM:-"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER % RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) CM APPL.8047/2018 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P. (C) 1939/2018 2. Issue notice. Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC, who appears for respondents, accepts notice. 2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the issue which arises for consideration in this case is covered by the judgment of another Single Judge of this Court dated 21.12.2017, passed in W.P.(C)11381/2017 titled: Sandeep Singh & Anr. v. Registrar of Companies & Ors. This aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. Therefore, waiting for a counter affidavit woul...
M/S Hotz Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs.dr. Ravi Singh (Since Deceased Throug ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2018
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No.1261/1995 Reserved on:27. h February, 2018 Pronounced on:28. h Februray, 2018 M/S HOTZ INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. ..... Plaintiff Jain, Pravin Kumar Advocate. versus DR. RAVI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRs) & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Manish Vashisht, Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Trisha Nagpal and Ms. Astha Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (DICTATED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES) 1. This is a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.2.1995 with respect to the property bearing No.G-6 (previous No.C-63) Maharani Bagh, New Delhi (herein after referred to as the suit property) situated on a plot of 800 sq. yards. Plaintiff is the proposed buyer and the four defendants in the suit are the proposed CS (OS) No.1261/1995 Page 1 of 39 sellers. Defendant No.1 is the owner of 50% share i...
Ram Rahish Yadav vs.sushila Rani & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2018
$~87 & 88 * % + MAC.APP. 676/2017 & CM No.27795/2017 87 RAM RAHISH YADAV in person. Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav, Adv. with appellant ..... Appellant IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:28. h February, 2018 versus SUSHILA RANI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Raji Nathani, Adv. for R2 & R4. + MAC.APP. 987/2017 & CM No.40981/2017 88 ..... Appellant SHIV SAGAR @ DEEPAK Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal and Mr. versus Sudhanshu Tiwari, Advs. with appellant in person. SUSHILA RANI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Raji Nathani, Adv. for R2 & R4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellants have challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.10,16,000/- has been awarded to claimants in both the appeals.2. On 20th August, 2014, late Vishan Dass was crossing the road when he was hit by motorcycle bearing No.DL-7S-BJ-7619 which resulted in fatal injuries to late Vishan Dass. The deceased was aged 68 years and was MAC.APP...
M/S Hare Ram Singh Security Agency vs.prasar Bhart & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2018
$~36 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:28. 02.2018 + W.P.(C) 1961/2018, CM APPL.8095/2018 M/S HARE RAM SINGH SECURITY AGENCY ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gopal, Advocate. versus PRASAR BHART & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC for R-2&3. Ms. Radhalakshmi R., Advocate for R-1. CORAM:-"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER % RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) 1. Issue notice. Ms. Radhalakshmi R. accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and Mr. Jasmeet Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2 and 3.2. The writ petition is directed against communication dated 2.2.2018, issued by the respondent no.1. By virtue of this communication, the petitioners contract has been terminated which otherwise would have come to an end on 30.6.2018. W.P.(C) 1961/2018 Page 1 of 3 3. The petitioner, concededly, had been providing security services to respondent no.1 since 1.7.2016. The initial contract was for a period of one year which was renewed ...
Sushma Chadha vs.union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2018
$~33 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:28. 2.2018 W.P. (C) 1937/2018, CM APPL.8044-8045/2018 SUSHMA CHADHA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sakal Bhushan with Mr. Robin George and Mohd. Zeeshan Ansari, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC for UOI with Ms. Kaanan Gupta, Advocate. CORAM:-"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER % RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) CM APPL.8045/2018 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P. (C) 1937/2018, CM APPL.8044/2018 (stay) 1. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, who appears for respondents, accepts notice. 1.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the issue which arises for consideration in this case is covered by the judgment of another Single Judge of this Court dated 21.12.2017, passed in W.P.(C)11381/2017 titled: Sandeep Singh & Anr. v. Registrar of Companies & Ors. This aspect is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. Therefore, waiting...
M/S New Era Industries vs.sonia Paul
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2018
$~7 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:28. h February, 2018 CM(M) 804/2016 M/S NEW ERA INDUSTRIES ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Stuti Gupta & Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, Advs. Versus SONIA PAUL Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff of the suit (suit No.730/2014) which was instituted in 2007 against the respondent (defendant) for recovery of Rs. 1,16,032/- with interest, it statedly being the amount due for the goods sold. The petitioner (plaintiff) would describe itself as a partnership firm duly registered, Mr. Anil Khanna being a partner fully conversant with the facts and, therefore, competent to sue on behalf of the firm, the suit having been filed under his signatures. The copy of the written statement submitted by the defendant would show that besides other defences raised, the claim of the plaintiff about its status as a registered partnership firm and that of Mr. Anil Khanna as part...
Apar Industries Ltd vs.alliancz Poly-Chem Overseas Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2018
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:28. h February, 2018 CRL.L.P. 582/2017 APAR INDUSTRIES LTD ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. versus ALLIANCZ POLY-CHEM OVERSEAS LTD CRL.L.P. 587/2017 Represented by: ..... Respondent APAR INDUSTRIES LTD ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Adv. versus KALYANI PETROCHEM PVT LTD & ORS Represented by: ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By these petitions the petitioners seek leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30th May, 2017 whereby the respondents were acquitted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2.... Petitioners filed two criminal complaints being No.22460/2016 and 22605/2016 titled as Apar Industries Limited Vs. Alliancz Poly-chem Overseas Limited and Apar Industries Limited Vs. Kalyani Petrochem CRL.L.P. 582/2017 and CRL.L.P. 587/2017 Page 1 of 4 Private Limited for dishonor of ...
Deepak Kumar vs.the State & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2018
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + DEEPAK KUMAR CRL.M.C.5326 /2013 Judgment delivered on:28. 02.2018 ........ Petitioner versus THE STATE & ANR. Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioner : For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr M.T.Malik Ms Anita Abraham, APP. Mr. A.K. Singh, Adv. for R-2 CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2802.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.2309/2018(early hearing) 1. By this application, the petitioner seeks advancing of the next date of hearing. The matter is fixed for 14.05.2018. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today.3. The next date of 14.05.2018 stands cancelled. CRL.M.C.5326/2013 Page 1 of 5 CRL.M.C. 5326/2013 1.... Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 22.11.2013, whereby the Trial Court has declined to summon the accused in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instr...
Tasleem vs.state (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2018
* % + TASLEEM IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:5. h February, 2018 Decided on:28. h February, 2018 CRL.A. 824/2017 Represented by: Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, ..... Appellant Advocate (DHCLSC) and Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for the State with Inspector Suresh Chand and ASI Puran Singh, PS Gokul Puri. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 By the present appeal, Tasleem challenges the impugned judgment dated 5th December, 2016 convicting him for offence punishable under Section 3IPC in FIR No.490/2012 registered at PS Gokul Puri and the order on sentence dated 9th December, 2016 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months and to pay a fine of 500/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. In the above noted FIR Tasleem and Saleem were apprehended at t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »