Delhi Court February 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.
Vva Developers Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Vs.improve Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
$~39 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h February, 2018 O.M.P. (COMM) 93/2018 & IA No.2779/2018 & 2780/2018 VVA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD & ORS. Through: Mr.Vinod Tyagi, Adv. ........ Petitioners versus IMPROVE VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) IA No.2780/2018 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. IA No.2779/2018 (Stay) As the petition itself has been dismissed, the application is also dismissed as having becoming infructuous. O.M.P. (COMM) 93/2018 1. This petition, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is challenging the Arbitral Award dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in Case Ref. No.DAC/1609-3-17 titled as M/s. Improve Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. VVA Developers (P) Ltd. OMP (COMM) 93/2018 Page 1 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputes between the parties were in rela...
Rajesh Gupta Huf vs.principal Commissioner of Income Tax-11 & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RAJESH GUPTA HUF ITA2462018 & CM APPL. 7363-7364/2018 ..... Appellant Date of Decision:26. 02.2018 Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna with Mr. Krishan Narang, Mr. Manu Giri, Mr. Rohit Sharma & Mr. Vikram Kakkar, Advs. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11 & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. This appeal by the assessee - a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), questions an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which allowed the revenues appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the assessing officer (AO) added 40,40,000/- under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereafter the Act for short].. The assessee had for the relevant assessment year (AY) filed its return declaring an income of 9,35,010/- including long term capital gain of 7,57,435/-. Later, a notice under Section 148 of ...
Ajay Gautam vs.press Council of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h February, 2018 Pronounced on:26. h February, 2018 + W.P.(C) 9776/2017 AJAY GAUTAM ....... Petitioner Through:... Petitioner in person versus PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Manan Verma, Adv. for R-1 Mr.Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Nivesh Sharma, Adv. for R-2. Mr.Rishi Kapoor and Mr.Satish Rai, Adv. for R-3. CORAM:-"HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % (JUDGMENT) C. HARI SHANKAR, J.1. The petitioner, who claims to be a priest doing his practice in accordance with Sanatan Dharam has petitioned this Court, in public interest, venting his ire principally against the Hindustan and M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as RIL). It may be immediately noted, here, that though the Hindustan has been arrayed as Respondent No.3 in these proceedings, the RIL has not been so arrayed. W.P.(C) 9776/2017 Page 1 of 14 2. The gravamen of the petitioners grievance, qua both t...
Anju and Anr. Vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order : February 26,2018 W.P.(C) 1779/2018 & CM73777378/2018 ANJU AND ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Anurag Pratap with Mr. Rishiraj, Advocates Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, CGSC for R-1 Mr. Sameer Agrawal, Advocate for R-2 & R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR (ORAL) ORDER To overcome the office objection of maintainability of this petition, % 1. an application has been filed i.e. CM No.7377/2018 to entertain this petition. The office objection is that for the relief sought in this writ petition, the petitioner should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the urgency involved, this petition has been filed before this Court as urgent reimbursement of medical expenses is required for the Cancer treatment of first petitioner.3. For the relief sought in this petition, petitioner should approach ...
Inder Kumar vs.state of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :16. h JANUARY, 2018 DECIDED ON :26. h FEBRUARY, 2018 W.P.(CRL) 18/2015 & Crl.M.A. 54/2015 (stay) INDER KUMAR STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Through: Mr. Alok Bhachawat, Advocate. versus ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG + S.P.GARG, J.1. Present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Articleof the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the legality and correctness of orders dated 30.09.2014 and 02.12.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.Rev.P.No.10/2014 whereby costs `3,500/- were ordered to be recovered from his salary and also to expunge deprecatory remarks recorded in the order dated 02.12.2014.2. During the course of arguments, copy of the order dated 21.07.2015 in Crl.M.C. 2082/2015 by this Court was placed on record by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.3. Perusal of the order da...
Peeyush Aggarwal vs.state (Govt. Of Nct Delhi & Anr.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 4366/2017 Judgment delivered on:26. 02.2018 PEEYUSH AGGARWAL STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR) versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : : Mr.P.S.Bindra and Ms Savi Abbot, Advocate. Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for State. SI Bishambar Dayal, PS Connaught Place. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2602.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) CRL.M.C. 4366/2017 1. Respondent No.2 has been served, however, none appears for respondent No.2.2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject FIR was registered as far back as in the year 1997. Charge sheet in the subject FIR though dated 08.09.2000 was filed on 31.05.2002 and Charges were framed on 11.09.2015 and only one CRL.M.C.4366 /2017 Page 1 of 2 prosecution witness has been recorded till date. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has faced prosecution for over...
Trilochan Singh @ Happy vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
$~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 202/2002 Reserved on: February 08, 2018 Date of decision: February 26, 2018 TRILOCHAN SINGH @ HAPPY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.S. Gandhi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Alka Joshi, Advocate and Mr. Sumer Kumar Sethi, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) STATE versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP with Insp. Bhanu Prakash, S.I. Jai Chand, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA JUDGEMENT I.S.Mehta, J.1. The instant criminal appeal is arising out of the impugned judgment dated 31st January, 2002 and order on sentence dated 1st February, 2002, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted the appellant under Section 302/34/411 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3IPC, in default of payment CRL.A. 202/2002 Page 1 of 20 of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one ...
Sh. Mohd. Mehfooz vs.delhi Waqf Board. And Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:26. 02.2018 SH. MOHD. MEHFOOZ + W.P.(C) 1833/2018 & CM No.7592/2018 DELHI WAQF BOARD. AND ANR. versus ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Anis Ahmed, Adv. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, Standing Counsel with Mr. D. Kapoor, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Siddharth Dutta and Mr. Dushyant Singh, Advs. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner via this writ petition has challenged the order dated 29.1.2018, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub- Division, Kotwali, New Delhi. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises described as property bearing No.3136, Gali Naqqanchian, First and Second Floor, Turkman Gate, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as subject property). 1.1 It is not disputed before me by counsel for the petitioner that the subject property is a Waqf property and that the subject property will be covered b...
M/S. Resbird Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs.m/s. r.s. Travel & Tours (India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
$~OS-6 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. 02.2018 CS(COMM) 266/2018 M/S. RESBIRD TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Virender Mehta and Mr.Gautam Mehta, Advs. with Mr.Tarak Saha/AR versus M/S. R.S. TRAVEL & TOURS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through Mr.Vaibhav P.Shukla, Mr.Vivek Sarin, Mr.Vijay Jha and Mr.Kishlaya Shukla, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) IA No.1754/2018 1. This is an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to restrain the defendants from using any other GDS of a third party except that of the Amadeus GDS (Global Distribution System). As per the plaint it is stated that the defendants entered into a Subscriber Agreement on 1.11.2016 with the plaintiff. As per the said agreement the term of the agreement was for four years whereby the defendants were obliged to use the Amadeus GDS for the said period. An amount of Rs.3.2 crores was paid by the plaintiff and rec...
Ashutosh Vashisth vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~18 * + W.P.(C) 1751/2018 & CM Nos.7246-47/2018 ASHUTOSH VASHISTH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Anuj Kumar Sharma, Advocate versus Through: Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC. ........ RESPONDENTS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ORDER2602.2018 The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari, for % 1. quashing the orders dated 05.04.2017 and 12.07.2017, passed by the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board respectively, of the respondent No.3/CISF, declaring him medically unfit for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police, CAPFs and ASI in the CISF, in terms of an advertisement dated 09.01.2016 wherein he had applied for recruitment to the subject posts.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the advertisement dated 09.01.2016, issued by the respondent No.2/SSC, the petitioner had applied for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police,...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »