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.
Sunita Const. Co. Vs.university of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) 2163/2011 Reserved on:10. h January, 2018 Date of decision:23. d February, 2018 SUNITA CONST. CO. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Mr.Aditya Vashishth, Advs. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Defendant Through: Mr.G.K.Pathak, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 The present suit was registered on the filing of the Award dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the parties.2. Upon issuance of the notice of filing of the Award to the parties, the respondent, University of Delhi filed its objection thereto under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.3. Before dealing with the objection, it would be proper to remind oneself of the limit of jurisdiction of this Court while exercising power under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In Sudarsan Trading Company v. Government of Kerala and Anr. (1989) 2 SCC38 the Supreme Court had reiterated that in exercise ...
r.c. Arora vs.shammi Dewan & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % R.C. ARORA SHAMMI DEWAN & ANR. RFA No.199/2018 23rd February, 2018 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocate. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aviral Tiwari, Advocate and Mr. Varun Kapur, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) Caveat No.151/2018 1. Counsel appears for the caveators. Caveat accordingly stands discharged. C.M. No.7070/2018 (exemption) 2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. Nos.7071/2018 (for condonation of delay in filing) & 7069/2018 (for condonation of delay in re-filing) 3. For the reasons stated in the applications, delay of 23 days in filing and 32 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RFA No.199/2018 Page 1 of 12 C.M.s stand disposed of. RFA No.199/2018 and C.M. No.7068/2018 (stay) 4. This regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civ...
Prabha Kumari vs.food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2018
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Order: February 23, 2018 W.P.(C) 1715/2018 PRABHA KUMARI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.D.K.Thakur and Mr.Pavan Kumar, versus Advocates FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Manoj, Standing Counsel (FCI) and Ms.Aparna Sinha, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL ) 1.... Petitioner is at serial No.101 in wait list for being appointed as Assistant Grade-III (Depot). According to petitioners counsel, the wait list (Annexure-C) was made public in the month of November, 2017 and despite there being vacancy in the general category, petitioner has not been appointed although she had secured 100 marks out of 120 marks.... Petitioners counsel submits that RTI information was sought from respondent as to how many general category candidates have been appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot) from the wait list and as per the reply of 15th November, 2017 (Annexure-D) and 28th November, 201...
Vijay Charlu vs.union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2018
$~43 & 60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:23. February 2018 + W.P.(C) 1694/2018 VIJAY CHARLU ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Bharat Arora and Mr. Vikhyat versus Oberoi, Advs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Anunita Chandra, Adv. for Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC for UOI AND + W.P.(C) 1741/2018 SANDESH CHHATWAL ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Bharat Arora and Mr. Vikhyat versus Oberoi, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS ....... RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Anunita Chandra, Adv. for Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC for UOI CORAM:-"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER W.P.(C) 1694/2018 & Conn. Page 1 of 4 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) CM No.6975/2018 in W.P.(C) 1694/2018 CM No.7223/2018 in W.P.(C) 1741/2018 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 1694/2018 & CM No.6974/2018 W.P.(C) 1741/2018 & CM No.7222/2018 2. Issue notice. Ms. Anunita Chandra accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1/UOI.3. The issue which arises in the present petitions has arisen...
Gyan Prakash vs.indu Kumar Prajapati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2018
$~16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :-"23rd February, 2018 RC.REV. 169/2016 GYAN PRAKASH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Kapil Gupta, Advocate versus + ..... Respondent Through: None. INDU KUMAR PRAJAPATI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2016 of the Additional Rent Controller whereby in the proceedings arising out of his eviction case (eviction petition No.06/2015) on the ground of bona fide need under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the application of the respondent for leave to contest under Section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was allowed.2. The proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller have arisen out of the eviction petition instituted by the petitioner on 03.02.2015 seeking an order under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the respondent in respect of premises described as house No.893/1C, Block-D, Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar, Ne...
State vs.naresh Jain & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2018
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :23. d FEBRUARY, 2018 CRL.L.P. 646/2014, CRL.M.A.Nos.162& 192STATE Through : Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP. ........ Petitioner versus NARESH JAIN & ORS Through : Mr.S.C.Buttan, Advocate with Mr.Himanshu Buttan, Advocate for R1. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG + S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) 1. The instant leave petition has been filed by the State to file appeal against a judgment dated 19.05.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.43/2011 registered under Sections 489B/489C IPC at PS Special Cell vide FIR No.5/2005. It is contested by the respondents.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Respondent No.1 - Naresh Jain was acquitted by the Court primarily noting certain discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence and the source of information received by the investigating agency for his apprehension. The Trial Court did not believe the statements of the off...
Dr. Sonali G. Badhe vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2018
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Order : February 23, 2018 W.P.(C) 1754/2018 & CM No.7249/2018 DR. SONALI G. BADHE ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Kunal Cheema and Mr.Apoorv Shukla, Advocates UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Anil Soni, CGSC, Mr.Gaurav Rohilla, G.P., Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC (UOI) and Ms.Mallika Hiramath, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) 1. On petitioners complaint of sexual harassment, vide order of 21st June, 2016 (Annexure P-3), penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years has been inflicted upon fourth respondent. In the first round of litigation, petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi against impugned order (Annexure P-3) and had sought enhancement of penalty but vide order of 10th November, 2017 (Annexure P-7), petitioner had withdrawn the Original Application with liberty to approa...
Kanwal Singh vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~11, 12, 14 to 20 * + W.P.(C) 8306/2017 KANWAL SINGH Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate. ........ Petitioner UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, versus CGSC, Mr.Sushil Kumar Pandey, Mr.T.P.Singh and Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocates for R-1 to R-5. AND + W.P.(C) 8324/2017 & CM No.2981/2018 VASANT TULSI RAM PATIL Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC, Mr.T.P.Singh and Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocates for R-1 to R-5. AND + W.P.(C) 4629/2017 AND KRISHAN DUTT Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Prashanta Varma, Sr.CGSC and Ms.Shalu Goswami, Advocates. W.P.(C) No.8306/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 8 + W.P.(C) 4654/2017 JAGDISH CHANDER Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms.San...
Manoj Kumar & Anr vs.registrar of Companies & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2018
$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:23. 2.2018 + W.P.(C) 1744/2018 MANOJ KUMAR & ANR ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Harbola with Mr. Ketan Madan, Advocates. versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) 1. Issue notice. Mr. Shukla who appears for the respondents accepts notice on behalf of respondents.2. According to counsel for the petitioners, the issue which arises in the present petition 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. vs. Registrar of Companies & Ors. 2.1 Therefore to my mind, no counter affidavit is required as the stand of the respondents is no different than that which W.P. (C) 1744/2018 Page 1 of 4 obtained in Sandeep Singh & Anr (supra). Furthermore, I am told that directives contained in the said judgment were i...
Subhash Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P.(COMM.) 38/2018 Reserved on:9th February,2018 Date of decision:23. d February, 2018 SUBHASH INFRAENGINEERS PVT. LTD. Through: Mr.Anil Mittal, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Mr.Narayan Dev, Advs. for Railways. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Award dated 24.08.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in the Arbitration Proceedings held between the parties.2. The disputes between the parties relate to the Award of work of earth work in filing, embankment and cutting, provision of the blanketing material, construction of bridges and other allied works between K.M4900 to K.M744 on Rewari - Jhajjar - Rohtak section in connection OMP (COMM) 38/2018 Page 1 with Rohtak - Jhajjar - Rewari new railway line in favour of M/s Sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »