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.
T. D. Suresh Babu vs.m/s Mmtc Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Order : February 21, 2018 W.P.(C) 1637/2018 & CM Nos.6715-18/2018 T. D. SURESH BABU ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Bharat Sangal, Ms.Vidushi Garg, Ms.Anindita and Ms.Isha Gupta, Advocates versus M/S MMTC LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Akhil Sachar, Advocate and Ms.Smita, Legal Manager CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) 1. Against imposition of minor penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect in terms of Rule 23(b) of MMTC Employees Disciplinary and Conduct Rules, 1975, petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal (Annexure P-30) wherein it has been specifically asserted by petitioner that it was not his duty to supervise the securing movement of high value cargo by weighment and it was the job of the officers posted at Haldia and many officers working with petitioner were similarly accused but they have been exonerated by accepting the stand of MMTC that the working of supervisory and the ...
Arti Verma vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
$~28,32,33,34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:21. 2.2018 28 + W.P.(C) 1661/2018 & CM APPL. 6831-6833/2018 32 ARTI VERMA ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. Naman Jain, Joshi, Mr. Hemant Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC for R1 and R2. + W.P.(C) 1666/2018 & CM APPL. 6843-6845/2018 GAURAV GUPTA ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. Naman Jain, Joshi, Mr. Hemant Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC for R1 and R2. W.P. (C) 1661,1666,1667,1668/2018 Page 1 of 4 33 + W.P.(C) 1667/2018 & CM APPL. 6846-6848/2018 RITESH KUMAR VERMA ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. Naman Jain, Joshi, Mr. Hemant Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC for R1 and R2. 34 + W.P.(C) 1668/2018 & CM APPL. 6849-6851/2018 DINKAR MUKUL ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr...
Ashok Kriplani vs.dr J N Jethwani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
$~2 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:21. t February, 2018 C.R.P. 84/2016 & CM208152016... Petitioner in person ........ Petitioner Through: versus ASHOK KRIPLANI DR J N JETHWANI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Jai, Advocate.1. The petitioner had instituted civil suit (suit no.682/2014, later registered as suit no.258/2015) on 03.06.2014 impleading the respondent as first defendant, he being his brother-in-law and Mr. Madan Lal Sharma, advocate representing the latter having been impleaded as second defendant. The suit prayed for damages against the said defendants on account of vengeance, mis-representation, concealment of facts, mental agony, defamation, abuse of power and possession, mindless collusion and dragging of case. On questions about maintainability of the suit against Mr. Madan Lal Sharma (second defendant), being raised as per proceedings recorded by the trial judge on 29.10.2014, the matter was he...
Manish Anand vs.fiitjee Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:8. h February, 2018 Date of decision:21. t February , 2018 ARB.P. 654/2017 & I.A. No.11965/2017 ARB.P. 655/2017 & I.A. No.11967/2017 ARB.P. 656/2017 & I.A. No.11970/2017 ARB.P. 657/2017 & I.A. No.11972/2017 ARB.P. 658/2017 & I.A. No.11974/2017 ARB.P. 659/2017 & I.A. No.11976/2017 ARB.P. 814/2017 & I.A. No.15007/2017 MANISH ANAND MANISH SINHA BIRENDRA KUMAR GAURAV KUMAR MURLIDHAR VIKAS GUPTA NARAYAN CHANDRA BISHAL ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Manish Sharma, Ms.Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Mr.Vyom Raghuvanshi and Mr.Ninad Dogra, Advs. * + + versus FIITJEE LTD Through Mr.Mukesh M.Goel and Ms.Arti ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Rawat, Advs.1. These petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been filed by the petitioner challenging...
Gurpreet Singh vs.state & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :21. t FEBRUARY, 2018 CRL.REV.P. 109/2018 & CRL.M.B. 237/2018 ........ Petitioner GURPREET SINGH Through : Mr.Puneet Mittal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Tanuj Khurana & Mr.J.S.Narula, Advocates. versus Through : Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP. Mr.Daljinder Singh, Advocate for R2. STATE & ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG ........ RESPONDENTS + S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) 1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Gurpreet Singh to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 02.02.2018 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.208/2017 whereby the petitioners conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was upheld. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for three months with compensation `2 lacs.2. During the course of arguments, the matter was settled / compounded by the parties.3. It is a...
Punjab & Sind Bank vs.m/s Ganesh Builders Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. t February, 2018 + RFA2702017 & CM No.9389/2017 (stay) PUNJAB & SIND BANK ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Harish Katyal and Ms. Pratyasha Kunj, Advocates. (M:9560917866) versus M/S GANESH BUILDERS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. F. Hasan and Mr. Varun Kapur, Advocates. (M:9910032035) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. This is an appeal against the impugned judgement and decree dated 26th December, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge awarding mesne profits to the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter Plaintiff). Relevant portion of the judgment is as under: In view of above said discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits with respect to 4039.80 sq. ft. carpet area of the demised premises @ Rs.15/- sq. ft. per month for the period from 01.08.2001 till 31.07.2004 and same is calculated at Rs.21,81,492/- (4039.80 sq. ft. X Rs.1...
Rohit Malhotra vs.anand Kumar Chaurasiya & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
$~43 * % + W.P.(C) 3155/2017 ROHIT MALHOTRA IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. t February, 2018 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Anurag Lakhotia, Advs. versus ANAND KUMAR CHAURASIYA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Hari Kishan, Adv. for respondent No.1 along with respondent No.1 in person. Mr. Guatam Narayan, ASC with Mr. R.A. Iyer, Adv. for respondent No.2/GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th April, 2016 whereby the Commissioner, Employees Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.9,08,657/- to respondent No.1.2. Respondent No.1 filed an application for compensation against the petitioner seeking compensation on the ground that he was working with the petitioner as a machine man at a salary of Rs.7,500/-; on 11th October, 2013, the respondent returned back to his quarter after completing his night duty; on 12th October, 2013 at about 2:00-2:30 P.M., he received telephonic inst...
Nasima Khatoon vs.the State & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:21. 2.2018 + W.P.(C) 1658/2018 & CM No.6824-25/2018 NASIMA KHATOON ........ Petitioner Through : Ms. Richa Singh, Advocate versus THE STATE & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Jawahar Raja, Advocate for R1 and R2. CORAM:-"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER % RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a writ petition, whereby, challenge is laid to order dated 28.11.2017, passed by the SDM, Seelampur.2. Record shows that ICICI Lombard has obtained the impugned attachment order. The attachment order is directed against the son of the petitioner. The petitioner, who is the mother, claims to be the owner of the subject property. The ownership claim is based on a General Power of Attorney. According to the petitioner, the said Power of Attorney is registered.3. A perusal of the Power of Attorney shows that it is executed in favour of the petitioner only to manage, sell, mortgage etcetera, the W.P.(C) 1658/2018 Page 1 of2 sub...
Sudha Gupta vs.pnb Housing Finance Limited & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI OMP (T) (COMM) 104/2017 & IA No.14671/2017 ARB.P.682/2017 Reserved on:08. h February, 2018 Date of decision:21st February , 2018 SUDHA GUPTA ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Yakesh Anand and Mr.Nimit the (in both Mathur, Advs. petitions) Versus PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Ajay Uppal and Mr.Nishant the Maidasani, Advs. (in both petitions) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 These petitions have been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) (ARB.P. 682/2017) and under Section 14(2) read with Section 15(2) of the Act (OMP (T) (COMM) 104/2017). As they raise similar question of fact and law and are between the same parties, they are taken up together for disposal.2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondent cannot unilaterally proceed to appoint an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the ...
Tinna Overseas Limited vs.food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2018
# 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:21. 02.2018 RFA (OS) 22/2013 TINNA OVERSEAS LIMITED ..... Appellant FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent versus Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Anupam Laldas, Advocate with Mr. Krishanu Barua, Advocate : Ms. Kiran Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Purvesh Buttan, Ms. Urvashi Garg and Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) 1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, assails a judgment and decree dated 30.08.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit (OS) No.1894/1998 (for short the subject suit), whereby the same was dismissed in favour of the RFA (OS) 22/2013 Page 1 of 11 respondent/Food Corporation of India.2. The facts as are necessary for the...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »