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.
Group Capt. Mukesh Paul vs.delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: February 12, 2018 % GROUP CAPT. MUKESH PAUL Through: Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. ........ Petitioner + W.P.(C) 11723/2016 versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Manika Tripathi Pandey and Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.(ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-"In the circumstances as stated above it is most humbly prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to: a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the demand letter No.F.777(739)95/SFS/DW-II/05 dated 0.11.13 (Annexure-P10 as illegal and void ab initio; b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directing the respondent to give possession of a Flat No.169, GF, Pocket III, Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi forthwith in compliance of orders of Honble Lieutena...
Nandan Singh vs.gopal Singh Dangwala & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % NANDAN SINGH RFA No.150/2018 12th February, 2018 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate. versus GOPAL SINGH DANGWALA & ANR. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ........ RESPONDENTS To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.5443/2018 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions CM stands disposed of. CM No.5444/2018 (delay in re-filing) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RFA No.150/2018 1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 23.9.2017 by which RFA No.150/2018 Page 1 of 4 the trial court has decreed the suit for partition of 120 sq. yards of the property bearing No.L-10, Gali No.3, Jaiprakash Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi but has dismissed the suit with respect to the remaining 65 sq. yards area,...
Smt. Anupama Khanna vs.directorate of Education and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 12, 2018 + W.P.(C) 1262/2018 SMT. ANUPAMA KHANNA ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Preeti Singh & Dr. Swati Jindal, Advocates Versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ANR. ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Counsel with Mr. Pushpendra Pratap Singh & Ms. Vashudha Bajaj, Advocates for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioner claims to be Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in 1. respondent No.2-School, who seeks a mandamus to respondent No.1- Directorate of Education to initiate inquiry against respondent No.2- School and upgrading of petitioners Annual Confidential Report (ACR) which is purportedly made adverse by respondent No.2-School.2. Learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to the Communication of 17th July, 2017 (Annexure P-18), vide which petitioner has been informed that she has been already given four Memos and one Show Cause Notice in the acad...
Suresh Chand Gupta and Anr. Vs.archaeological Survey of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2018
$~52 * + W.P.(C) 1269/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SURESH CHAND GUPTA AND ANR. Through: Mr Rohit Gandhi, Advocate. versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Ashim Sood, CGSC with Ms Payal Chandra, Advocate for R-1, 2, 3 & 4. Mr Rakesh Mittal, Standing Counsel with Ms Kamlesh Anand and Ms Yamini Mittal, Advocates for SDMC/R-5. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1202.2018 VIBHU BAKHRU, J CM No.5325/2018 1.2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1269/2018 3. The petitioners are essentially aggrieved by non-grant of permission to construct on their land. The petitioners own a piece of land admeasuring 12 biswas in Khasra No.541/519/17of Vilage Kharera, now known as Green Park Extension, New Delhi (hereafter the said land). The said land is in the immediate vicinity of a centrally protected monument known as W.P.(C) No.1269/2018 Page 1 of 8 Sakr...
Rahul Mishra vs.state Govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2018
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 4363/2017 Judgment delivered on:12. 02.2018 RAHUL MISHRA ........ Petitioner versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. P.N. Parashar, Advocate. : Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State. Mr. Ajit Amar, Advocate for the respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person. SI Nirmala Singh, PS Govind Puri. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1202.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) CRL.M.C. 4363/2017 & Crl.M.A.17509/2017 (stay) 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.245/2017 under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Govind Puri. CRL.M.C. 4363/2017 Page 1 of 4 2. It is alleged in the FIR that the physical relationship was made by the petitioner with respondent No.2 on the false pretext of marriage. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 was because of a misunde...
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd vs.deepak Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2018
$~3. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 49/2017 & IA No.885/2017 (U/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC). VEEKESY RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Dr. Sheetal Vohra, Mr. Sridharan R. Ram Kumar and Mr. Vaibhav Nautiyal, Advs. versus ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Jithin M. George, Adv. DEEPAK GUPTA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % ORDER1202.2018 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit inter alia to restrain the defendant from passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff by adopting the mark VKG, claiming the same to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs mark VKC, both in respect of footwear.2. The suit was entertained but in view of the fact that the mark of the defendant was also registered and the plaintiff had already moved the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for removal of the defendants mark from the Register, no ex parte order granted.3. The defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement and to which a replication ha...
Vedanta Limited vs.shenzhen Shandong Nulcear Power Construction Compan ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2018
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:12. h February, 2018 + O.M.P. (COMM) 70/2018 VEDANTA LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Akhi Sibal, Senior Advocates with Mr. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Mr. Vasudha Sen, Mr. Arjun Asthana, Ms. Rishika Raha, Advocates. versus SHENZHEN SHANDONG NULCEAR POWER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan and Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocates with Mr. Ranjit Prakash, Mr. Kamal Nijhawan, Mr. Sumit Gaur, Mr. Anshuman Pande, Ms. Mahima Sareen, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) I.A. 2044/2018 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. O.M.P. (COMM) 70/2018 1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 9th November, 2017. The learned OMP (COMM) 70/2018 Page | 1 senior counsel for the petitioner submits that t...
Sudesh Chhikara vs.baljeet Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SUDESH CHHIKARA RFA No.1034/2017 12th February, 2018 Through: versus BALJEET SINGH CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Mr. Jaipal Singh, Advocate. ..... Appellant ..... Respondent To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.5284/2018 (for restoration) For the reasons stated in the application, the order dated 15.12.2017 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM stands disposed of. RFA No.1034/2017 1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 9.8.2017 by which the trial court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation. RFA No.1034/2017 Page 1 of 4 2. The suit plaint was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.40 lacs against the respondent/defendant, who is the father-in-law of the appellant/plaintiff. The suit f...
Shri Mahendra Singh Rana vs.district and Session Judge (Head Quarters) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Date of Order: February 12, 2018 + W.P.(C) 1307/2018 & CM Nos.5414-15/2018 1. SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH RANA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra & Ms. Rishika Arora, Advocates Versus DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE (HEAD QUARTERS) AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel (Civil) & Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Vide order of 6th February, 2018 (Annexure P-1), petitioner has ORDER (ORAL) been transferred from Library Branch, Central District, Saket Courts, New Delhi to work as Reader in the Court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. According to petitioners counsel, the said transfer of petitioner is infact his demotion.2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for respondents that petitioner had vide letter of 22nd November, 2017 sought W.P.(C) 1307/2018 Page 1 of 2 transfer to the nearby complex, so that he has sufficient time to...
m/s.apex Buildsys Ltd. (Formerly Known as Era Buildsys Ltd) vs.assista ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-12-2018
$~2 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:12. 02.2018 W.P. (C) 6005/2015 M/S APEX BUILDSYS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ERA BUILDSYS LTD) Through: Mr.Achin Goel, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus ASSITANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate with Ms.Suchitra Chawla, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short Tribunal) in Appeal No.ATA-1332(4)2014.2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition, bereft of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner company failed to remit the Provident Fund and allied dues for the period from August, 2005 to April, 2013 within the stipulated time frame i.e. within 15 days from the close of every month as required under Para...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »