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.
Dr. Artiben R. Thakkar vs.delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research U ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 08, 2018 + W.P.(C) 10514/2017 1. DR. ARTIBEN R. THAKKAR Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Advocate ........ Petitioner Versus DELHI PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH ........ RESPONDENTS UNIVERSITY AND ANR. Through: Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocate for Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate for respondent No.1 with Dr. J.Swaminathan, Asst. Registrar Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT Enforcement/Implementation (ORAL) of The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 and clarification of 12th April, 2017 (Annexure P-8) issued by Ministry of Labour & Employment of Government of India and grant of maternity leave of twenty six weeks with salary for the said period, is sought by petitioner, who was working in contractual employment with first respondent.2. It is matter of record that petitioners contractual employment came to an end on 15th May, 2017. Respondent No.1 in its counter affida...
Geeta Gandhi vs.subhashini Malik
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2018
$~1 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS)No.308/2017 & CM No.44357/2017 % Date of decision :8. h February, 2018 GEETA GANDHI Through : Mr. M.C. Dhingra and ..... Appellant Mr. Syed Rehan, Advs.with appellant in person versus SUBHASHINI MALIK ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Samar Bansal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE CM No.44370/2017(for exemption) 1.2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. FAO(OS) 308/2017 1. The appellant assails the order dated 12th October, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing IA No.3857/2016 (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) filed in CS(OS) No.1416/2009 by the respondent (plaintiff) and thereby permitting amendment of the plaint with regard to the property No.C-63, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi-110025. FAO(OS)No.308/2017 Page 1 of 8 2. It appears that a suit inter alia for the relief of declaration; mandatory and p...
Lg Corp & Ors vs.rajesh Gupta & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2018
7 $~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 112/2018 LG CORP & ORS ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate versus RAJESH GUPTA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Dhavish Chitkara, Advocate with Mr. Shobhit K. Srivastava, Advocate for defendant No.4. Mr. Divye Sharma, Advocate for defendant No.5. Date of Decision:08. h February, 2018 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) I.A.1892-93/2018 1. Present joint applications have been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. The same are duly signed by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 4 and 5 as well as by the said parties.2. Present applications are also supported by affidavits of authorized representative of the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 4 and 5. CS (COMM) 112/2018 Page 1 of 5 3. The learned counsel for the said parties state that the matter has been compromised in accordance with the terms mentioned in I.A.1892-93/2018.4. The learned counsel fu...
Anil Kumar vs.union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~34 * + W.P.(C) 1168/2018 & CM No.4863/2018 (exemption) ANIL KUMAR Through: Mr.Sameer Shrivastava & Mr.Rohit Rathi, Advocates ........ Petitioner versus Through: Ms.Suman Chauhan, CGSC for UOI with Mr.Brajesh Kumar, Advocate ........ RESPONDENTS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ORDER0802.2018 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2017, passed by % 1. the Tribunal dismissing his O.A, praying inter alia for quashing and setting aside the seniority list of Senior Section Engineers (Sig), Section Engineers (Sig), JE-Ist (Sig) & JE-II (Sig) declared by the respondents/Northern Railway, as long back as on 24.07.2007 and for setting aside the letter dated 20.11.2013, informing the petitioner that his representation had been rejected.2. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the letter dated 27.03.2014, issued by the respondents informing him that his representation for stepping up...
M/S National Engineering Industries Ltd vs.m/s Contract Advertising (I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2018
$~6 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:08. 02.2018 FAO942017 & CM APPL. 7330/2017 M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD...... Appellant Through: Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate. Versus M/S CONTRACT ADVERTISING (INDIA) PVT LTD. ..Respondent Through: Mr.Ashwani Kr., Advocate (Mobile No.9871085028). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral) This appeal impugns an order under section 37 of the Arbitration and 1. Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that it is against the public policy of India inasmuch as it has awarded certain amounts which tantamount to unjust enrichment i.e. fees to be paid for no work done.2. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgement in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 2011 (8) SCC161which held as under: 197. In Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh CM (Main) No.449 of 2002 decided by the Delhi high Court on 6.11.2008, the court held...
Pramod Kumar Rastogi vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2018
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:07. 02.2018 CRL.M.C. 4408/2017 PRAMOD KUMAR RASTOGI versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner :... Petitioner in person. For the Respondent : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State. Mr. Shariq Iqbal, Advocate for respondent No.3 SI Om Prakash, PS Hauz Khas. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0702.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) CRL.M.C. 4408/2017 & Crl.M.A.20424/2017 (for impleadment) 1. The petitioner impugns Order on Charge dated 08.01.2016, wherein, charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 325/354/506 IPC.2. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the impugned order is a Non-Speaking Order and no case is made out against the petitioner for proceeding to frame charge. It is further contended that the written argument and the defence of the petitioner CRL.M.C. 4408/2017 Page 1 of...
Dr Samir Kumar Das vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 07, 2018 + W.P.(C) 407/2018 & C.M. 1750/2018 DR SAMIR KUMAR DAS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC and Mr. Sumit Rajput, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) 1. Memorandum of 27th November, 2017 (Annexure P-1) proposes to hold an inquiry against petitioner under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for inflicting major penalty is assailed in this petition on the ground that petitioner has been already removed from service on 1st December, 2016 and so, petitioner cannot be proceeded against under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.2. It is submitted by petitioners counsel that petitioner is covered by Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and is eligible for contributory provident fund, gratuity and hence, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are not applicable to petitioner. In respons...
Hardev Kaur Jando vs.m/s Upper Land and Constructions Pvt Ltd & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2018
$~15 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 2200/2015 HARDEV KAUR JANDO ..... Plaintiff Through Ms.Swati Bhardwaj with Ms.Bina Madhavan, Advocates. versus M/S UPPER LAND AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Avneesh Garg, Advocate for D-1 to 3. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN Date of Decision:7. h February, 2018 MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) JUDGMENT1 Present suit has been filed for declaration as well as for possession and permanent injunction.2. On 04th May, 2016, the learned predecessor of this Court had not only framed the issues but also passed a detailed order with regard to handing over the possession of the suit property. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are being reproduced hereinbelow:-"11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is agreeable that the plaintiff may be examined through video conferencing by the learned Joint Registrar so as to verify the power of attorney attributed to the plaintiff dated 26.03.2012, and to establish the author...
Snehansu Sen Gupta vs.sitangsu Sen Gupta and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2018
$~O-14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:07. 02.2018 + TEST.CAS. 55/2014 & I.A. 10705/2014 SNEHANSU SEN GUPTA Through Ms.Anisha ........ Petitioner Banerji and Ms.Madhurima Ghosh, Advs. versus SITANGSU SEN GUPTA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.V.P.Yadav, Adv. for R-1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of the probate that was granted to the respondent No.1 in Testament Case 46/2000 vide judgment dated 02.09.2003.2. The facts of this case are that Sh.Himanshu Kumar Sen Gupta (Testator), the paternal uncle of the petitioner and step-brother of respondent No.1 died a bachelor without any Class I legal heir on 06.01.1997 at New Delhi. Late Sh.Himanshu Kumar Sen Gupta was the owner of property B- 122, Chitaranjan Park, New Delhi. Sh.Himanshu Kumar Sen Gupta had one real brother namely, Shri Sudhanshu Kumar Sen Gupta who was born from the...
Smt. Jogendri Devi and Ors. Vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2018
$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9533/2017 SMT. JOGENDRI DEVI AND ORS. ........ Petitioners Date of Judgment :7th February, 2018 Through Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate. versus CORAM: ........ RESPONDENTS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Ms. Deepa Malik, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B/LAC. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Adv. for DDA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Counter affidavit has not been filed. Mr. Jain, counsel for LAC has handed over the counter affidavit in Court, which is taken on record. Copy of the same has been supplied to counsel for the petitioners.2. With consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.3. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisit...
- ‹ Prev
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- Next ›
- Last »