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.
Shri Jai Prakash Gupta and Ors vs.union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:27. h February, 2018 + W.P.(C) 1755/2016 SHRI JAI PRAKASH GUPTA & ORS ........ Petitioners Through: Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.Ansh Tewatia, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.Dhanesh Relan and Ms.Gauri Chaturvedi, for respondent/DDA. Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of their land admeasuring 405 square yards comprised in Khasra Nos.1157/320, property bearing nos.26 & 26 (part), Gali Nos.2 & 3, Friends Colony Industrial Area, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject land) stand lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and W.P. (C) No.1755/2016 Page 1 of ...
Kalpana & Anr. Vs.maya Devi Sharma & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.205/2018 % KALPANA & ANR. 27th February, 2018 ..... Appellants Through: Mr. D.S. Paweriya and Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocates. versus MAYA DEVI SHARMA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CAVEAT No.159/2018 1. discharged. Since no one appears for the caveators, the caveat stands C.M. Appl. No.7474/2018 (for exemption) 2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.205/2018 and C.M. Appl. No.7473/2018 (for stay) 3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 24.10.2017 by which RFA No.205/2018 Page 1 of 10 the trial court has decreed the suit for possession and recovery of damages with respect to the suit property being two rooms, one tin shed kitchen and common latrine bathroom...
Sunil Kumar vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
$~6-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1310/2014 SURENDER @ DHEERAJ ..... Appellant Decided on:27. h February, 2018 STATE versus Through: Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State ..... Respondent CRL.A. 1327/2014 SUBRAMANYAN RAJA ..... Appellant STATE versus Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate. Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State ..... Respondent CRL.A. 1340/2014 AMIT @ BUNTY ..... Appellant STATE NEERAJ STATE Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State ..... Respondent versus CRL.A. 1366/2014 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State ..... Respondent versus + + + Crl A1310of 2014 and batchmatters Page 1 of 55 + + + + + CRL.A. 1432/2014 SHRIKANT @ APPU ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Bharat Sharma with Ms.Sonika, Advocates. STATE versus Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State ..... Respondent CRL.A. 1437/2014 RAJENDER PRASAD @ SHALU ..... ...
Praveen Kumar vs.govt of Nct of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~24 * + W.P.(C) 1844/2018 with CM Nos.7670-7674/2018 PRAVEEN KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate versus Through: Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate ........ RESPONDENTS GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HONBLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI ORDER2702.2018 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an % 1. order dated 12.05.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.283/2015, wherein he along with two others had approached the Tribunal for setting aside Advertisement No.2/2011 dated 12.12.2014, issued by the respondents for appointment of Physical Education Teachers in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, for Post Code 210/14.2. The petitioners before the Tribunal had prayed for raising the age limit of the candidates applying for the post of Physical Education Teachers to 32 years and had sought permission to submit forms for the said exa...
Robin Garg vs.m/s Vij Constructions Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
$~CP-29 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:27. 02.2018 CO.PET. 247/2012 ROBIN GARG Through None ........ Petitioner versus M/S VIJ CONSTRUCTIONS LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr.Anand K.Mishra, Adv. for Mr.Vinod Vij, Ex. Director. Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms.Megha Bharaa, Adv. for OL. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) CA No.1951/2017 1. By this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the reply. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the reply is condoned. Reply is taken on record. CA No.1833/2014 2. This application is filed by the OL under sections 446, 542 and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking a direction to Mr.Vinod Vij to remit the amount of Rs.16,31,174/- along with 18% interest from the date of receiving the amount to the OL. Other connected reliefs are also sought. CO. PET. 247/2012 Page 1 of 7 3. The background facts of th...
Vijeta Projects and Infrastructure Ltd vs.tata Power Company Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on:12. h February, 2018 Pronounced on:27. h February, 2018 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 201/2017, IA No.6260/2017, 7869/2017 VIJETA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vimal Singh, Mr.Siddhartha and Ms.Pooja Dhar, Advs. Kirti versus TATA POWER COMPANY LTD. Roy ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Ranjana Gawai, Mr.Krishna Keshav, Mr.Arjun Asthana and Ms.Rishika Raha, Advs. for R-1 Ms.Manjula and Mr.Shivanshu Kumar, Advs. for Bank of India Gandhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.1. This petition is under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) restraining the respondent Tata Power Company Ltd. for invoking the bank guarantees being No.49951PEBG130007 for an amount of Rs.4,29,00,000/- and No.49951PEBG130006 for an amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/-, submitted O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) No.201/2017 Page...
State vs.bal Ram & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :27. h FEBRUARY, 2018 CRL.L.P. 253/2015 ........ Petitioner STATE BAL RAM & ANR versus Through : Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP. Through : Mr.Nitin Mittal, Advocate for R2. ........ RESPONDENTS + CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) 1. Present leave petition to file appeal has been preferred by the State to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 08.01.2015 of learned Addl. Session judge in Sessions Case No.22/2014 arising out of FIR No.141/2013 PS Greater Kailash by which, the respondents were acquitted of the charges. The petition is contested by the respondents.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Both the respondents were arrested to be the perpetrators of crime. They declined to participate in the Test Identification Proceedings. The present case was lodged on receipt of DD No.42A dated 08.05.2013. It was informed to the Investigating Officer that Ra...
Sam (India) Builtwell (P) Ltd. Vs.assistant Provident Fund Commissione ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:23. 02.2018 Date of Judgment:27. 02.2018 W.P. (C) 9178/2015 SAM (INDIA) BUILTWELL (P) LTD. Through: Mr.S.K. Gupta, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 13.08.2015 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short Tribunal) in Appeal No.ATA-887(04)2015 vide which the Tribunal has stayed the order dated 13.07.2015 impugned before it passed by the respondent subject to deposit of 50% of the assessed amount within 30 days failing which the stay shall be vacated automatically.2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition, bereft of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner company had failed to remit the Provident Fund and allied dues for the period...
Jaideep vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
$~6-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 1310/2014 SURENDER @ DHEERAJ ..... Appellant Decided on:27. h February, 2018 STATE versus Through: Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State ..... Respondent CRL.A. 1327/2014 SUBRAMANYAN RAJA ..... Appellant STATE versus Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate. Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State ..... Respondent CRL.A. 1340/2014 AMIT @ BUNTY ..... Appellant STATE NEERAJ STATE Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State ..... Respondent versus CRL.A. 1366/2014 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State ..... Respondent versus + + + Crl A1310of 2014 and batchmatters Page 1 of 55 + + + + + CRL.A. 1432/2014 SHRIKANT @ APPU ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Bharat Sharma with Ms.Sonika, Advocates. STATE versus Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State ..... Respondent CRL.A. 1437/2014 RAJENDER PRASAD @ SHALU ..... ...
Jagdish Sharma vs.central Information Commission and Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on:27. 02.2018 + W.P. (C) 1865/2018 JAGDISH SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Pratap Sahani, Adv. versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR. ....... RESPONDENTS Through : None. CORAM:-"HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) CM No.7770/2008 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 1865/2018 2. The only grievance that the petitioner has that his appeal, which is pending before respondent no.1/Central Information Commission (CIC) has not been disposed of for almost 10 months, now.3. In these circumstances, respondent no.1/CIC is directed to look into the matter and dispose of the petitioners appeal as expeditiously as possible, though, not later than 10 weeks from today. W.P. (C) 1865/2018 Page 1 of 2 4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY27 2018 rb W.P. (C) 1865/2018 Page 2 of 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »