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.
Rennaissance Buildcom Company Pvt Limited & Ors. Vs.s.e Investments Li ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2018
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:02. 02.2018 O.M.P. (COMM) 449/2016 RENNAISSANCE BUILDCOM COMPANY PVT LIMITED & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Mr.Ashutosh and Gupta, Mr.Brighu Dhami Mr.Suraj Narain Shukla, Advs. versus S.E INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.P.Nagesh, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking to impugn the Award dated 22.06.2016 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.2. It may be noted that there are two petitions filed challenging the same Award dated 22.06.2016. The claimant/respondent No.1 had initiated the arbitration proceedings against seven parties/respondents. The Award has been passed by the learned Arbitrator against petitioner No.1 the Corporate Guarantor and respondents No.2 to 4. Respondent No.2 was the Principal Bor...
Harish Kumar vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2018
$~1 & 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :2. d February, 2018 + CRL.REV.P. 821/2017, CRL. M. B. 2207/2017, CRL. M. A. 17715-17716/2017 + HARISH KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Adv. with Ms. Pallavi S. Kansal, Adv. versus STATE Through : Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP ..... Respondent CRL.REV.P. 922/2017, CRL. M. B. 2195/2017, CRL. M. A. 20329/2017 VEERPAL ........ Petitioner Through : Ms. Naomi Chandra, Adv. versus STATE Through : Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.(ORAL) 1. Present revision petitions have been preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 01.05.2017 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.18/2016, whereby the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court were endorsed. By a judgment dated 28.01.2016, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had found both the petitioners CRL. REV. PET. 821/2017 & 922/2017 Page 1 o...
Tarun Chandiok vs.high Court of Delhi Thr Registrar General and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2018
$~33, 34 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order:2. d February, 2018 + W.P.(C) 382/2018 ALOK KUMAR Through: Mr. Arun Maitri, Mr. Alok Kumar and ........ Petitioner versus Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocates HIGH COURT OF DELHI THR REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ANR. ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Mr. + W.P.(C) 603/2018 Chaitanya Puri, Advocates TARUN CHANDIOK ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mahir Malhotra and Mr. Varun Chandiok, Advocates for the petitioner with petitioner in person. versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI THR REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ANR. ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Mr. for Puri, Advocates Chaitanya respondent no.1. Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC with Mr. Manashwy for respondent no.2. Jha, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL W.P. (C) Nos.382/2018 & 603/2018 Page 1 of 5 G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) CM.APPL26542018(Exemption) in W.P.(C) 603/2018 1.2. ...
Satyavir Singh and Anr. Vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 02, 2018 SATYAVIR SINGH AND ANR. + W.P.(C) 934/2018 & C.M. 3925/2018 Versus Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate ........ Petitioners GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan, Addl. Standing Counsel & Mr. Zahid Hanief, Advocate 1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioners in the first instance had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (henceforth referred to as the Tribunal) to restrain second respondent from terminating petitioners service and to consider their claim for regularization in terms of policy formulated by Government of NCT of Delhi. The said application was disposed of by the Tribunal with direction to second respondent to consider the claim of petitioners /applicants and to pass appropriate order within four weeks.2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that second respondent upon receiving Tribunals order of 30th Aug...
Aero Club of India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2018
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI PRONOUNCED ON:02. 02.2018 RESERVED ON:03. 01.2018 + LPA4462016, CM APPL.28738-28739, 46287/2016, 31616- 31617 & 37057/2017 AERO CLUB OF INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR. .....Appellants Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS LPA4472016, CM APPL.28744-28745, 46288/2016 & 37061/2017 AERO CLUB OF INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR. .....Appellants Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Appearance: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Mr. Kumar Vaibhav and Mr. Krishna Datta Multani, Advs. for appellant No.2. Ms. Anjana Gosain and Ms. Rabiya Thakur, Advocates for R-1 in LPA Nos.446/2016 & 447/2016. Mr. Rajesh Gogna and Ms. Vipra Bhardwaj, Advocate for R- 1/UOI in LPA No.447/2016. Mr. Digvijay Rai, Ms. Chetna Rai and Mr. Pulkit Tyagi, Advocates for R-2 & 3 with Mr. Puneet Gupta, APD, SAP (AAI), Mr. Raama Sharma, AM (Comm), AAI, Ms. Bhavya, Manager (Law), AAI and Mr. Akanya, AM (Law), AAI. LPA-446 & 447/2016 Page 1 of 2...
Ranbir Singh vs.union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2018
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:02. d February, 2018 + W.P.(C) 8677/2014 RANBIR SINGH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.S.P.Singh Rathore, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr.Suraj Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.1/UOI. Pathak, Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mrs.K.K.Kaomudi Kiran Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr.Kushal Raj for respondent/LAC-L&B. Mr.S.R.Sharma, respondent/DDA. Advocates Advocate Kumar Tater, for 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 petitioner. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land/property of the petitioner having Khatoni of the same comprised in Khasra No.201 situated at the main road Village-Khichri Pur, Delhi measuring 981 square metres W.P. (C) No.8677/2014 Page 1 of 8 (hereinafter referr...
Kamal Jindal vs.sushil Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % KAMAL JINDAL RFA No.70/2018 Reserved on:29. h January, 2018 Pronounced on:2. d February, 2018 Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Shravan Dev, Advocate with appellant in person. SUSHIL KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA versus To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J C.M. No.2712/2018(exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.70/2018 and C.M. Nos.2713/2018(stay) & 3529/2018 (under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC) 2. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 12.12.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking declaration of appellant/plaintiffs ownership to the first floor of the property bearing RFA No.70/2018 Page 1 of 18 no.1/4847 Gali No.11, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-32 on the b...
The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~5 * + W.P.(C) 11092/2017 & CM Nos.45346/2017, 45348/2017 & 2610/2018 THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Rahul Sharma and Mr C. K. Bhatt, Advocates. versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Anurag Pandey, Advocate for R CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER0202.2018 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 09.06.2017 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter the CIC) allowing the second appeal (Appeal No.CIC/SB/A/2016/001171/MP) preferred by respondent no.2 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the Act).2. By the impugned order, the CIC rejected the petitioners contention that the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter the CBI) was outside the purview of Section 24 of the Act and was therefore ...
Inder Pal vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2018
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1032/2016 INDER PAL ........ Petitioner Date of Judgment :2nd February, 2018 Through Mr. S.K. Rout with Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Advocates. versus CORAM: UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B/LAC. Mr. Paritosh Anil, Advocate for DDA. Mr. Sanat Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Shriya, Adv. for R-4 & R-5. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) CM APPL65872017 (impleadment) This is an application filed by the applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC for impleadment. By way of this application, applicants claim 1/4th share each in the land in question. Prayer made in this application is not opposed. Mr. Rout, counsel for the petitioner submits that applicants should share the cost of litigations. Counsel for the applicants agrees to share reasonable and actual cost incurred in pursuing the ...
Subhashini Malik & Anr vs.geeta Gandhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2018
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:2. d February, 2018 + TR.P.(C.) 182/2017 SUBHASHINI MALIK & ANR ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Samar Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Ashvini Malik, Advocate versus GEETA GANDHI & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Respondent No.1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The parties are locked in litigation in two suits, both having been initially filed on the original side of this court. The civil suit (OS) No.1416/2009 instituted by the petitioner herein was the first in time in which the respondent is the defendant. The other suit, now registered as Suit No.10096/2016 - old CS (OS) No.3241/2011 was instituted by the respondent herein against the petitioner, it also having been presented on the original side in this court. Subsequently, on account of change of the pecuniary jurisdiction, the second said suit, i.e. suit filed by the first respondent, was transferred to the file of the district court and is...
- ‹ Prev
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- Next ›
- Last »