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.
Rajesh and Anr vs.delhi Jal Board and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: February 01, 2018 Judgment delivered on: February 27, 2018 ........ Petitioners Through: Counsel (appearance not given) RAJESH AND ANR + W.P.(C) 7030/2012 versus DELHI JAL BOARD AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Sakshi Popli and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advs. for DJB. Mr. Jagdish Singh, Adv. for R4. Mr. N.K. Kapoor, Adv. for R5. Mr. Arvind Kr. Trikha, Adav. for R6. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Standing Counsel with Ms. Nikita Salwan, Adv. for DSIIDC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking the following prayers: In view of the facts and circumstances of this petition, the petitioner prays before this Honble Court, inter alia, as under: a. For an order and direction declaring the respondents herein severely and collectively responsible and liable to pay the compensation, entitlements under labour legislations and other entitlement under var...
Shrikant @ Appu 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 ..... ...
Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.amit Jyoti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
16# $ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Decided on:27. h February, 2018 CRL.L.P. 434/2016 YAMAHA MOTOR INDIA PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Rahul Malhotra and Mr.Arpit Dwivedi, Advocates. versus AMIT JYOTI Represented by: Mr. Avtar Singh and Mr. Rahul ..... Respondent Sarkar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.12701/2016 (Delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application and the fact that the petitioner availed the remedy of revision petition against the impugned order, which was not maintainable, delay of 268 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.2. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 434/2016 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11th September, 2015 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint case being CC No.219/1/11 titled as Yamaha Motor India Private Ltd. vs. Amit Jyoti under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments A...
Anjum vs.mohd Irfan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ANJUM Date of Decision:27. h February, 2018 RFA9772016 Through: Mohd. Rais Farooqui, Advocate. ..... Appellant (M:9810898754) versus Through: None. MOHD IRFAN CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ..... Respondent Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. Order dated 4th July, 2017 passed by the Registrar records that despite service the Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter, Defendant) has not appeared. Defendant is proceeded ex-parte. Learned counsel for Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter, Plaintiff) submits that the Defendant was ex-parte even in the Trial Court.2. This is an appeal against the impugned judgment/order dated 1st August, 2016 by which the suit for permanent injunction filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court. The brief facts are that the Appellant Ms. Anjum was the Plaintiff in the suit which was filed against the Defendant-Mohd. Irfan.3. Plaintiff claims to be the owner of property bearing no.E-228/2, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-...
Kiran Gupta and Ors. Vs.union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
$~19 & 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2672/2014 KIRAN GUPTA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. + W.P.(C) 2682/2014 RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Present : Mr. N. S. Dalal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharth Panda, Advocate for LAC/L&B. Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA in W. P. (C) 2672/2014. Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA in W. P. (C) 2682/2014.1. 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL % Pleadings are complete. ORDER2702.2018 Both these writ petitions have been heard with the consent of the parties and the same are being disposed of by a common order.3. Both the petitioners are co-owners of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 35/2(0-5) and 35/2(1-05) total measuring 2 Bighas W.P.(C) 2672/2014 & 2682/2014 Page 1 of 4 subject matter of W. P. (C) 2672/2014 and Khasra No.measuring 2 Bighas subject matter of W. P. ...
Bhola vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2018
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 02.2018 FAO612017 Through: Mr. Ajit Rajput, Advocate. ..... Appellant BHOLA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI UNION OF INDIA versus Through: Mr. Amitava Poddar, Advocate. ..... Respondent NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral) 1. This appeal impugns an order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, dismissing the appellants claim for compensation for injury sustained in a railway accident. It is the appellants case that on 08.10.2012, he boarded the Ala Hazarat Express train from Old Delhi Railway Station to Hapur (UP). En-route near the Lal Qila, he fell down from the said train due to a jerk in the train and push from inside the compartment; his left leg came under the wheels of the train leading to its amputation. He stated the same to the Railway Authorities.2. There is a delay of 14 months in submitting the DRM Report. It states that in his statement to the Police, the claiman...
M/S United India Insurance Company Limited vs.jai Parkash Tayal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :10. h January, 2018 Date of decision :26. h February, 2018 + RFA6102016 & CM Nos.45832/2017 M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. G.S. Ahuja, Advocate. versus JAI PARKASH TAYAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kailash Chand Goel, Advocate for R-1 along with R-1 in person. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J.The human gene in all its myriad combinations decides the traits of 1. an individual human being. While most genetic traits of human beings have a positive expression, there are certain traits which could cause abnormalities. Such abnormalities are termed as `genetic disorders'. Genetic disorders are subject matter of research and development in the search of newer drugs to cure them but are also subject matter of debate, world over, in the context of health insurance. The question raised in the present case is whether persons having genetic disorders can be discrimina...
Ved Ram @ Bed Ram vs.kamlesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.202/2018 + % VED RAM @ BED RAM26h February, 2018 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Vasudha Bajaj, Advocate. versus KAMLESH CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA ..... Respondent To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.7281/2018 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. CM No.7351/2018 (delay of 33 days in re-filing) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RFA No.202/2018 & CM No.7280/2018 (stay) 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 11.10.2017 by which RFA No.202/2018 Page 1 of 7 the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of possession and mesne profits with respect to the property bearing No.44/1, Villa...
Preeti Umarao & Ors. Vs.jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:-"26.02.2018. ........ Petitioner Jee with Ms.Surabhi + W.P.(C) 9944/2017 & CM No.40514/2017 PREETI UMARAO & ORS. Through Mr.Govind Kumari, Adv. versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS. Through Ms.Monika Arora, Adv for JNU. Mr.Girish Pande & Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Advs for UGC. ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 10211/2017 & CM Nos.41681/2017, 41682/2017, 41688/2017 SARI HAMOUD AND ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr.Abhik Chimni with Mr.Govind, Advs. versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ANR...... Respondent Through: Ms.Monika Arora, Adv for JNU. Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Advs for UGC. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI,J (ORAL) 1. Both the present writ petitions are based on similar facts and seek similar prayers and are accordingly being decided vide this common order.2. The petitioners, 18 in number having taken admission in W.P.(C) 9944/2017 & 10211/2017 Page 1 of 9 M.Phil/Ph.D.(Master in Philosophy/Doctorate in Ph...
Indian Overseas Bank vs.hdfc Bank Ltd. & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) No.354/2001 % INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK26h February, 2018 ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Naveen Kumar and Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Advocate. versus HDFC BANK LTD. & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Suruchi Suri, Advocate for D-1/HDFC Bank. D-2 has been proceeded ex- parte. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This suit is filed by the Indian Overseas Bank/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,35,11,409/- along with interest. There are two defendants in the suit. The first defendant is HDFC Bank Limited (originally Bank of Punjab Limited) and which is the only contesting defendant. Defendant No.2 Sh. Bhupinder Singh @ Sh. Manjit Singh Sethi though appeared initially and filed written statement thereafter he failed to appear and was proceeded ex-parte. The cause of action in the suit is that the plaintiff/bank paid under a forged bank draft to CS (OS) No.354/20...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »