Delhi Court April 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.
Dev Narayan vs.the mgmt.of M/S Auto Precision
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2018
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Pronounced on:05. h April, 2018 22nd December, 2018 + W.P. (C) 14302/2004 DEV NARAYAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. H.K.Chaturvedi and Mr.Sagar Chaturvedi, Advocates versus THE MGMT.OF M/S AUTO PRECISION ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR % JUDGMENT C. HARI SHANKAR, J.1. The industrial dispute, which has led to the passing of the impugned Award, dated 16th October, 2003, by the Labour Court, was initiated by the petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved by his unceremonious verbal removal from service, by the respondent, on 28th May, 1991. WP (C) 14302/2004 Page 1 2. Subsequent thereto, on 24th June, 1991, the Okhla Industrial Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as OIWU) addressed a representation to the Regional Labour Officer (Ex. WW-before the Labour Court), complaining that the petitioner, who had been serving the respondent since 1983, had been verbally removed from service on 28th May...
n.k. Sharma and Anr vs.union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2018
$~1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10591/2017 N.K. SHARMA AND ANR ........ Petitioners Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.K. Bhatnagar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate for R-1 and R-2. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Omung Gupta and Mr. Devik Singh, Advocates for R-3/UPSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % ORDER0504.2018 CM APPL. 12825/2017 (by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the affidavit) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 70 days in filing the affidavit is condoned.2. Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 states that he has received a copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioners. However, counsel for the respondent No.3/UPSC denies having received a copy of the said affidavit. A copy of the affidavit be furnished to the counsel for the respondent No.3/UPSC within one week.3. Reason...
Annas vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2018
$~R-39 & 40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.924/2002 + % MOHD. SOHAIB ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav and Mr. Narsingh Narain Rai, Advocates. STATE ANNAS STATE versus Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for ..... Respondent State. CRL.A.2/2003 Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav and Mr. Narsingh ........ Petitioner Narain Rai, Advocates. versus Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for ..... Respondent State. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA JUDGMENT0504.2018 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. These appeals by Mohd. Sohaib (A-1) and Annas (A-2) are directed against the impugned judgment dated 11th October 2002 passed by the Crl.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 1 of 18 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (ASJ) in Sessions Case No.56 of 1999 arising out of FIR No.70 of 1999 registered at Police Station (PS) Timarpur, convicting both the Appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 394 IP...
Vidit Jain vs.income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA8152017 VIDIT JAIN Date of Decision:05. 04.2018 Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Pranjal Srivastava and Ms. Devina Sharma, Advocates. ..... Appellant versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. This is an assessees appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) complaining that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals order (ITATs order) is perverse and unreasonable.2. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of 6,92,424/- consisting of salary, rental, interest and dividend income. Notice under Section 143(2) with questionnaire was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was called to submit the details regarding cash deposited by the assessee in his bank accounts. In response, the as...
Vipula Chandhok & Others vs.kulbir Singh Chandhok & Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2018
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h April, 2018 CS(OS) 134/2018 VIPULA CHANDHOK & OTHERS .... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. M. Dutta & Mr. Sumeher Baja, Advs. Versus KULBIR SINGH CHANDHOK & OTHERS ..... Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.4397/2018 (for exemption) 1.2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CS(OS) 134/2018 & IA No.4398/2018 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) 3. The six plaintiffs viz. i) Vipula Chandhok, ii) Gundeep Singh Chandhok, iii) Paramdeep Singh Chandhok, iv) Tanveerdeep Singh Chandhok, v) Gurcharan Singh Chandhok, and, vi) Ravinder Singh Chandhok, have instituted this suit against the five defendants viz. a) Kulbir Singh Chandhok, b) Amardeep Singh Chandhok, c) Karandeep Singh Chandhok, d) Armaan Singh Chandhok, and, e) Jasmit Singh Chandhok, for the reliefs of declaration of two sale deeds as null, void, non est and illegal, one executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant ...
Shriram General Ins Co Ltd vs.bhawana Madhok & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2018
$~28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"5th April, 2018 + MAC.APP. 770/2016 and CM No.34734/2016 and CM No.47653/2016 SHRIRAM GENERAL INS CO LTD Through: Mr. P. Acharya, Adv. ..... Appellant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA BHAWANA MADHOK & ORS versus Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. ........ RESPONDENTS 1. JUDGMENT (ORAL) Karan Madhok, aged 31 years, earning his livelihood as a Contractor, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 20.06.2011 due to the negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.UP-32-AN-0181 and died in the consequence. His wife and other members of the family dependent on him, they being first to fourth respondents respectively (the claimants) instituted accident claim case (MACT case No.451130/2016, old No.61/2014). The Tribunal held inquiry and accepted the claim case of the claimants for compensation on fault liability holding the appellant (insurer of the truck) liable to pay and, by judgment dated 09.07.20...
Zile Singh vs.mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2018
$~R-21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:5. h April, 2018 RFA3602012 Through: versus Through: None. None. ..... Appellant ..... Respondent + ZILE SINGH MCD CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. Matter has been called in the regular board. None appears on behalf of the parties. Trial court record has been received.2. Suit of the Plaintiff has been dismissed as being barred by limitation. There was no appearance even on 8th September, 2016 and 11th August, 2016. As recorded in the order dated 27th August, 2012, the issue of limitation had already been determined in favour of the Appellant vide order dated 14th January, 2005 and is extracted hereinbelow: Arguments heard on the Issue No.1 Whether the suit is within the limitation period. Counsel for plaintiff refers to letter dated 09.4.01 of the Vigilance Cell of MCD Slum & JJ Department written to the plaintiff. The date of this letter is 09.4.01 of the Vigilance Cell of MCD Slum & JJ De...
M/S. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs.m/s. Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:21. 02.2018 Pronounced on:05. 04.2018 FAO(OS) (COMM) 21/2018, CAV.99/2018, C.M. APPL.4549- 4551/2018 M/S JAYASWAL NECO INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Appellant Through : Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Devashish Bharuka, Sh. Ravi Bharuka and Sh. Sameer Rohatgi, Advocates. versus M/S GOYAL MG GASES PVT LTD .....Respondent Through : Sh. Parag. P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Simran Mehta and Ms. Mishika Bajpai, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % Facts 1. The appellant has approached this Court under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) impugning the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2017 (impugned order), which dismissed its application under Section 34 confirming the arbitral award dated 04.08.2017 read with correction order dated 15.09.2017 (collectively the award).2. The relevant facts of the case a...
Mohd. Sohaib vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2018
$~R-39 & 40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A.924/2002 + % MOHD. SOHAIB ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav and Mr. Narsingh Narain Rai, Advocates. STATE ANNAS STATE versus Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for ..... Respondent State. CRL.A.2/2003 Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav and Mr. Narsingh ........ Petitioner Narain Rai, Advocates. versus Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for ..... Respondent State. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA JUDGMENT0504.2018 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. These appeals by Mohd. Sohaib (A-1) and Annas (A-2) are directed against the impugned judgment dated 11th October 2002 passed by the Crl.A. Nos. 924/2002 & 2/2003 Page 1 of 18 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (ASJ) in Sessions Case No.56 of 1999 arising out of FIR No.70 of 1999 registered at Police Station (PS) Timarpur, convicting both the Appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 394 IP...
Rites Ltd. Vs.government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Throug ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2018
$~3 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 593/2017 RITES LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Udit Seth, Advocate. versus GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER (TRANSPORT) ..... Respondent Through: Mr Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel, GNCTD with Mr Aniruddha Deshmukh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER0504.2018 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act), inter alia, praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to a contract for Consulting Services for the Transport Demand Forecast Study dated 27.07.2007 (hereafter the Contract). The Contract includes an arbitration clause, which is set out below:-"ARTICLE XIII Settlement of Disputes ARB.P. 593/2017 Page 1 of 7 Section 13.01: Any dispute or difference arising out of this Cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- Next ›
- Last »