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.
Maya Sharma vs.unique Law Publication House & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2018
F-52 $~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 551/2018 MAYA SHARMA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pavit Singh Katoch and versus Mr. Rajat Jain, Advocates. UNIQUE LAW PUBLICATION HOUSE & ORS Through: None. ..... Defendants % Date of Decision:02. d April, 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining passing off, dilution, unfair trade competition and rendition of accounts. The prayers made in the plaint are reproduced hereinbelow:-"distributors, "(a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their promoters, partners, family members, dealers, representatives, franchisees, agents, servants, successor in title or anyone acting for and on their behalf from passing off the books published and sold by them by using the trademark "Unique" or "Unique 20" or trade dress of the Plaintiff retailers, CS(COMM) 551/2018 Page 1 of 8 or any trademark comprising the word "Unique" ...
Avdesh Gupta vs.satish Sharma & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2018
* IN THE HIGH CO URT O F DE L HI AT NEW DE LHI % Judgment delivered on:02. d April, 2018 + CRL.REV.P. 102/2016 AVDESH GUPTA versus ........ Petitioner SATISH SHARMA & ANR Advocates who appeared in this case: : For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Upendra Tiwari, Advocate. Ms. Indra Bhushan Goel, Adv. for R-1. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. The petitioner (complainant in the original complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) impugns order dated 26.09.2015 passed by the appellate court, whereby the appellate court has set aside the order of conviction dated 24.07.2015 and order on sentence dated 31.07.2015 and acquitted respondent No.1.2. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent No.1 contending that petitioner had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 1 lakh on 16.03.2011 and another loan of Rs. 1 lakh in April, 2011. The re...
Ashok Kumar and Ors vs.lt Governor Through: Chief Secretary Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2018
* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: April 02, 2018 W.P.(C) 3080/2018 & CMs 12260-62/2018 ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Shanmuga Patro, Mr. Tarun Kumar and Mr. Nikhil Patnaik, Advocates versus LT GOVERNOR THROUGH: CHIEF SECRETARY DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. N.K. Singh, Advocate for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) For the relief sought in this petition, a Representation (Annexure P-9) was made by petitioners on 22nd January, 2018 which does not effectively put forth their cause. It is the case of petitioners that an Advertisement for filling up the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher and Post Graduate Teacher has been issued on 20th December, 2017 by Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and the process of recruitment has not been concluded. It is pointed out by petitioners counsel that a co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order of 11th December, 2017 (Annexure ...
United Carpets (India) & Ors. Vs.state (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2018
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:02. 04.2018 CRL.REV.P. 170/2017 ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS UNITED CARPETS (INDIA) & ORS versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for petitioner No.1 with petitioner in person. Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for the State. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate with AR of respondent in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0204.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) CRL.REV.P. 170/2017 & Crl.M.A.3723/2017 (stay) 1. The petitioner impugns order dated 27.01.2017 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in default. The petitioner had filed an appeal impugning the judgment dated 24.06.2016 convicting of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.2. The subject cheque was of Rs.7,15,000/-. Parties have settled their disputes.... Petitioner has settled and agreed to pay the s...
Ceo, Prasar Bharti vs.union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2018
$~79. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3129/2018 and CM APPL. 12420-421/2018 1. CEO, PRASAR BHARTI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Soni with Ms. Vertika Sharma, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for R-1 to R-3. Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar, Mr. Ashish Bhardwaj and Mr. Mohit Tyagi, Advocates for R-4 to R-7. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % The present petition has been filed by the CEO; Prasar Bharati, ORDER0204.2018 assailing an interim order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in a contempt petition filed by the respondents No.4 to 7, limited to the extent of seeking the presence of the petitioner on 03.04.2018, i.e., tomorrow.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Tribunal, O.A. No.2571/2017 filed by the respondents No.4 to 7 was disposed of without going into the merits of the case wit...
Sudha Saxena vs.union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2018
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Order : April 02, 2018 W.P.(C) 1550/2017 & CM No.6973/2017 SUDHA SAXENA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Amit Anand and Mr.Gaurav Sarawat, versus Advocates UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC and Mr.Suraj Kumar, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Yashpal Singh and Ms.Atryee Gautam, Advocates for R-2 to R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) 1. On basis of an audit objection, respondent has re-fixed petitioners pension vide impugned order of 28th December, 2016 (Annexure P-2) and had initiated to recover the excess payment made. While entertaining this writ petition vide order of 20th February, 2017, respondent was restrained from recovering the excess payment made. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent, it is asserted that no show cause notice is required to be given to petitioner as the impugned order is a corrective measure and has no penal consequences.2. Learned counsel...
Kamlesh Kumari & Anr vs.sandhya Education Society & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2018
$~ * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:13. h March, 2018 Pronounced on:02. d April, 2018 + CS(OS) 3971/2014 KAMLESH KUMARI & ANR ..... Plaintiff Through : Mr.Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ankit Jain, Ms.Mallika Bhatia, Advocates. versus SANDHYA EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS ..... Defendants for Through : Mr.Vidit Gupta, Advocate defendants nos.1, 3 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.I.A. 9426/2017 1. This application is moved on behalf of defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 5 under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code (herein after referred as CPC) seeking rejection of plaint.2. The main plea taken by the defendants is the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession for 2584 square yards approximately falling in Khasra No.1/127, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi-110053 (hereinafter referred as the suit property) and despite the defendants having raised an objection qua the ownership of the plaintiffs in the subject property prior to filling suit, the plaintiffs...
Shiv Kumar vs.the State Govt of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2018
$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :2. d APRIL, 2018 CRL.REV.P. 271/2018 SHIV KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.Saquib N.Qureshi, Advocate with Mr.Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG + S.P.GARG, J.(Oral) CRL.M.A.No.5704/2018 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.REV.P. 271/2018 1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 12.01.2018 of learned Judge, Family Court, whereby `35,000/- has been awarded as interim maintenance to the respondent wife from the date of filing of the petition till further orders. Crl.Rev.P.271/2018 Page 1 of 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the amount granted is on the higher side and the petitioner has other responsibilities to maintain his parents and the adopted child.3. During th...
Sultan Singh (Since Deceased Thr Lrs) vs.govt of Nct of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2018
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :02. 04.2018 + LPA5342016 & CM APPL. 38980-38981/2017 SULTAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED THR LRS) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee and Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocates. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan, ASC (Civil), GNCTD with Mr. Devesh Dubey, Advocate for R-1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) % 1. The appellants grievance is that the writ petition was summarily rejected on the ground of laches. It is contended that the learned Single Judge overlooked the crucial and relevant facts pertaining to the recognition of the identical rights in favour of the other third party.2. In view of the order, which this Court proposes to pass, a detailed discussion of the facts or the merits of the case is not required. It is however essential to recapitulate the bare essential facts that...
Amolak Singh (Deceased) Thru. Lr vs.vinay Narain & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2018
$~11 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on :-"2nd April, 2018 CM (M) 276/2012 AMOLAK SINGH (DECEASED) THRU. LR .... Petitioner Through: Mr. Riju Raj Jamwal, Adv. versus VINAY NARAIN & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjay Goswami, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioners predecessor-in-interest had initiated the proceedings for eviction of the respondents from the tenanted premises described as Prem House, C-18, Cannaught Place, Opposite Odeon Cinema, New Delhi on the grounds under Section 14 (1) (b) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on 24.12.1992, the petition having been registered as E-678/2006. The original petitioner (landlord) having died, the proceedings were continued by the petitioner, he having been substituted. The tenancy concededly was in the name of Kanti Narain, the predecessor-in-interest of the first to fourth respondents, he having died, the tenancy having devolved upon them. It may be added here th...
- ‹ Prev
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 76
- 77
- Next ›
- Last »