Delhi Court May 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.
Nabin Chandra Patra vs.m/s Maya Jewellers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2018
$~7 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. t May, 2018 RFA3572017 & CM APPL. 13445/2017 (stay) NABIN CHANDRA PATRA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Satya Saharawat, Mr. Aditi Laxman and Mr. Ajit Kesariya Advocates (M-9990317772). versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate. (M-6447534576) M/S MAYA JEWELLERS CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(oral) CM APPL. 13446/2017 1. By this application, the Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter Defendant) seeks condonation of delay. The ground, on which the condonation is sought, is that the Defendant had no knowledge of the civil suit which was pending and neither was he ever served in the suit. In fact, according to the Defendant, the entire case is put up fraudulently inasmuch as the Defendant has never purchased the so-called gold from the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter Plaintiff) and the cheque which was relied upon by the Plaintiff were misplaced/stolen and intimation about the same w...
Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.duet India H ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2018
$~14 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:31st May, 2018 O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 221/2018 INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr.Tejas Karia, Ms.Ananya Aggarwal, Ms.Shruti Sabharwal, Ms.Surbhi Lal, Advs. versus DUET INDIA HOTELS (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vijay, Mr.N.K.Sharma, Ms.Aakashi Lodha, Mr.Sanjeevi Seshadri, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) 1. In view of the detailed order passed by this Court today in OMP(I)(Comm.) No.220/2018 and other connected petitions including the present one, the present petition is also dismissed.2. A copy of the aforesaid order in OMP(I)(Comm.) No.220/2018 is placed below. NAVIN CHAWLA, J MAY31 2018 RN $~13 to 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:31st May, 2018 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 220/2018 INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (THROUGH: ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,...
H&m Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr vs.hm Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2018
% + * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:31. t May, 2018 IA No.7259/2016 (of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC) in CS(COMM) No.707/2016 H&M HENNES & MAURITZ AB & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Ms. V. Mohini & Ms. Shreyasi Pal, Advs. Versus HM MEGABRANDS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Adheesh Nargolkar, Mr. Ankur Sangal & Ms. Sucheta Roy, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.7259/2016 (of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC) 1. The two plaintiffs viz. a) H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB, Sweden and b) H & M Hennes & Mauritz Retail Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi have sued the defendants no.1 to 4 viz. i) HM Megabrands Pvt. Ltd., ii) Mr. Arif Merchant, iii) Mr. Hamza Arif Merchant and iv) Mr. Hashim Arif Merchant, inter alia for injunction restraining passing off / infringement of trade mark / of the plaintiffs, by use of the trade mark...
In the Matter of Larken Holdings Private Limited(in vol.liqn.) Vs..... ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2018
$~CP-10 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:31. 05.2018 CO.PET. 14/2018 and Co. Appl. 701/2018 IN THE MATTER OF LARKEN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED(IN VOL.LIQN.) ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Rishi Manchanda, Adv. for the OL. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) CA No.701/2018 (delay) This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the accompanying petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 30 days in filing the accompany petition is condoned. The application is disposed of. CO.PET. 14/2018 1. This is a petition filed under Section 497(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (herein referred to as the Act) by the Official Liquidator (OL) for voluntary winding up of LARKEN HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED (herein referred to as the said company).2. A perusal of the petition shows that the said Company was incorporated on 23.05.1983 having CIN U74899DL1983PTC105782 under the provision...
Maria Jamal vs.indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women Thro ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: May 31, 2018 + W.P.(C) 6206/2018 & CMs. 23934-35/2018 1. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Lalit Kumar Jha, Advocate versus MARIA JAMAL INDIRA GANDHI DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD and Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocate for R-1,3 &4 .....Respondents ORDER (ORAL) In pursuance of advertisement for teaching post issued in December, 2013 by respondent-University, petitioner had applied for the post of Associate Professor in Electronics and Communication Engineering.2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the results in relation to the Advertisement of December, 2013 were declared in August, 2014. Aggrieved by her non-selection, petitioner had also challenged the selection of fifth and sixth respondent in W.P. (C) 2657/2014 which stood disposed of vide order of 30th November, 2016 (Annexure P-4), while granting ...
Rajiv Chaturvedi vs.pec Limited & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Date of Order: May 31, 2018 + W.P.(C) 6271/2018 & CMS. 24185/2018, 24186/2018 RAJIV CHATURVEDI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Mr. Jaspal Singh, Ms. Karishma Thakur and Mr. Omar Hoda, Advocates versus PEC LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anumita Chandra, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) C.M No.24185/2018 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P. (C) 6271/2018 & CM. 24186/2018 1.... Petitioner is facing departmental proceedings and vide order of 13th November, 2017, the Enquiry Officer has concluded that petitioner did not have additional documents/ evidence in his defence and that petitioner is delaying the proceedings.2. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that vide impugned order of 13th November, 2017 (Annexure F), right of petitioner to lead evidence has been virtually...
Mohd. Lukman and Ors. Vs.north Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2018
$~6, 7, 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 4502/2018 Date of Order:31. t May, 2018 MOHD. LUKMAN AND ORS. ........ Petitioners Through Mr. Tanmaya Mehta and Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocates versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Through Mr.Rajan Sabharwal, Standing ........ RESPONDENTS Counsel for respondent no.1. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. + W.P.(C) 4504/2018 MOHD. SULEMAN AND ORS. ........ Petitioners Through Mr. Tanmaya Mehta and Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocates versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Through Mr.Shekhar Vyas, Advocate for ........ RESPONDENTS respondent no.1. Ms. Shefali Vohra, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. SI Kamaljeet Singh, P.S. Kashmere Gate. + W.P.(C) 4514/2018 MADAN GOPAL ........ Petitioner W.P. (C) Nos.4502/2018 etc. Page 1 of 5 Through Mr. Tanmaya Mehta and Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocates versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Through Mr.Tushar Sannu, Advocate for ........ RESPONDENT...
Shri Anurag Rajpal vs.the American Swan Lifestyle Company Pvt. Ltd. & ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2018
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 148/2017 & IA No.13672/2017 SHRI ANURAG RAJPAL ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Manish Sharma, Mr Sandeep D. Das, Mr Ankit Mangla, Mr Siddharth Sharma, Mr Ninad Dogra and Mr Ritesh Mukherjee, Advocates. versus THE AMERICAN SWAN LIFESTYLE COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Krishnendu Datta, Mr V. P. Singh, Mr A. R. Chowdhury, Mr Aditya Jalan and Mr Priyank Ladoia, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER3105.2018 VIBHU BAKHRU, J IA No.1909/2018 1. This is an application filed by TTN Ventures Pte. Ltd. (hereafter TTN), a company incorporated under the laws of Republic of Singapore, inter alia, praying for vacation of the ad interim ex parte O.M.P. (ENF.) (COMM) 148/2017 Page 1 of 10 order passed by this Court on 21.11.2017. The present application has been filed through the liquidators appointed by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore for liquidation of TTN.2. By the order dat...
M/S. G4s Facility Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.regional Provident Fund ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:31. 05.2018 LPA3022018, C.M. APPL.22069/2018 & 22070/2018 M/S. G4S FACILITY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. .Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi and Mr. Himesh Thakur, Advocates. versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I .Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of a learned single judge, declining to interfere with the decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Delhi (hereafter Tribunal) under Section 7-O of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (in short the EPF Act) in its appeal. The appellant had sought stay of order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Commission (in brief EPFC), dated 06.01.2018 under Section 7-A of the EPF Act. Such interim stay was given subject to the ...
M/S Santani Sales Organisation vs.central Excise, Customs and Service ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.4551/2017 Reserved on :16. h February, 2018 Date of decision:31. t May, 2018 M/S SANTANI SALES ORGANISATION ........ Petitioner Through Mr. J.K. Mittal, Advocate. versus CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIUBNAL, DELHI AND OTHERS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Rajender Sahu, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.: Question raised in the present writ petition is whether as per Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (C.E. Act, for short) the petitioner- assessee on filing of second appeal before the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) is required to make an additional pre-deposit of 10% of the duty and penalty in dispute, over and above 7.5% pre-deposit made for filing of first appeal before the Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »