Delhi Court August 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.
Central Public Information Officer vs.hemanta Kumar Behera
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:27. 08.2018 + W.P.(C) 11658/2017 & CM No.47383/2017 CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ...Petitioner Versus HEMANTA KUMAR BEHERA Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner... RESPONDENT:Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue and Mr Piyush Goyal. :Mr Jaladhar Das, Mr Dipak Kumar Jena. For the Respondent CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner (CPIO) has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 13.06.2017 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter CIC).2. By the impugned order, the CIC has allowed the second appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter RTI Act) by directing the petitioner to provide the information as sought by the respondent by his application filed on 12.03.2016. The CIC has also ca...
Sjvn Limited vs.jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium (Jhc)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~6 * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 1498/2013 & I.A.Nos.5584/2017 SJVN LIMITED Through Mr.Uttam Datt, Advocate. ..... Plaintiff versus JAIPRAKASH HYUNDAI CONSORTIUM (JHC) ..... Defendant Through Mr. Lovekesh Sawhney, Advocate. Date of Decision:27. h August, 2018. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral) I.A. 1784/2018 1. Present application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Sections 5, 34(1), 35 & 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation and that the decision of the Dispute Review Board (hereinafter referred to as DRB) is an arbitral award, which is final and binding. It is also averred in the application that the present suit amounts to forum-shopping and malafide practice.2. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant states that in accordance with the modified Clause 67 of the General Conditions of Contract (for short GCC) read with Tripartite Agreement bet...
Amit Kumar & Ors. Vs.the State (g.n.c.t. Of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~83 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 08.2018 CRL.M.C. 4317/2018 AMIT KUMAR & ORS. ....... Petitioners versus THE STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: Mr. Binod Kumar Jha with Mr. Shashi Kumar Shukla, Advocates For the... Petitioners : For the... RESPONDENTS: CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Kamal Kumar and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocates for the Complainant. ASI Ramphal Singh, PS Dabri JUDGMENT2708.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.30754/2018 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4317/2018 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.100/2016 under CRL.M.C. 4317/2018 Page 1 of 3 Sections 498A/4IPC, registered at Police Station, Dabri.2. 3. The subject FIR emanates out of matrimonial discord. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled their dispute before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.4. As per th...
Sarthak Bhatia vs.jawaharlal University & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
#85 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:27. 08.2018 W.P.(C) 8902/2018 SARTHAK BHATIA ........ Petitioner versus JAWAHARLAL UNIVERSITY & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Nitin Sarvanan and Ms. Arunima Singh, Advocates : Ms. Monika Arora, Standing Counsel, JNU with Mr. Vibhu Tripathi, Mr. Harsh Ahuja and Mr. Kushal Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) CM APPL.34236/2018 (Exemption) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of accordingly. W.P.(C) 8902/2018 Page 1 of 4 W.P.(C) 8902/2018 & CM APPL.34235/2018 (Directions) 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays as follows:-"(i) (ii) (iii) Call for the records of the proctorial enquiry including the reports leading to the Show Cause Notice and office order; and Issue an appropriate writ quashing Show Cause...
Societe Produits nestle,s.a & Anr vs.shiny Electricals Pvt Ltd & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. h August, 2018 + CS(COMM) 1175/2016, I.As. 8859/2014 & I.A. 20029/2014 SOCIETE PRODUITS NESTLE,S.A & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Jha, Mr. Manish K. Mishra, Mr. Abhijeet Rastogi and Ms. Akansha Singh, Advocates. (M:9438804704) versus SHINY ELECTRICALS PVT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Neelam Pathak, Ms. Vidushi Chandra and Mr. A.K. Shukla, Advocates. (M:9818229032) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) Learned counsel for the Defendant No.2 submits that the Defendant 1. company has been voluntarily wound up and the TIN number has also been cancelled. She has handed over documents to establish the same. The documents are taken on record. In view of this development, no purpose would be served to keep the matter pending or sending the suit for trial.2. The present suit relates to the trademark Maggi used by the Plaintiffs in respect of instant noodles, soups an...
M/S Delhi Outdoor Advertisers Association (Regd.) vs.south Delhi Munic ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. 08.2018 + W.P.(C) 11398/2016 M/S DELHI OUTDOOR ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) Through: Mr.Anand Mishra and Ms.Vandita Nain, Advocates. ........ Petitioner versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Mukesh Gupta and Mr.Govind Kumar, for respondent/SDMC. Advocates Mr.Shashank Tiwari, Advocate for Mr.S.K.Tripathi, (Civil), GNCTD for respondent no.4. ASC Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Standing Cousnel for respondent/EDMC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) % The petitioner challenges Bye-law 13(5) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Tax on Advertisements (Other Than Advertisement W.P.(C) 11398/2016 Page 1 of 8 Published in Newspaper) Bye-laws, 1996 (hereinafter Bye-laws'). These regulations require individuals and concerns, which are desirous of fixing, retaining or displaying the...
Satbir Singh and Another vs.delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~8 * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA4152017 & CM No.21230/2017 (stay) SATBIR SINGH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Vivek Singh, Mr.Rahul Godia and Mr.Onkar Nath, Advocates. versus DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL ORDER2708.2018 CM No.21282/2017 (delay) 1. This is an application filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Notice. Counsel for the non-applicant accepts notice. The prayer made in this application is not opposed. Accordingly, the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal is condoned.3. The application stands disposed of. LPA4152017 Page 1 of 5 LPA4152017 & CM No.21230/2017 (stay) 4. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition was allowed in part. The School was directed to pay the servi...
Romila Mayank Sharma vs.m/s Zee News Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.485/2016 % ROMILA MAYANK SHARMA27h August, 2018 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Dubey and Ms. Rekha Rani Dey, Advocates (Mobile No.9999780148). versus M/S ZEE NEWS LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, No.(Mobile Advocate 9350209833). CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 7.5.2016 by which the trial court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the suit was found to be time barred. RFA No.485/2016 Page 1 of 5 2. Appellant/plaintiff was the employee of the respondent/defendant. The services of the appellant/plaintiff were terminated vide Termination Letter dated 15.4.2009 and which was received by the appellant/plaintiff admittedly on 27.5.2009. Appella...
M/S Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs.m/s Allied Motors Ltd. & Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.700/2018 + % M/S ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant 27th August, 2018 Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate (9811050339) Through: versus M/S ALLIED MOTORS LTD. & OTHERS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.34266/2018 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. RFA No.700/2018 & CM No.34265/2018 (stay) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff/landlord in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 2.8.2018 by RFA7002018 Page 1 of 12 which the trial court has rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the appellant/plaintiff. In essence the trial court has held two aspects against the appellant...
Jai Ram @ Hunny vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 08.2018 CRL.M.C. 4307/2018 JAI RAM @ HUNNY STATE & ANR. versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners : For the... RESPONDENTS: Ms. Surbhi Kohli with Mr. Ayush Dua, Advocates Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate for R-2 SI Om Prakash, PS: Desh Bandhu Gupta Road. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2708.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.30724/2018 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4307/2018 & CRL.M.A. 30723/2018 (stay) 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.204/2017 under Sections 354/354A/354B/506/509/323 IPC of Police Station Desh Bandhu Gupta Road.2.... Petitioner is the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 the CRL.M.C. 4307/2018 Page 1 of 3 complainant. It is contended that there are disputes between respondent no.2 and her in-laws. Subject FIR has been registered alleging that the petitioner ha...