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.
Mohd Saleem vs.the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~R-8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:27. 08.2018 % CRL.A. 447/2016 MOHD SALEEM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dhan Mohan with Ms. Tanu B.Mishra, Ms. Harkamal Jeet Kaur, Mr. Ravi Mishra, Ms. Roshini and Mr. Jitendra, Advocates Versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I. S. MEHTA VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant convict to assail his conviction by the learned ASJ-3, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.87/2014, arising out of FIR No.157/2011, registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave, under Sections 302/309IPC. By the impugned judgement dated 26.02.2016, the appellant stands convicted of the offence under Section 302IPC while he has been acquitted under Section 309IPC. Vide order dated 04.03.2016, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo...
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Govt. Of Nct of Delhi vs.na ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~59 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 8960/2018 & CM Nos. 34438-34439/2018 DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ........ Petitioner Through: Ms Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Cousnel GNCTD with Mr N. K. Singh and Ms Palak Rohmetra, Advocates. versus NAVEEN YADAV ..... Respondent Through: Mr Tushar Sannu, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER2708.2018 VIBHU BAKHRU, J The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 1. 26.04.2018 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter CIC) directing the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO) to disclose the information as sought for by the respondent. The CIC has also rejected the petitioners contention that the information as sought for is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the RTI Act).2. The relevant facts necessary to address the controversy are as under:-"W.P...
Avinash Bhushan Keshry vs.the State & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
Judgment delivered on:27. 08.2018 $~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 4296/2018 AVINASH BHUSHAN KESHRY THE STATE & ANR versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Shubhanshu Singh, Mr. Suman Kumar with Mr. Sanad Kumar Jha, Advocates. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the... RESPONDENTS: . CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for the State. SI Rajender Singh, PS Badarpur. Mr. Hemraj Tewatia with Mr. Aman Pal Chauhan, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person. JUDGMENT2708.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.30677/2018 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4296/2018 & Crl.M.A.30678/2018 (for condonation of delay in re-filing) 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.84/2013 under Sections 498A/4IPC, Police Station Badarpur. CRL.M.C. 4296/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. The subject FIR emanates out of matrimonial discord.... Petitioner is the husband of respondent No.2.3...
Chander Arya vs.monika Arya
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~51 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:27. h August, 2018 CRL.M.C. 1211/2018 and Crl. M.A. 4434-4435/2018 CHANDER ARYA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Chaudhary and Ms. Preeti, Advocates versus MONIKA ARYA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Mahajan, Advocate 1. The petitioner and the respondent herein were concededly married to each other on 02.09.2006 and out of their cohabitation a girl child took birth on 15.07.2007. It is the case of the petitioner (husband) himself that the respondent (wife) had left the matrimonial home on 25.11.2009, this being subject matter of daily diary entry no.22 recorded in the local police station. The parties have been estranged from each other ever since. The respondent/wife had filed a petition (No.5550614/2016), inter alia, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Domestic Violence Act) against the petitioner in January 2013...
Burger King Corporation vs.techchand Shewakramani & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :30. h July, 2018 Date of decision :27. h August, 2018 CS (COMM) 919/2016 & CC(COMM) 122/2017 BURGER KING CORPORATION ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Tusha Malhotra & Ms. Pankuri Malik, Advocates (M-9810383514). versus TECHCHAND SHEWAKRAMANI & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for D-1 to 3 & 5 (M-9810054311). Mr. Mahendra Rana, Advocate for D- 4&6 (M-9810019842) Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Advocate for D-7 (M-8826457307). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.JUDGMENT I.A. 17221/2015 (u7/O VII, R.11), I.A. 17220/2015 (u/O VII, R.10) & I.A. 23496/2014 (u/O VII, R.11 on behalf of Defendant No.7) 1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, damages, etc. in respect of the trademark Burger King and Hungry Jacks both as a trademark as also part of their corporate names. All the Defendants are based out of Mum...
M/S r.k. Sood Art Framers vs.vipin Sharma & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~15 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. h August, 2018 + W.P.(C) 10606/2015 M/S R.K. SOOD ART FRAMERS Through : ........ Petitioner Mr. R.K. Saini, Adv. versus VIPIN SHARMA & ANR Through : Ms. Sukriti Ghai for ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC (Civil)- GNCTD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR % JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Owing to the default, committed by its counsel, in appearing before the Authority under the Shops & Establishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), on 17th October, 2011, 30th November, 2011 and 12th January, 2012, the petitioner suffered an ex- parte order, dated 16th May, 2012, whereby it was directed to pay 62,700/-, along with penalty of 100/-, to Respondent No.1, within 30 days of the order.2. The petitioner moved an application, for setting aside the aforementioned ex-parte order dated 16th May, 2012, expressing regret at the fact that its counsel had not appeared before the Authority on the aforementioned three ...
Nasarin vs.megma Hdi Gen Ins Co Ltd & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Date of decision: August 27, 2018 + MAC.APP. 106/2018 NASARIN Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate ..... Appellant Versus MEGMA HDI GEN INS CO LTD & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ved Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Sarfraz Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2-owner + MAC.APP. 107/2018 1. NAAJREEN & ORS. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate Versus MEGMA HDI GEN INS CO LTD & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ved Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Sarfraz Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2-owner CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) The above captioned two appeals arise out of impugned Award of 11th August, 2017, vide which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as the Tribunal) has awarded compensation of `12,58,624/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to Claimants on account of death of MAC.APP. 106/2018 MAC.APP. 107/2018 Page 1 of 6 Lock Repairer- Afsar, aged 25 years, in a v...
M/S Sethi Ply Palace vs.m/s p.r.k Interiors Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~CP-25 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.PET. 504/2014 M/S SETHI PLY PALACE Date of decision:27. 08.2018 ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Rajeev Kr.Jha and Mr.Rajeev Kr.Sharma, Advs. versus M/S P.R.K INTERIORS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr.Bijoy Kr.Pradhan, Mr.Rakesh Raushan and Mr. Pulkit Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent company. It has been pleaded in the petition that from 10.08.2010 to 10.09.2010, the respondent placed orders from time to time for supply of plywood and allied products manufactured by Greenply Industries Ltd. Goods worth Rs.9,71,640/- were supplied against various invoices. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the petitioner through RTGS on 01.11.2010 leaving a balance of Rs.5,71,640/-. On 03.11.2010 the respondent gave a cheque dated 27.10.2010 for Rs.4,56,12...
Bhim Singh & Ors vs.delhi Jal Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. h August, 2018 W.P.(C) 3440/2012 BHIM SINGH & ORS ....... Petitioners Through: Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Adv. Versus DELHI JAL BOARD Through: None. .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 20th March, 2012 in PPA No.05/and PPA No.06/of the Court of District Judge- North West acting as Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)]. of dismissal of the two appeals preferred by the petitioners with respect to the same immovable property.2. This petition came up first before this Court on 30th May, 2012 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and status quo ordered to be maintained. Vide subsequent order dated 11th December, 2012, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution but on application of the petitioners, vide order dated 16th January, 2013, r...
Anup Kumar Gupta vs.surender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2018
$~7 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:27. h August, 2018 LPA8642015 & C.M.28934/2015 (stay) ANUP KUMAR GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.F.K.Jha, Mr.Shashank A. Singh and Mr.Sarwesh, Advocates versus SURENDER SINGH ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Despite the matter having been passed over once and called a second time, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. We may note that despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent on any of the dates of hearing.2. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.09.2015 by which the writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 21.05.2015 vide which an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the petitioner (appellant herein) for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 14.12.2011 was dism...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »