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.
Mrf Ltd. Vs.the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. 08.2018 + W.P.(C) 3118/2018 MRF LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Sh. Tarun Gulati, Sh. Shashi Mathews, Sh. Vasu Nigam, Ms. Rachana Yadav and Sh. Abeer Kumar, for petitioner, in Item Nos. 4 and 5. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Sh. Satyakam, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA % ORDER S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner succeeded partly in an appeal, which resulted in its claim for exclusion of certain amounts in its taxable turnover. Its appeal was allowed by a detailed judgment and order of this Court on 14.05.2015 - MRF v. Commissioner of T&T (Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 1 & 2/2015, decided on 14.05.2015). The relevant extract of that decision accepting the petitioners plea is as follows: W.P.(C) 3118/2018 Page 1 of 9 33. On facts, the Revenue does not refute that in the scheme of turnover dis...
Vijay Tokas vs.state of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2018
$~4 to 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + BAIL APPLN. 1332/2017 & CRL. M (Bail) 1258/2017 Judgment delivered on:10. 08.2018 + + PHOOLWATI TOKAS ........ Petitioner versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI BAIL APPLN. 1345/2017 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1263/2017 ..... Respondent VIJAY TOKAS ........ Petitioner versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI BAIL APPLN. 1374/2017, CRL.M.(BAIL) 1307/2017 & ..... Respondent CRL.M.As. 12852-12853/2017 YASH TOKAS versus Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Mr. P.K. Sharma, Mr.Uday Prakash, Ms. Richa Diwan and Mr.Sujit Jha, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for the State (in item No.4) Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP for the State (in item Nos. 5 and6) SI Ranbir Singh. BAIL APPLNS. 1332/2017 and other connected matters Page 1 of 3 CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1008.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No.250/2017...
Vinay Bhasin vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2018
$~37 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:10. h August, 2018 * % + W.P.(C) 2515/2017 VINAY BHASIN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr N.S. Vasisht and Mr M.P. Bhargava, Advs versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Reshesh Mani Tripathi, Adv for UOI Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advs for LAC Ms Shahana Farah and Mr Rahul Dubey, Advs for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No.1admeasuring 1 Bigha situated in the revenue estate of Village Pansali, Tehsil Kanjawalla, NCT of Delhi, (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair WP(C) 2515/2017 Page 1 of 4 Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Reh...
Krishna Gupta & Anr. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2018
$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:10. 08.2018 CRL.M.C. 4040/2018 KRISHNA GUPTA & ANR STATE & ANR versus ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Vikas Arora with Ms. Radhika Arora, Advocates with petitioners in person. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners : For the Respondent: CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghai, APP for the State. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Hemant Gulati, Advocate for the complainant. SI Lankesh, PS Preet Vihar. JUDGMENT1008.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. 29757/2018 (Exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.C. 4040/2018 The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.33/2018 under Page 1 of 3 1. CRL.M.C. 4040/2018 Sections 420/120B IPC, Police Station Preet Vihar.2. The subject FIR was registered consequent to a dispute which arose between the parties with regard to the sale of a property. The complainant had agreed to purchas...
n.b Tiwari vs.kalka Public School & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2018
$~46 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA4362018 N.B TIWARI Date of Judgment:10. h August, 2018 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra and Ms.Poonam Atley, Advocates versus KALKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Devesh Dubey, Advocate for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC for respondent no.2/DOE. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) CM.APPL320162018(delay) 1. This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of 38 days delay in filing the present appeal.2. Heard.3. The prayer made in the application is not opposed. Delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.4. The application stands disposed of. LPA4362018 5. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.05.2018 in a writ petition instituted by respondent no.1 School where challenge was laid to the order passed by the Delhi L.P.A.436/2018 Page 1 of 7...
M/S Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs.sushil Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.442/2017 + % M/S AJAY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.C.Singhal, Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Verma, Advocate. 10th August, 2018 versus SUSHIL KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Santwana, Advocate. 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 15.2.2017 by which trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.19,87,291/- along with interest.2. The subject suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff pleading that the appellant/plaintiff supplied to the respondent/defendant PVC Pipes and fittings with respect to which an RFA No.442 /2017 Page 1 of 6 account was maintained between the parties and as per which the principal amount due as on date of suit was Rs.14,19,494/-....
Umardin vs.east Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2018
#54 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:10. 08.2018 W.P.(C) 8331/2018 UMARDIN versus ........ Petitioner EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sharma and Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Garg, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Milind Garg and Ms. Arpita Kumari, Advocates. Insp. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Licensing Unit. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays as follows:-"In the facts and circumstances of the present case this Honble Court may pleased to: a) Pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order(s)/direction(s) against the respondent, thereby directing or ordering the respondent to allow a period of 15 days to the petitioner to remove his machines, raw/furnished material out of the premises so sealed by W.P.(C)8331...
Sunita Bhatia vs.vineet Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:10. h August, 2018. CM(M) 909/2018 SUNITA BHATIA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Chhabra, Adv. with petitioner-in-person. Versus Through: None. VINEET BHATIA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.32135/2018 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ..... Respondent 2. The application is disposed of. CM(M) 909/2018 & CM No.32134/2018 (for stay) 3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order (dated 13th April, 2018 in HMA No.1743/2014 of the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court (Central)) of dismissal of the application of the petitioner/wife under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).4. 5. The counsel for the petitioner/wife has been heard. The respondent/husband has filed the proceedings, from which this petition arises, for dissolution of marriage with the petitioner/wife, under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriag...
Resham Singh Lally vs.state & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2018
$~15 & 16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + + CRL.M.C. 1987/2016 KULWINDER SINGH Decided on:-"10th August, 2018 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhik Kumar with Mr. Rinku Mathur, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for State with SI Madhurendra Kumar, P.S. EOW. Mr. Rakesh Wadhwa, Advocate for R-2. CRL.M.C. 4155/2016 RESHAM SINGH LALLY Through: Mr. Rakesh Wadhwa, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus STATE & ANR ....... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for State with SI Madhurendra Kumar, P.S. EOW. Mr. Abhik Kumar with Mr. Rinku Mathur, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. On the complaint of Resham Singh Lally (the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.4155/2016), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, by his order dated 09.05.2013, exercising his power and jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Crl. M.C. No.1987/2016 & 4155/2016 Page 1 of 7 (Cr.P.C....
Sanju Kunwar & Ors vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2018
$~ 7 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:10. h August, 2018 FAO2842014 SANJU KUNWAR & ORS Through: Mr.Shyam Singh Sisodia, Advocate ..... Appellants versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ashok Singh, Advocate for UOI Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, Head Counsel of Northern Railways and convenor of the Committee with Mr.Kamlesh Kumar and Ms.Priyata Chakraborty, Advocates Inspector Tribuvan Negi, P.S. N.D.R. Station and SI Ravit Kumar Sharma, RPF, Tilak Bridge CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) The appellants have challenged the order dated 04th June, 2014, 1. whereby the Railways Claims Tribunal dismissed their claim.2. Appellant No.1 is the widow and appellants No.2 to 4 are the children of late Harakh Nath Pandey. The appellants filed an application for compensation before the Railways Claims Tribunal claiming compensation on the ground that late Harakh Nath Pandey was travelling by an EMU train from Faridabad to Delhi Junction on 06th S...
- ‹ Prev
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Next ›
- Last »