Delhi Court September 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.
M/S Mmtc Ltd. Vs.shri k.k. Saxena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2018
$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h September, 2018 + W.P.(C) 10091/2018 & CM APPLs. 39334/2018 (for stay), 39335/2018 (for exemption) % 1. M/S MMTC LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Akhil Sachhar, Adv. versus SHRI K.K. SAXENA Through: None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads thus: 7. Determination of the amount of gratuity. (1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. (2) As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable a...
State vs.suman Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2018
* % + STATE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:26. h September,2018 CRL.L.P. 651/2017 ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Ashok K. Garg, APP for the State with SI Dhananjay Dubey, PS Anand Vihar versus SUMAN MALHOTRA ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Sanjay Suri, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A. No.18517/2017 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application delay of 90 days in filing the leave to appeal petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 651/2017 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 5th May, 2017 whereby the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent Suman Malhotra for the offence punishable under Section 3IPC, the State has preferred the present leave petition.2. Law was set into motion on 8th March, 2002 at 11:00 A.M. when information was received regarding a quarrel at Hans Apartment, East Arjun Nagar. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No.13A. ASI Yoge...
M/S Tritus Food Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs.food & Ferro
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.186/2018 % M/S TRITUS FOOD PVT. LTD. & ORS26h September, 2018 ..... Appellants Through: None. versus FOOD & FERRO ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) RFA No.186/2018 and C.M. Appl. No.6371/2018 (for stay) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 07.09.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the appellants/defendants under Order XXXVII CPC and decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 20,67,107/- along with interest at 6% per annum. RFA No.186 /2018 Page 1 of 5 2. When the appeal first came up for hearing on 19.02.2018, it was noticed that the suit was not maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC, and therefore the following order was passed:-"C.M. Appl. No.6372/2018 ...
Robin Raju vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2018
$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 4930/2018 Judgment delivered on:26. 09.2018 ROBIN RAJU STATE versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr.Abhishek Gupta, Advocate. Mr.Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with SI Sunil Kumar, P.S.Tilak Marg. For the Respondent: CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2609.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. 32993/2018 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4930/2018 1.... Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.376/2015 under Sectionof IPC. Chargesheet has been filed in addition under Section 338 andof the Motor Vehicles Act at Police Station Tilak Marg. CRL.M.C. 4930/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Subject FIR was registered consequent to an accident that took place between the Santro car being driven by the petitioner and the motorcycle of respondent Nos.2 & 3.3. It is contended that the parties have settled their disputes before the Moto...
Yasmeen Mansuree vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2018
$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h September, 2018 + W.P.(C) 6897/2018 % 1. YASMEEN MANSUREE Through: Mr.Govind Jee, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, CGSC for R-1 Mr.V.S.R. Krishna and Mr.V. Shashank Kumar, Advs. for AIIMS ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) The petitioner-Ms.Yasmeen Mansuree is an acid attack victim, having suffered the attack in 2004. To her credit, however, even after suffering such a trauma, she obtained her diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery from the Rufaida College of Nursing, Jamia Hamdard University in 2014 and has worked as a Nurse in different hospitals in Delhi for around three and a half years as on date. She is stated to be presently working in the Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi.2. The impetus for filing the present writ petition is an advertisement, dated 13th June, 2018, issued by the All India Institute of...
The State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) vs.manish Bhalla & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:26. h September, 2018 CRL.L.P. 622/2018 THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ........ Petitioner Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP versus for the State. MANISH BHALLA & ORS. Represented by: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.32974/2018 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl. M.A. No.32973/2018 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 14 days in filing the leave to appeal petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 622/2018 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 17th May 2018, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 3IPC and additionally respondent no.1 was also acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 3IPC, the State has preferred the present leave petition.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 15th October 2012 at abou...
Goldi Arora & Ors. Vs.the State & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2018
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:26.09.2018 CRL.M.C. 4916/2018 GOLDI ARORA & ORS. versus THE STATE & ANR. ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate. Mr. Raghuvender Verma, APP for the State. Mr. Rajesh Vasisht, Advocate for R-2. SI Omender Kumar, PS Welcome. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT2609.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.32944/2018 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4916/2018 1.... Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.11/2012 under Sections 498-A/4IPC read with Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Welcome. Subject FIR emanates out of matrimonial discord.... Petitioner 2. Crl.M.C.4916/2018 Page 1 of 3 No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2.... Petitioner No.2 is the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2.... Petitioner No.3 is the wife of the bother-in-law of...
Arun Kumar Jain & Ors vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2018
$~12. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10685/2016 & C.M.No.7669/2017, 12705/2017 & % 43019/2017 ARUN KUMAR JAIN & ORS Date of Decision:26. h September, 2018 Through: Mr.Anish Jain, petitioner No.3. ........ Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Dabas, Through: Mr.Anil Mr.Praveen Kumar, Adv. for R-1/UOI. Ms.Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv. for R-3. Adv. with CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT Rajendra Menon, Chief Justice (Oral):1. Challenge in this writ petition is made to the various orders dated 06.08.2016, 18.08.2016 and 23.09.2016 passed by the Recovery Officer and certain orders earlier passed issuing recovery certificates on 04.03.2003 and 07.03.2003.2. Against the aforesaid orders passed, the petitioners have statutory remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Recently, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore & Anr. Vs. Mathew K.C.; Civil...
Mai Chand vs.rampal (Deceased) Through Lrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h September, 2018. RSA542018, CM No.12938/2018 (for condonation of 45 days delay in filing the appeal) & CM No.12939/2018 (for stay) MAI CHAND Through: Mr. Shafiq Khan, Adv. ..... Appellant Versus ..... Respondent Through: None. RAMPAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 30th October, 2017 in RCA No.11of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge (Central)]. of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree [dated 5th February 2004 in Suit No.240/1992 of the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi]. allowing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and injuncting the appellant/defendant from interfering with the possession of the respondent/plaintiff of agricultural land ad measuring 4 bighas bearing Khasra No.min in Kh...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd vs.shamim Akhtar & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: September 26, 2018 + MAC.APP. 347/2018 SHAMIM AKHTAR .....Appellant Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate Versus DINESH CHAND & ANR (BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD) .....Respondents Through: Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Suman Bagga, advocate for respondent No.2 + MAC.APP. 616/2018 & C.Ms. 26742/2018 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Suman Bagga, advocate Versus SHAMIM AKHTAR & ANR. Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) C.M. 13662/2018 in MAC. APP. 347/2018 There is delay of 271 days in filing the accompanying appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. MAC.APPs. 347/2018 & 616/2018 Page 1 of 7 The application is disposed of. C.M. 26744/2018in MAC. APP. 616/2018 There is delay of 174 days in filing the accompanying appeal. For the reasons sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »