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.
Rst Semiconductors Private Limited vs.make Indiasmart Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2018
$~CP-24 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.PET. 770/2015 Date of decision:05. 09.2018 RST SEMICONDUCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED........ Petitioner Through Mr.Pranaynath Jha, Adv. Versus MAKE INDIASMART PRIVATE LIMITED Through Mr.Shivam Garg, Adv. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. On 20.08.2018 this court has passed the following order:-"This petition is filed under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Company Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking winding up of the respondent company. It is the case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.21,79,997.62 is due and payable to the petitioner for the chips to be used in Rastriya Suraksha Beema Yojana Card (in short the RSBY Card) supplied to the respondent. Reliance is placed on the acknowledgement which is issued by the respondent being Annexure P-4 whereby the respondent has acknowledged their dues as on 03.03.2014 to the Rs.58,79,997/- . Thereafter, the payments were released t...
Vikash & Ors. Vs.the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04.09.2018 CRL.M.C. 4439/2018 VIKASH & ORS. ........ Petitioners versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Ms. Pooja Aggarwal with Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Advocates, Advocates. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for the State with the IO Rajeev Kumar Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person. : JUDGMENT0409.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.2464/2014 under Sections 498A/4IPC, Police Station Mehrauli.2. The subject FIR emanates out of matrimonial discord.... Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2.... Petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the respondent No.2.... Petitioner No.3 is the father-in-law of the respondent No.2. CRL.M.C. 4439/2018 Page 1 of 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ...
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Reserved on:13. h August, 2018 Date of Decision:4. h September, 2018 O.M.P. 435/2011 HINDUSTAN STEELWORKS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Shipra Ghose, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. N. Prashant Kumar Nain, Advocate. (M-9811558972). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.JUDGMENT1 The Respondent, Union of India represented through the Deputy Chief Engineer Construction, Northern Railways issued a Notice Inviting Tenders for earth work in filling for embankment with contractors own earth and cutting to required profile, including compaction by vibratory roller, construction/ extension of retaining wall, platforms, station buildings, S & T room, gate huts, and other allied work between Garhmuktesar Pul (excluding) and Kuchesar Road (excluding) stations (Chainage 10050 to 24700) in connection with Hapur, Kankather doubling (Zone - II) (hereinafter referred to as the said work...
Farhad Khan vs.east Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
#2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:04. 09.2018 W.P.(C) 8572/2018 FARHAD KHAN versus ........ Petitioner EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate. Mr.S.T.Venkatachala,Advocate. 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 follow:-"a) Pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order(s)/direction(s) respondent, thereby directing or ordering the respondent to allow a period of 4 weeks to the petitioner to remove his material out of the premises so sealed by the respondent i.e. Khasra No.12/16, Main Sewadham against the W.P.(C) 8572/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Road, Near Pepsi Godown, Mandoli, Delhi-110094; Any other relief may also be granted by the Honble Court in favour of the petit...
Raj Kumar vs.east Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
#9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:04. 09.2018 W.P.(C) 8646/2018 RAJ KUMAR Versus ........ Petitioner EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate. For the... RESPONDENTS : Ms. Shipra Shukla, Advocate. 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 follow:-"the against a) Pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate respondent, writ/order(s)/direction(s) 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 the respondent i.e. Plot No.21, Khasra No.3/22, Ground Floor, New Mandoli Industrial Area, Delhi-110093; W.P.(C) 8646/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Any other relief may also be granted by the Honble Court...
Icici Bank Ltd. Vs.state Govt. Of Nct Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04. 09.2018 CRL.M.C. 3201/2018 ICICI BANK LTD versus STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr.Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.Kamal Kr. Ghai, Addl. PP for the State. Ms.Shweta Singh Chauhan, ACP/IO, Insp.Sanjay Dahiya SOS-I Crime Branch. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0409.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner/ ICICI Bank impugns order dated 24.02.2018 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking release of two vehicles make / model "Audi/QTTDI" bearing registration No.DL1T2214and "Fortuner/FX TRD42 AT" bearing registration No.DL3BD7861was dismissed on the ground that after framing of charge, the Court has to decide as to whether the vehicles in question were to be attached or not and only thereafter, would this court be able to decide about the custody of the vehicles. CRL.M.C...
Vinod Mahajan vs.securities and Exchange Board of India ( Sebi) & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~8 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 1898/2016 Decided on: September 04, 2018 VINOD MAHAJAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Priyank Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Mani, Advocates versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ( SEBI) & ORS Through: None ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 The petitioner is facing trial in the court of the Additional ORDER (ORAL) Sessions Judge in criminal case (CC no.10/14) on the complaint of the first respondent on allegations of offences punishable under Section 24(1) and Section 27 of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (in short, SEBI Act) on account of he alongwith certain others having indulged in certain acts of commission or omission in violation of Section 11 B of SEBI Act and regulation nos.5(1) r/w 68(1), 68(2), 73 and 74 of SEBI (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations, 1999. He is described as one of the directors of M/s. Golden Land Development India Ltd., a company in liquidation, it also b...
Shikha Chakraborty & Ors vs.major Saumitra Sarkar (Retd) & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:07. 08.2018 Judgment Pronounced on:04. 09.2018 FAO(OS) 178/2016 & CM APPL. 22333/2016 (for stay) SHIKHA CHAKRABORTY & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Santosh Mishra with Ms.Rohini Prasad, Advocates. versus MAJOR SAUMITRA SARKAR (RETD) & ORS........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Manoj K. Singh, Mr.Bharat Singh, Mr. Rupesh Gupta and Mr.Umesh Prasad, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Ajay Bahl and Mr. Vikash Sharma, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. By this appeal, the first, second, fourth and sixth defendants (hereafter referred to as the appellants) challenge the order made by a learned Single Judge in a suit for permanent injunction; the impugned order allowed I.A.No.758/2016 by which Major Saumitra Sarkar (plaintiff who is arrayed as the respondent in this appeal) had prayed for interim orders pendente lite that defendants should not interfere in t...
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Vs.deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~46 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA9692018 & CM Nos.35890-91/2018 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. Through: Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Date of decision :4. h September, 2018 ..... Appellant Advocate versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAX) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): The afore-captioned appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) has been filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., a non-resident company and resident of Republic of South Korea. The appeal relates to Assessment Year 2007-08 and impugns a common order dated 22nd March, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).2. The appeal challenges findings of the Tribunal upholding initiation of proceedings by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act.3. The appellant-assessee, who has substantially succeeded before t...
Manmeet Singh vs.east Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
#5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:04. 09.2018 W.P.(C) 8576/2018 MANMEET SINGH Versus ........ Petitioner EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate. For the... RESPONDENTS : Raunak Singh, Advocate. 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 follow:-"the against a) Pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order(s)/direction(s) 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 the respondent i.e. premises Khasra No.13/3/2, Ground Floor, Karawal Nagar Industrial Area, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094; W.P.(C) 8576/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Any other relief may also be granted by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »