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.
Sanhedrin Consultants Private Limited vs.oil States Industries (India) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~CP-17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:04. 09.2018 + CO.PET. 317/2014 SANHEDRIN CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED........ Petitioner Through Mr.Arun Srivastava, Adv. Versus OIL STATES INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD..... Respondent Through Mr.Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Yogender Bhardwaj, Ms.Vipra Bhardwaj, Ms.Drishti Rathore and Ms. Ramya Khanna, Advs. Nath CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, (ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up to the respondent Company. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent as a Consultant on 23.05.2013 to liaise with the concerned departments/sections of the Central Bank of India. On 20.08.2013, the petitioner raised an invoice for an amount of Rs.23,98,886/-. On 29.08.2013, vide Share Purchase Agreement dated 29.08.2013, the management of the respondent Company changed and the present management who was at that t...
Naresh vs.state (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04.09.2018 CRL.M.C. 4440/2018 NARESH ........ Petitioner versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. B.C. Pant, Advocate. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Hiren Sharma, APP for the State. Mr. Yogesh Ramola, Advocate for respondent No.2. SI Anil, PS Kanjhawala : JUDGMENT0409.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.31189/2018 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4440/2018 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.22/2013 under SectionsIPC, Police Station Kanjhawala.2. The parties are the residents of the same locality. The subject FIR was registered consequent to a complaint made by the respondent CRL.M.C. 4440/2018 Page 1 of 3 No.2 that the petitioner had misbehaved with her.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled their dispute...
Shriram Genral Insurance Co Ltd vs.praveen Kumar & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: September 04, 2018 + MAC.APP. 549/2017, CM Nos.23385/2017 & 17119/2018 SHRIRAM GENRAL INSURANCE CO LTD PRAVEEN KUMAR & ORS. versus Through: Mr. Pankaj Singh Thakur, Advocate .....Appellant .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, Mr. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Ishan Kumar, Advocates for respondents No.1 to 3 + MAC.APP. 748/2018 PRAVEEN KUMAR & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, Mr. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Ishan Kumar, Advocates versus SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Singh Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The above captioned two appeals are directed against Award of 7th April, 2017 vide which compensation of 9,41,672/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded to legal heirs of deceased-Raj Kumari, a Caretaker, MAC.APP.Nos.549/2017 & 748/2018 Page 1 of 5 aged 57 years, who had died in a vehicular accide...
Sanjay Aggarwal vs.east Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
#3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:04. 09.2018 W.P.(C) 8573/2018, SANJAY AGGARWAL 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. :Ms.RuchiJain,Advocate. For the... RESPONDENTS 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:-"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 belongings, articles and tents material out of the premises so sealed by the respondent i.e. premises bearing No.C-2/549, Plot No.2, Khasra No.23/7, the W.P.(C) 8573/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Main 33 Feet Road, Harsh Vihar, Thana Road, Delhi- 110093; Any other relief ma...
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs.escorts Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~35 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h September, 2018 ITA9612018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus ..... Respondent None Through ESCORTS LTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 9.3.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in the case of Escorts Ltd. (respondent-assessee, for short) in ITA No.4235/Del/2014. The appeal relates to assessment year 2005-2006.2. The impugned order decided a number of issues. However, this appeal is confined and limited to disallowance of claim of expenditure of Rs.7.75 crore made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it relates to prior period and was not incurred and does not relate to the period relevant to the assessment year 2005-2006.3. Learned counsel for th...
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs.ravi Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:4. 9.2018 + ARB.P. 71/2018 DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Dhingra with Ms. Miranda Solaman and Mr. Sameer Sidhar, Advs. versus RAVI KUMAR Through: Mr. Arun Batta with Ms. Neha ..... Respondent Kumari, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) 1. By this petition, filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as 1996 Act), the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator in the matter.2. Mr. Batta, who, appears for the respondent, resists the petition.3. Broadly, the background in which this petition is filed is as follows:3. 1 The petitioner issued a Letter of Intent (in short LOI) dated 2.7.2013, awarding a contract to the respondent for installing a fire fighting system. Based on the LOI, a formal agreement dated 1.8.2013 was executed between the parties. The value of the contract was fixed at Rs.2,16,30,037/-. I...
Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs.the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04.09.2018 CRL.M.C. 4438/2018 SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA versus ........ Petitioner THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. K.S. Sharma, Advocate. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghai, APP for the State. SI Satvinder, PS Kalkaji. Mr. Raghav Chadha with Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi, Advocates with Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, AR of respondent No. JUDGMENT0409.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.31181/2018 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.A.31182/2018 (for condonation of delay in re-filing) For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. CRL.M.C. 4438/2018 Page 1 of 3 The delay in re-filing of the petition is condoned. CRL.M.C. 4438/2018 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.980/2015 under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Stati...
Kamal Kant Bansal & Anr vs.union of India and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 8199/2016 Date of Judgment:4. h September, 2018 KAMAL KANT BANSAL & ANR ........ Petitioners Through: Mr S.K. Rout and Mr Aman Mehrotra, Advs versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain, SC with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advs for LAC/L&B Ms Nidhi Raman, Adv for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No.admeasuring 04 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Nangloi Jat, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '201...
Bhateri Devi vs.tara Chand (Deceased) Through Lrs & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~6. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA3222016 BHATERI DEVI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal and Ms. Suman Chaudhary, Advs. TARA CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS Versus Through: Mr. B.S. Maan and Mr. Sumit Singh, ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Advs. for R-1 to 8. ORDER % 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil 04.09.2018 Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 16th September, 2016 in RCA No.41/16/2003 of the Court of the Additional District Judge-16(C), Tis Hazari Courts]. of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree [dated 26th April, 2003 in Suit No.338/2002 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi]. of dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the use and enjoyment of the appel...
Manoj Kumar Sethi vs.east Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
#8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:04. 09.2018 W.P.(C) 8603/2018 MANOJ KUMAR SETHI 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. :Mr.RupinderPalSingh,Advocate. For the... RESPONDENTS 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. H.No.590, Gali No.22, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094; W.P.(C) 8603/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Any other relief may also be granted by the Honb...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 73
- 74
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »