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.
Mahesh Arora vs.east Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
#6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:04. 09.2018 W.P.(C) 8581/2018 MAHESH ARORA 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.RaviChandraPrakash,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. premises Plot No.A-9, Khasra No.17/1/2, Mandoli Industrial Area, Mandoli, Delhi-110093; W.P.(C) 8581/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Any other relief may also be granted by the Honb...
J Durai Murugan vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 390/2017 J DURAI MURUGAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Adv. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Manish Mohan, CGSC for UOI. UNION OF INDIA & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI % 1. ORDER0409.2018 The petitioner, an Inspector in the CRPF has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct a Review DPC for considering his case for promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant by treating his seniority at ACPC-1 instead of ACPC-2. He further prays that in case he is found fit by the DPC, he be promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant w.e.f. 26.10.2016, i.e., the date from which his juniors have been promoted as Assistant Commandants, along with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner, after being enrolled as a Sub Inspector in the C...
Jameel vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~2 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 585/2018 & CRL.M.B. 860/2018 JAMEEL STATE Through: Mr. Jagat Rana, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO % JUDGMENT0409.2018 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 20th January 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara in SC No.52/2017 arising out of FIR No.483/2013 registered at PS Seema Puri convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the order on sentence dated 29th January 2018 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further simple imprisonment (SI) for three months.2. The Appellant was charged with having murdered his wife Salma Begum at around 3:45 pm on 12th September 2013 at Jain Mandir Jhuggi, MCD Park by stabbing her with a knife. In the impugned ord...
Rajnish Kohli vs.hcl Technologies Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.735/2018 + % RAJNISH KOHLI4h September, 2018 Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aviral Tiwari, Advocate. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. versus ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.35801/2018 (delay in re-filing) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.35802/2018 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. RFA7352018 Page 1 of 14 RFA No.735/2018 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 27.2.2018 by which the Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. By the suit the appellant/plaintiff sought the relief of mandatory injunction for grant of 1950 Shares of the respondent/defen...
Rahul vs.mohd Khalil & Ors. (Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * Date of Decision: September 04, 2018 + MAC.APP. 1129/2017 + MAC.APP. 174/2018 MIRA DEVI & ANR. RAHUL Versus Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate ..... Appellants MOHD KHALIL & ORS. INSURANCE CO LTD) (IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Arihant Jain & Ms. Shanta Devi Raman, Advocates for respondent No.3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) Impugned Award of 29th July, 2017 grants compensation of 1. 5,10,636/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to legal heirs of deceased-Prateek Kumar, a Mechanic, aged 17 years and 11 months, on account of fatal injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident, which took place on 21st March, 2014. In this accident, an Executive-Rahul, aged 16 years and 8 months, had also sustained injuries and vide separate Award of even date, he has been granted compensation of `4,83,896/- with interest @ 9% per annum.2. In the above-captioned appeals, the challenge by learned counsel MAC.APPs. 1129/2017...
Praveen Jain vs.east Delhi Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
#4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:04. 09.2018 W.P.(C) 8574/2018 PRAVEEN JAIN Versus ........ Petitioner EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner Verma, Advocate. : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Amit Kr. :Mr.RoshanLalGoelandMs.AnjuGupta,Advocates. 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. premises bearing Plot No.20, Khasra No.13/5/1, Karawal Nagar Industrial Area, Delhi-110094; W.P.(C) 8574/2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Any other relief may also be ...
Anuj Pratap Singh vs.union Public Service Commission & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:20. 08.2018. Date of Decision:04. 09.2018. W.P.(C) 8415/2018 & C.M.No.32327/2018 (direction) ANUJ PRATAP SINGH ...Petitioner Through: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Senior Adv with Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Adv with Versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Naresh Mr.Omung Gupta, Adv for R-1/UPSC. Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj & Mr.Shushwat Sharma, Advs for R-2/UOI. Kaushik & CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI JUDGMENT REKHA PALLI, J1 The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articleof the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 10.07.2018, passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), dismissing O.A. No.1358/2018 filed by him challenging the respondents' order dated 28.03.2018, by which his candidature for the Civil Services Examination 2017 (in short CSE, 2017) was cancelled....
Harjinder Pal Singh vs.the Collector of Stamps Sub-Divisional Magistra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
$~6 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 8416/2018 & CM No.32328-32329/2018 HARJINDER PAL SINGH ........ Petitioner Through Mr Rajat Aneja, Ms Chandrika Gupta, Advocates. versus THE COLLECTOR OF STAMPS SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, VASANT VIHAR ..... Respondent Through Mr Gautam Narayan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER0409.2018 % VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 09.07.2018 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the ADJ, Patiala House Court (hereafter the District Court). By the impugned order, the District Court has rejected the appeal 2. preferred by the petitioner under Section 47A(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter the Stamp Act), against the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the respondent. The District Court has upheld the decision rendered by the respondent directing the petitioner to deposit the deficient stamp duty of 36,86,949/-.3...
Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.central Vigilance Commission
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2018
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:04. 09.2018 + W.P.(C) 3044/2016 & CM Nos. 12845/2016, 18410/2016 & 26211/2017 WALMART INDIA PVT. LTD. versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent :Mr Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr Siddharth Aggarwal, Mr Anuj Berry, Mr Mahak Bhatt, Mr Nikhil Pillai, Mr Adit Punj, Mr Raghav and Ms Reva Mann, Advocates. :Ms Tatini Basu, Advocate for CVC. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 Walmart India Private Limited (hereafter WIPL) has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the inquiry being conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission (hereafter CVC) in terms of summons dated 29.10.2015 and letters dated 16.11.2015 and 29.03.2016 be set aside. The CVC had initiated an inquiry on the basis of a news report published in The Wall Street Journal on 19.10.2015 and in other newspapers, where...
Praveen Kumar & Ors. Vs.shriram General Insurance Co Ltd & 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...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »