Delhi Court January 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 10 of about 755 results (0.019 seconds)The Birla Sr. Secondary School vs.p.o., Industrial Tribunal-Iii & Anr
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. 01.2019 Date of decision:30. .01.2019 + W.P.(C) No.7509/2002 THE BIRLA SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL ........ Petitioner Through Dr.M.Y. Khan, Adv. versus P.O., INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-III & ANR ...... RESPONDENTS Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J JUDGMENT1 Vide the present petition under Articlesof the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 16th April, 2002 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal III, in ID No.20 of 1989. At the outset, it may be noted that none has been appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2 & 3 for the last many dates despite being served by publication also. Even at the time of final hearing, despite a pass over, none had appeared on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3 and in these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner had addressed arguments on the basis of the record.2. The relevant facts emerging from the record are as follows. W.P.(C) No...
Tag this Judgment!Cloud Nine Groups vs.uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~2 to 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:30. 1.2019 + ARB.P. 559/2018 CLOUD NINE GROUPS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik and Mr. N. E. Rao, Advs. AND + AND + versus UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Through Mr. Nikhil A. Menon, Adv. ..... Respondent ARB.P. 560/2018 CLOUD NINE GROUPS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik and Mr. N. E. Rao, Advs. versus UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Through Mr. Nikhil A. Menon, Adv. ..... Respondent ARB.P. 561/2018 CLOUD NINE GROUPS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik and Mr. N. E. Rao, Advs. versus ARB.P. 559/2018 & Conn. UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Through Mr. Nikhil A. Menon, Adv. ..... Respondent Page 1 of 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) 1. These captioned petitions have been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 1996 Act) for app...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. Vs.koma ...
Court: Delhi
$~3 to 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:30. h January, 2019 3 + W.P.(C) 11470/2018 & CM APPL. 44404/2018 THE CHAIRMAN DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR. ........ Petitioners versus JYOTI & ORS. 4 + W.P.(C) 11471/2018 & CM APPL. 44406/2018 THE CHAIRMAN DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS PUSHPA AND ORS. 8 + W.P.(C) 11475/2018 & CM APPL. 44414/2018 THE CHAIRMAN DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR. ........ Petitioners KOMAL ..... Respondent versus W.P.(C) 11470/2018 & other connected matters Page 1 of 9 versus SAVITRI MEENA5+ W.P.(C) 11472/2018 & CM APPL. 44408/2018 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS versus AMIT KUMAR & ORS6+ W.P.(C) 11473/2018 & CM APPL. 44410/2018 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. versus SOURAV SHARMA AND ORS. 7 + W.P.(C) 11474/2018 & CM APPL. 44412/2018 DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. versus ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS .......
Tag this Judgment!Vikas Jain vs.brijwasi Infratech Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:30. 01.2019 RFA(OS) 24/2018 VIKAS JAIN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Proxy counsel. versus BRIJWASI INFRATECH PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Shalini Kapoor and Ms. Dikshant Khanna and Ms. Bindita Chaturvedi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18.04.2017 by which two applications filed by the appellant herein; one under Section 151 CPC dated 12.01.2017 for seeking condonation of delay of 211 days in filing the written statement and another application filed by respondent/plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC was dismissed.2. Adjournment is sought on behalf of counsel for the appellant on the ground that he is not available. Proxy counsel who is present in the court submits that he is not ready with the matter. We are informed by the counsel for respondent that a final decree has ...
Tag this Judgment!India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs.divya Ashish Jamwal
Court: Delhi
$~12 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:30. h January, 2019 INDIA YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD. O.M.P. 1107/2012 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Mr. Varun Garg and Mr. Manmeet Singh Nagpal, Advocates.(M:9793124305) versus DIVYA ASHISH JAMWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mohit Yadav, Proxy counsel. (M:9711940952) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the... Petitioners - India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. and Yamaha India Sales Pvt. Ltd., challenging the award made by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator dated 16th April, 2012.2. The... Petitioners - India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. and Yamaha India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (collectively referred as Yamaha) are manufacturers and sellers of two wheelers and other automobiles, including spare parts for the same. Yamaha appointed Divya Ashish Jamwal as its dealer in Jamm...
Tag this Judgment!Zamaluddin & Ors. Vs.the State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 30, 2019 CRL.M.C. 486/2019 ZAMALUDDIN & ORS Through: Mr. Khalik Ahmad and Mr. Gaurav Bhatt, Advocates .....Petitioners versus THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with SI Balbir Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.A.2099/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 486/2019 Quashing of FIR No.991/2015, under Sections 498-A/4of IPC & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at police station Khajuri Khas, Delhi is sought on the basis of Compromise Deed of 15th November, 2018 (Annexure P-2) reached between the parties. Izhar Ahmad, Upon notice, Mr. learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Balbir on th...
Tag this Judgment!Govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Ors. Vs.sourav Sharma and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~3 to 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:30. h January, 2019 3 + W.P.(C) 11470/2018 & CM APPL. 44404/2018 THE CHAIRMAN DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR. ........ Petitioners versus JYOTI & ORS. 4 + W.P.(C) 11471/2018 & CM APPL. 44406/2018 THE CHAIRMAN DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS PUSHPA AND ORS. 8 + W.P.(C) 11475/2018 & CM APPL. 44414/2018 THE CHAIRMAN DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR. ........ Petitioners KOMAL ..... Respondent versus W.P.(C) 11470/2018 & other connected matters Page 1 of 9 versus SAVITRI MEENA5+ W.P.(C) 11472/2018 & CM APPL. 44408/2018 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS versus AMIT KUMAR & ORS6+ W.P.(C) 11473/2018 & CM APPL. 44410/2018 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. versus SOURAV SHARMA AND ORS. 7 + W.P.(C) 11474/2018 & CM APPL. 44412/2018 DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANR. versus ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS .......
Tag this Judgment!Cox and Kings India Ltd. Vs.indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corpor ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. 10.2018 Date of decision :30. 01.2019 + ARB. A. (COMM.) 13/2018 & IA35872018 COX AND KINGS INDIA LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rishi Agrawala, Mr.Karan Luthra, Ms.Niyati Seth, Mr.K.V.Singh, Advs. Kohli, Mr.Saurabh versus INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Joy Basu, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Saurav Agarwal, Mr.Madhav Misra, Mr.Arjun Masters, Mr.Ayush Gupta, Mr.Kanak Bose, Advs. for R-1 Mr.Abhinav Vasisht, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Abhimanyu Mahajan, Ms.Abnubha Goel, Advs. for R-2 Mr.Sudipto Sarkar, Sr. Adv.with Mr.Saurav Agarwal, Mr.Madhav Misra, Mr.Arjun Masters, Mr.Ayush Gupta, Mr.Kanak Bose, Advs. for R- 1 in Arb.A.(Comm.) No.14/2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 A common judgment has been passed with the lead case being ARB. A. (COMM) 11/2018 titled Royale India Rail Tours Ltd. v. Cox & Arb.A.(Comm.) No.13/2018 Page 1 Kings India Ltd & Anr. For ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India vs.khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Limited & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~19 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decision Dated:29. h January, 2019 CS (OS) 46/2019, I.As. 1235/2019 & 1238/2019 UNION OF INDIA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Piyush Joshi, Ms. Anuradha R. V., Ms. Sumiti Yadava, Ms. Lalia Philip, Mr. Prithvirat Chauhan and Mr. Advocates. (M:9871881988) Yuvraj, versus KHAITAN HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, R-1 (M:9899705974) Advocate for CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) I.As. 1235/2019 (u/Order XXXIX Rule 1 &2) 1. Arbitration as a means for resolution of disputes is well entrenched in most judicial systems. In the context of commercial arbitration, there are two types - domestic arbitration and international commercial arbitration. In all these disputes, minimum judicial interference in the conduct of arbitral proceedings is the norm. There is yet another species of arbitration w...
Tag this Judgment!Ais Glass Solutions Limited vs.moser Baer Solar Limited & Ors
Court: Delhi
2 $~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 1335/2016 AIS GLASS SOLUTIONS LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate with Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate. versus MOSER BAER SOLAR LIMITED & ORS Through: None. .....Defendant Date of Decision:29. h January, 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) JUDGMENT1 Present suit has been filed for recovery of USD $ 206,327, equivalent to Rs.1,23,79,620/-, along with pendente lite and future interest at 18% per annum and mandatory injunction. The prayer clause in the present suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-"a) Pass a decree for recovery of US$ 206,327 equivalent to Rs. 1,23,79,620/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred And Twenty) alongwith pendentlite and future interest @18% per annum in the defendants; the plaintiff and against favour of CS(COMM) 1335/2016 Page 1 of 7 b) e) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants ...
Tag this Judgment!