Delhi Court January 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 24 of about 755 results (0.020 seconds)Beni Paul vs.delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d January, 2019 + W.P.(C) 7840/2016 & CM Nos. 32410/2016 and 32411/2016 BENI PAUL Through: Mr. Rohit Goel, Mr. Mithlesh Jha and Mr. Haider Ali, Advs. ........ Petitioner versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through: None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % JUDGMENT (ORAL) There is no appearance on behalf of the DDA, despite the 1. matter having being called out twice at the end of the board. I have proceeded, therefore, to hear the petitioner in the writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner stems from the decision of the DDA, as manifested in the impugned letter dated 5th May, 2016, to cancel the allotment of Plot No.1029, Pocket-C3 Sector-34, Rohini, made in favour of the petitioner by the DDA under the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). W.P.(C) 7840/2016 Page 1 of 8 3. Inasmuch as the only direction that can be issued, in this case, would be for the...
Tag this Judgment!Somesh Kumar Bishnoi vs.capital Builder Private Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 23, 2019 CRL.M.C. 4511/2017, Crl.M.A. 31911/2018 CRL.M.C. 4516/2017, Crl.M.A. 31909/2018 SOMESH KUMAR BISHNOI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Jhanji and Mr. Imran Moulaey, Advocate Versus CAPITAL BUILDER PRIVATE LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Koshy John, Mr. Soham Kumar and Mr. Deepak, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Vide impugned order of 7th October, 2017 Appellate Court has directed petitioner to deposit a sum of 5,62,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Sixty Two Lakhs) with the trial court. During the pendency of this petition, settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that last order of 22nd October, 2018 has been substantially complied with and, Page 1 of 2 CRL. M.C. 4511/2017 & CRL.M.C....
Tag this Judgment!Madanjit Kumar vs.j P Singh & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:23. d January, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 76/2018 and Crl.M.A. 331/2018 MADANJIT KUMAR Through: Mr. Alok Tripathi, Advocate ........ Petitioner J P SINGH & ORS. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Sharma, & Ms. Shilpa Dewan, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA1 ORDER (ORAL) The petitioner was employed in Central Electronic Limited (CEL, the fourth respondent) on 10.12.1993 as Senior Technical Assistant. Over the period of his service in the said organization, he came to be promoted initially to the post of Manager (Public Relations) and later to the position of Senior Manager (Public Relations). It is his case that on account of certain efforts made by him to approach the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) in the context of some open letter that had been circulated, in his perception it not being in the interest of the company, the CMD had started to nurse personal grudge which re...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Raju vs.union of India & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:17. 01.2019 Pronounced on:23. 01.2019 + W.P.(C) 3223/2018 & CM APPLN. 13994/2018 & 24073/2018 SHANKER RAJU ........ Petitioner Through:... Petitioner in person. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Abhay Prakash, CGSC for UOI. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT1 Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing and setting aside impugned orders dated 15.11.2017 and 13.09.2017. Consequently, declare the petitioner to be entitled to the benefit of judgments in Government of Nct of Delhi and Ors. vs. All India Young Lawyers Association (Registered) and another: (2009) 14 SCC49and P. Ramakrishnam Raju vs. Union of India & Ors. decided in Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 521/2002 and further direct the respondents to add ten years practice of the petitioner as an Advocate at Bar, towards qualifying service. W.P.(C) 3223/2018 Page 1 of 30 Consequ...
Tag this Judgment!Yashvir Singh Tyagi vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~19 & 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 Judgment delivered on:23. 01.2019 YASHVIR SINGH TYAGI STATE versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent + CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018 RAJEEV CHOUDHARY @ REJEEV KUMAR........ Petitioner STATE versus ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Mr. Iftekhar Ahmed and Mr. Vimal Rathi, Advocates for the petitioner in CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 Mr. R.M. Tufail with Ms. Astha, Mr. Farooq Chaudhary and Mr. Naahid Naasir, Advocates for the petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.1068/2018 For the Respondent : Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State. SI Mukesh Yada, PS Jagatpuri. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Crl.M.A.48381/2018 (stay) & CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018 Page 1 of 19 CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018 1.... Petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet.1052/2018, i.e., Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Deepender Kumar @ Chotu vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~31 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : January 23, 2019 W.P.(CRL) 2828/2018 DEEPENDER KUMAR @ CHOTU ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Advocates. STATE versus Represented by: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with Ms. ..... Respondent Purnima Malik, Advocate for Mr. Avi Singh, ASC for the State with SI Vinod Kumar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(Oral) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks furlough and also challenges the communication dated 21st August, 2018 whereby his request for release on furlough was declined.2. The communication declining furlough of the Competent Authority reads as under: - This is in reference to the captioned subject. In this regard, it is to inform you that Competent Authority has declined the application for grant of 1st Spell of furlough to the convict Deepander Kumar @ Chotu S/o Sh. Narsi Ram as the said convict is undergoing sentence in case under NDP...
Tag this Judgment!Suhana Sethi vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 23, 2019 CRL.M.C. 363/2019 & CRL.M.A. 1567/2019 SUHANA SETHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, Advocate versus STATE & ANR Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional .....Respondents Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with SI Avinash Kumar Mr. Bishan Singh, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.287/2016, under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC1860registered at police station Chitranjan Park, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of 21st January, 2019 and on the basis of affidavit of 21st January, 2019 of respondent No.2, who is father of injured-Vedant Singh aged about 8 years, who had suffered grievous injuries in this accident. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in question had taken place due to bonafide error of judgment. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that complainant/first informant of FIR in question i...
Tag this Judgment!New Balance Athletics, Inc. Vs.apex Shoe Company Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. d January, 2019 CS(COMM) 850/2018 & IAs No.6402/2018 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) & 16184/2018 (for condonation of 68 days delay in filing replication) NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv. APEX SHOE COMPANY PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Versus Through: Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Mr. Himanshu Deora & Mr. Shashwat Rakshit, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The application of the plaintiff for interim injunction in this suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off and for ancillary reliefs is for consideration.2. The counsel for the parties were heard on 22nd November, 2018 when after hearing, personal presence of Mr. Simarpreet Singh, Director of the defendant was directed. Mr. Simarpreet Singh, Director of the defendant appeared before this Court yesterday and his statement was recorded; the counsels were further heard and on request of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Grover vs.government of Nct of Delhi and Ors
Court: Delhi
$~1 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 729/2018 SUNIL GROVER ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Asheesh Lal andMs Rachna Lal, Advocates. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Anupam Srivastava, ASC for GNCTD with Ms Shreya Mehta, Advocates for R-1 and R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER2301.2019 % VIBHU BAKHRU, J The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning 1. the appointment of respondent no.3 (Sh Pankaj Kumar), as the Special Public Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter SC/ST Act), in Sessions case 27462/2016. Special Court under Prosecutor for the 2. The petitioner states that he is the landlord of the premises bearing No.165, Dr Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009. He states that in the year 2008, he had leased a part of his property to a lady (hereafter Ms K) who entered the premises as a tenant and started residing in the property along with her brothers...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Rana vs.state (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 880/2018 10.12.2018 Reserved on : Date of Decision:23. 01.2019 IN THE MATTER OF: VIKRAM RANA ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Jaideep Malik, Advocate. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a common judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2018, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge in Session Case No.59165/2016, with respect to FIR No.94/2016 under Section 302/120B/34 IPC and Arms Act, P.S. Samaipur Badli as well as in Session Case No.378/2017 with respect to FIR No.241/2016 under Section Arms Act, P. S. Samaipur Badli.2. The appeal also challenges the order of sentence dated 31.05.2018, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for the remainder of his life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default, to undergo further S.I. for one year for the off...
Tag this Judgment!