Delhi Court January 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 45 of about 755 results (0.020 seconds)Anand & Associates & Ors. Vs.rishi Prakash Jain
Court: Delhi
* + + + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 15, 2019 CRL.M.C. 3158/2017 CRL.M.C. 3159/2017 CRL.M.C. 3160/2017 CRL.M.C. 3410/2017 ANAND & ASSOCIATES & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Akshay Bhatia and Mr. Avinash Das, Advocates. Versus JUGAL KISHORE JAIN RISHI PRAKASH JAIN ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. N.K. Aggarwal and Ms. Priya Pachouri, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought is informed that Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has been already framed and petitioners have also given their defence. in these petitions on merits. It Since petitioners have an efficacious remedy to assail the Notice framed under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., the inherent extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not being invoked, with liberty to petitioners to assail the Notice framed under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. before the Revisional Court ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Millennium Automation & Systems Ltd vs.m/s Celkon Impex Pvt Ltd & ...
Court: Delhi
$~4 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:15. h January, 2019 CS(COMM) 1229/2016 & CC (COMM) 26/2017, I.As. 16045/2014, 18183/2014 M/S MILLENNIUM AUTOMATION & SYSTEMS LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Appearance not given. versus M/S CELKON IMPEX PVT LTD & ORS Through: None. ..... Defendants CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction 1. for infringement and passing off as also rendition of accounts against the Defendants. The Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the trademark MILLENNIUM which is used by it for products and services in the IT industry. The word MILLENNIUM is claimed to be a registered trademark of the Plaintiff in class 9. It is averred that the Plaintiff specialises in designing and manufacturing a variety of precision, top quality products and services such as Network and IT security equipments, large video wall, video conferencing products, milgrade product, secur...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Gulati vs.state (Through: Govt. Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 16, 2019 BAIL APPLN. 1370/2018 ROHIT GULATI Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, Advocate versus ........ Petitioner STATE(THROUGH: GOVT. NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Anuj Singh Mr. Abhinay Gupta and Mr. Rohit Rathi, Advocates for respondent/complainant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.114/18, under Section 380 of IPC, registered at police station Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi. While entertaining this application, interim protection from arrest was granted to petitioner on 4th June, 2018 subject to his joining investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that petitioner has joined the investigation. Without commenting on the merits of this case, interim order of 4th June, 2018 is made absolute and petitioner is granted to pre-arrest bail in terms of order of 4th Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Pal & Ors vs.state ( Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Anr
Court: Delhi
$~20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:15. h January, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 1245/2018 RAKESH PAL & ORS ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate versus STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ...... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP with SI Yadavi Mr. Satya Narayan Vashishth and Ms. Meenak Kumari, Advocates for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 01.12.2014. On 06.02.2016, she lodged first information report (FIR) no.120/2016 with police station Moti Nagar, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (first petitioner), his father (second petitioner) and his mother (third petitioner). On conclusion of the investigation, police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on which cognizance was taken, the said matter being pending on...
Tag this Judgment!Visesh Infotechnics Limited vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of decision:15. h January, 2019 W.P.(C) 5199/2015, CM No.9444/2015 VISESH INFOTECHNICS LIMITED Through: Mr. Sachin Chopra, Adv. with Ms. Astha Gupta, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Through: Mr.Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Adv. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-"In the above premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be please to: a. Issue a writ of Certiorari setting aside / quashing the Para 2 of Table B of Table of Fee issued under Rule 12 of Registration of Offices and Fees Rules, 2014 issued by Respondent No.2 as ultra vires and unconstitutional to Article 20 of the Constitution of India and also for excessive use of power by Respondent no.2; b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions to Respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. Vs.sunita Kumari and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~28 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :15. 01.2019 W.P.(C) 318/2019 & CM APPL. 1519-1520/2019 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS. ........ Petitioners Through Dr. B. K. Sinha, Advocate. versus SUNITA KUMARI AND ANR. Through None. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA VIPIN SANGHI, J (ORAL) the Central Administrative Tribunal The petitioner - Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan (KVS), has preferred 1. the present writ petition to assail the order dated 15.11.2017 passed in OA No.3387/2017, whereby, (CAT) allowed the said OA preferred by the respondents.2. The respondents were serving Primary School Teachers (PRT) in KVS. The petitioner issued a circular dated 15.07.2014 for filling up of teaching and non-teaching posts through Limited Departmental Examination (LDE) for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. 99 posts of TGT (Maths) for the the year 2013-14 were advertised. The year 2012-13 and 126 for W.P.(C) 318/2019...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kanak Lata Saxena & Ors. Vs.state of Nct of Delhi & Ors
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:15. h January, 2019 W.P.(CRL) 111/2019 SMT. KANAK LATA SAXENA & ORS. ........ Petitioner Represented by: Samdarshi Sanjay, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC with ASI Sunita, PS CWC/Nanakpura. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A. No.757/2019 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(CRL) 111/2019 and Crl.M.A. No.756/2019 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.179/2016 under Sections 498A/4IPC investigated at PS Nanak Pura CAW Cell.2. The grounds urged by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question are firstly that there is violation of the standing order No.281 which provides that the list of dowry articles given at the time of marriage be obtained and bills/cash memos in support of the said articles be procured and placed on file. W.P.(CRL) 111/2019 Page 1 of 9 3. The second groun...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Piyush Dahiya & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 15, 2019 CRL.M.C. 180/2019 SH PIYUSH DAHIYA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Devanand Prasad, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional .....Respondents Public Prosecutor with SI Vikas Kumar Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Crl.M.A. 767/2018 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.A. 768/2018 (delay) There is delay of 13 days in filing the accompanying petition. Upon hearing, I find that averments made in the instant application provide sufficient cause to condone the delay occasioned. The application is allowed and the delay stands condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 180/2019 Quashing of FIR No.208/2017, under Sections 498-A/4of IPC registered at police station Dwarka-South, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 25th July, 2017 (Annexure P-2) reached between the parties. Upon notice, learned Additi...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Pal Singh Yadav vs.union of India & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~9 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 3620/2017 VIJAY PAL SINGH YADAV ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen R. Nath and Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocates. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Ms. Madhuri Dhingra, Advocate. Mr. Vinod Kumar, DC/LAW BSF. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA % ORDER1501.2019 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:1. The... Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned communication dated 7th October 2016 of the Commandant (Personnel), Border Security Force (BSF) rejecting the... Petitioners representation dated 22nd September 2016 whereby inter alia he requested that his period of posting at Silchar be treated as a field posting for the purposes of completion of the Mandatory Field Service (MFS) requirement for promotion to the post of Commandant from Second-in-Command (2IC).2. The background facts are that the... Petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army as a Short Service...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Oetker India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.mr. Viraj Bahl & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 7/2019 + DR. OETKER INDIA PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Decided on:15. 01.2019 Through: Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veronica Mohan, Ms. Priya Singh and Mr. Aman Bhatnagar, Advocates. MR. VIRAJ BAHL & ORS. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Medha Sachdev, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) I.A. No.512/2019 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 7/2019 2. Issue notice.3. Ms. Medha Sachdev accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the directions that I propose to pass, Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel, who, appears on behalf of the respondents, says that he does not wish to file a reply.4. This petition has been filed, essentially, to assert the rights which arise out of three (3) agreements. These being the Master Agreement dated 25.07.2008 (MA); the Share Purchase Agreement date...
Tag this Judgment!