Delhi Court January 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 46 of about 755 results (0.021 seconds)Ramesh Chauhan vs.the State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~1 to 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + BAIL APPLN. 960/2018 Judgment delivered on:15. 01.2019 JITENDER versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1204/2018 RAJA versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1208/2018 RAMESH CHAUHAN versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1229/2018 SONU THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Mr. Pawan Kumar and Ms. Garima Verma, Advs. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners : For the Respondent : Ms. Kusum Dhalla, Addl. PP for the State with SI Bharat Singh BAIL APPLN. 960/2018 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS Page 1 of 3 CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1501.2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No.93/2018 under Sections 354/354-B/323/506/5of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Kanwar Singh Yadav vs.all India Institute of Medical Science (Aiims) a ...
Court: Delhi
$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 339/2019 KANWAR SINGH YADAV ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with Mr M.M. Singh, Mr S.K. Pal, Mr Jitendra Kumar, Mr Aditya Awasthi, Advocates. versus ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE (AIIMS) AND ANR. Through: Mr S.R. Krishna, Mr Shashank Kumar, Advocates for AIIMS. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1501.2019 VIBHU BAKHRU, J CM No.1594/2019 1.2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 339/2019 and CM No.1593/2019 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a letter dated 05.01.2019 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Competent Authority of respondent no.1 (AIIMS). By the impugned order, the petitioner has been debarred from participating in any W.P. (C) 339/2019 Page 1 of 7 contracts with AIIMS and the security furnished by the petitioner in the sum of 1,08,000/- has been forfeited. In a...
Tag this Judgment!Surjit Singh & Ors. Vs.uoi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4501/2002 SURJIT SINGH & ORS. Decided on:15. h January, 2019 ........ Petitioners Through: Mr.J.S.Mann & Mr.Vipul Kumar Upadhyay, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.R.V.Sinha & Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates for R-1, R-2 & R-6. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J.(ORAL) % 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.03.2002, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal"]. has dismissed their application [OA No.1567/1999]., and thus rejected their claim for higher pay-scales in terms of the reports of the 5th Pay Commission.2. The petitioners were appointed as Forest Guards under the Government of the Union Territory of Delhi at various times between 1958 & 1968. They were subsequently promoted as Deputy Forest Rangers, during the period 1988 to 1998, but claim that they were W.P.(C) 4501/2002 Page 1 of 6 den...
Tag this Judgment!Anand & Associates & Ors. Vs.jugal Kishore 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!Five Square Agro Gold Pvt. Ltd. Vs.mayank Mohan Agarwal
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.385/2017 % FIVE SQUARE AGRO GOLD PVT. LTD. 14th January, 2019 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.M. Popli, Advocate for Mr. K.N. Popli, Advocate (Mobile No.9868487642). versus MAYANK MOHAN AGARWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rishi Sehgal and Mr. (Mobile Rathore, Advocates No.9891758831). CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Appellant/Plaintiff impugns the Judgment of the trial court dated 24.09.2016 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,27,137.51 filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant by observing that the courts at Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction and the suit could not have been filed as the parties were governed by the arbitration clause as per the rules of the RFA No.385/2017 Page 1 of 5 concerned stock exchanges being NCDEX and MCX. The appellant/plaintiff was the broker and the respondent/defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Commisssioner of Customs vs.shiva Khurana
Court: Delhi
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision :14. h January, 2019 CUSAA452017 COMMISSSIONER OF CUSTOMS ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Harpreet Sr. Standing Counsel along with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Adv. Singh, versus SHIVA KHURANA ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Shikha Sapra, Mr. Piyush Kumar, Ms. Riya Chanana and Mr. Shashwat Bhardwaj, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) 1. The questions of law framed in this appeal are as follows:"(i) Whether Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting penalty of Rs.50 lakhs imposed on the respondent as customs house clearing agent and in holding that the respondent was not required to verify and ascertain the address and details of the importers?. (ii) Whether the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the facts on record and mentioned in the order-in-original?." CUSAA No....
Tag this Judgment!Nitin Rana vs.the State (Govt. Of Nct, Delhi)
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 14, 2019 * + BAIL APPLN. 1971/2018 NITIN RANA Through: Mr. Sumit Choudhary and Ms. Aakansha Bansal, Advocates .....Petitioner Versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Vijay Kumar Mr. Rishi Manchanda and Mr. Jagdish Sethi, Advocates with complainant in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR2272017, under Sections 498-A/4IPC at P.S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi. While entertaining this petition, petitioner was directed to join the investigation and interim protection from his arrest was granted. Vide order of 23rd August, 2018 status report was sought, which has been handed over by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and it is taken on record. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that whatever dowry articles were there with petitioner, have been returned to complainant of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dynamic Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs.state & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 14, 2019 CRL.M.C. 3415/2018 DYNAMIC INFRADEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS. Through: Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate ........ Petitioners Versus STATE & OTHERS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Kishore Kumar Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.333/2017, under Section 420 IPC, registered at police station Patel Nagar, New Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 26th May, 2018 (Annexure P-4 colly) of respondent No.2. Upon notice, counsel for second respondent submits that due to personal difficulty, respondent No.2 cannot appear before the Court today but he has instructions from him to submit that respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua petitioner, as full and final settlement has taken place between them. Crl.M.C. 3415/2018 Page 1 of 4 Supreme Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Pardeep Kumar vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:14. 01.2019 CRL.REV.P. 230/2018 & Crl. M.A. 4982/2018 & Crl. M. (Bail) 1852/2018 PARDEEP KUMAR STATE versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. K.Singhal and Ms.Shilpa Goel, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with SI Manoj, P.S.Alipur. Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Adv. for Suman, Noticee. Mr.Rambir Singh, Adv. for Ranbir Khatri/R-2. Noticee Sahab Singh and Balwan Singh in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT1401.2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns order dated 06.03.2018 whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C.2. Subject application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was filed by the petitioner/accused seeking a direction to the Trial Court to proceed CRL. REV. P. 230/2018 Page 1 of 4 against Ranbir Khatri, Suman, Sahab Singh and Balwan ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Kiran vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + MS. KIRAN Date of Decision : January 14, 2019 W.P.(CRL) 74/2019 ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Sunil Mehta, Advocate versus STATE Represented by: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the ..... Respondent State with Ms.Jyoti Babbar, Advocate and SI Vinok Kumar, Narcotic Cell, Crime Branch CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(Oral) 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the prayer clause (ii) of the writ petition be read as seeking parole for the marriage of the granddaughter and for re-establishing social ties.2. On the oral prayer, prayer (ii) of the writ petition be read as noted above.3. 4. On a notice being issued, a status report has been filed. As noted above, the petitioner seeks parole on the ground of marriage of her granddaughter. Along with the petition, the petitioner has placed on record documents to show that the son-in-law and sons of the petitioner have passed away. Thus she has a...
Tag this Judgment!