Delhi Court October 2019 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.
Satya Vir Singh vs.director of Education & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2019
$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. t October, 2019 + LPA6702019 and CM Nos.45940-45941/2019 SATYA VIR SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Adv. versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC-GNCTD and Mr. Ankit Monga, Advs. for R-1/DOE CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR ORDER2110.2019 % D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) C.M.No.45941/2019(exemptions) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. LPA6702019 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose W.P.(C) 12333/2018 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 23rd September, 2019 and hence the original petitioner has preferred the present appeal. LPA6702019 Page 1 of 6 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant (i.e. the petitioner before the learned Single Judge), and have carefully appreciated the facts of the case and the material on re...
Nabeel Ahmad @ Nabeed Ahmad vs.iqbal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2019
$~20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:21. t OCTOBER, 2019 + RSA1192019 & CM No.27753/2019 (stay) NABEEL AHMAD @ NABEED AHMAD ..... Appellant IQBAL Through: Mr. Zakir Raza, Adv. versus Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The appellant had concededly entered into an agreement of sale dated 17.01.2018 with the respondent respecting built up property described as measuring 31 square yards bearing khasra No.1/33, property No.368, Gali No.22, Chand Bagh, Brijpuri, Delhi -110094, the consideration having been settled at Rs. 20,20,000/-. Concededly again, at the time of execution of the said agreement of sale, the appellant had received from the respondent, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as earnest money. Indisputably, no formal document transferring the right, title and interest in the said property came to be executed in the wake of the said transaction.2. The respondent had instituted civil suit (No.196/2018) on 21.04.2018 seeking re...
Naresh Kumar vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2019
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. tOctober, 2019 + W.P.(CRL) 1531/2016 NARESH KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Kinger and Ms. Roopa Nagpal, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Mr. Tushar Mathur and Mr. Jitender Tripathi, Advs. for UOI Ms. Dacchita Shahi and Ms. Shivani Vij, Advs. for GNCTD Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Ms. Santwana, Adv. for CBI Mr. Anand Thumbay, Adv. for Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for GNCTD with ASI Mahendra Singh, P.S. Nand Nagri CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR ORDER2110.2019 % D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) W.P.(CRL) 1531/2016 1. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred with the following prayers: a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction(s) thereby directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to initiate W.P. (Crl.)1531/2016 Page 1 of 4 action against the persons involved in illegal ac...
Dr. Varsha Sharma vs.ministry of Human Resources Development & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 8584/2015 % 1. DR. VARSHA SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advs. versus MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Sr. Panel Counsel/UOI with Mr. Krishna Kumar, Mr. Siddharth Jha and Mr. Prabhakar Thakur, Advs. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Prang Newmai and Ms. Slomita Rai, Advs. for R-JNU. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT2110.2019 The petitioner, who is working as Technical Officer in the University Science Instrumentation Centre (USIC), seeks, by means of this writ petition, the benefit of Academic Grade Pay (AGP) and the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), as is granted to teaching staff in universities, under the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards W.P. (C) 8584/2015 Page 1 of...
Amit Sahni vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2019
$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11223/2019 Date of Decision:21. t October, 2019 AMIT SAHNI Through: Mr. Anshul Bajaj & Ms. Sonali Tiwary, Advs. along with petitioner in person ........ Petitioner versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Mr.Prashant Kumar, L.A., Officer CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) CM APPL. 46194/2019 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 11223/2019 1. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that suffice it would be for the disposal of this Public Interest Litigation if a direction is given to the respondents to convene periodical meetings of Sentence Review Board (SRB) in accordance with Rule 1249 of Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 so that sentence imposed upon the convicts may be reviewed periodically. Counsel W.P.(C) 11223/2019 Page 1 of 2 appearing for the resp...
Indian Bank vs.b D Aggarwal & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2019
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 10.2019 C.R.P. 159/2019 & CM APPL.33870/2019 INDIAN BANK B D AGGARWAL & ORS versus ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr.Milind Garg, Adv. For the Respondent: None. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns order dated 30.01.2019 whereby the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.2. Subject Suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession, mesne profits, damages and injunction. Case set up by the respondent is that the respondents were the owners of the subject property having purchased the same from his erstwhile owner. As per the respondents, the petitioner bank was a tenant under the erstwhile owner and after the purchase of the property, the erstwhile owner C.R.P. 159/2019 Page 1 of 4 informed the bank about the sale and requested th...
m.k. Jain (Huf) Through Mr. m.k. Jain, Karta vs.jasmine Buildmart Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2019
s* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:26. 09.2019 Pronounced on:21. 10.2019 M.K. JAIN M.K. JAIN NEERU JAIN % + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 280/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 281/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 282/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 283/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 284/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 285/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 286/2019 M.K. JAIN (HUF) THROUGH MR. M.K. JAIN, KARTA M.K. JAIN RISHABH JAIN Versus M.K.JAIN ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent JASMINE BUILDMART PVT. LTD. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Akhil sibal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Manjira, Ms. Deboshree, Mr. Vipul Wadhwa, Ms. Suvarna Kashyap, Advocates O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 280-286/2019 Page 1 of 44 Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Sheena Taqui, Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Ms. Suvarna Dubey, Advocates CORAM: HON...
Naveen & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2019
$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. 10.2019 + CRL.M.C. 5399/2019 NAVEEN & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through Mr.Satish K. Sansi, Adv. with petitioners in person. versus STATE & ANR. Through Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State. ASI Jai Bhagwan PS Vijay Vihar. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.573/2016 dated 24.07.2016 registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 3of the IPC and consequent proceedings arising therefrom.2. 3. Notice issued. Notice is accepted by learned APP for the State and respondent no.2 and with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal. CRL.M.C.5399/2019 Page 1 of 2 4. The present petition is filed on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes and the respondent No.2 has no objection if the present petition is ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.kashmir Kaur & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2019
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on:21. 10.2019 + MAC.APP. 932/2017 & CM APPL. 38385/2017 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Animesh Sinha, Advocate. versus KASHMIR KAUR & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Manu Shahalia, Advocate for R-1 to R-4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate for R CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.(Oral) 1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned MACT in Suit No.40on the ground that the deduction of only 1/4th is unjustified and it should have been 1/3rd because one of the dependants is a married daughter.2. This Court is not persuaded by the aforesaid contention. This Court in Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Avatar Mittal & Ors. in MAC.APP.299/2017 decided on 03.09.2019, has held that the issue of financial dependency of a married daughter will depend upon the facts of each case; simply because a daughter is married off does not necessaril...
m.k. Jain vs.jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-21-2019
s* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:26. 09.2019 Pronounced on:21. 10.2019 M.K. JAIN M.K. JAIN NEERU JAIN % + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 280/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 281/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 282/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 283/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 284/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 285/2019 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 286/2019 M.K. JAIN (HUF) THROUGH MR. M.K. JAIN, KARTA M.K. JAIN RISHABH JAIN Versus M.K.JAIN ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent JASMINE BUILDMART PVT. LTD. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Akhil sibal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Manjira, Ms. Deboshree, Mr. Vipul Wadhwa, Ms. Suvarna Kashyap, Advocates O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 280-286/2019 Page 1 of 44 Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Sheena Taqui, Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Ms. Suvarna Dubey, Advocates CORAM: HON...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »