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.
Surinder Kumar Sood vs.suresh Kumar Mathur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2019
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + RC.REV. 464/2017 & CM APPL.37312/2017 Judgment delivered on:17. 10.2019 SURINDER KUMAR SOOD SURESH KUMAR MATHUR versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr. Sachin Datta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Prity Sharma, Ms. Rijuta Mohanty and Mr. B. L. Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ms. Prachee Satija, Advocate. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns order dated 29.05.2017 whereby the leave to defend application filed by the respondent has been allowed.2. Subject petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the respondent from one shop on the ground floor bearing Shop No.1 in property bearing No.H-12, Main Market, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, more particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed to the eviction petition. RC.REV.464/2017 Page 1 o...
Rahul Narang vs.the State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2019
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:17. 10.2019 BAIL APPLN. 2344/2019 & Crl. M. A. 36166/2019 Rahul Narang ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. G. S. Narula & Mr. M. Sarwar, Advocates. versus THE STATE OF DELHI Through: Mr G.M.Farooqui, ..... Respondent APP for State alongwith SI Gulshan Yadav, EOW. Mr. S. K. Sharma and Mr. Prayas Aneja, Advocates for complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI JUDGMENT BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL) 1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner Rahul Narang under section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.149/2019 u/s. 420/406/120-B IPC.2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. The petitioner is running a well reputed and prestigious gym namely Olympia in Greater Kailash- II, New Delhi for the last more than 20 years. He had initially Bail Appl. No.2344/2019 P...
Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd vs.rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h October, 2019 CS(OS) 598/2018, IA No.4852/2019 (u/O XII R-6 CPC) & IA No.14432/2019 (for condonation of delay of 198 days in filing original documents) SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Mohna M. Lal, Ms. Geetali Talukdar, Mr. Prashant Kumar & Ms. Anushka Arora, Advs. Versus RENTWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Vipul Ganda, Ms. Aastha Trivedi, Ms. Chandreyee Maitra, Mr. Sidhant Kumar & Mr. Raghav Kacker, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The senior counsel / counsel for the defendant no.1 and the counsel for the plaintiff have been heard pursuant to the orders since 26th November, 2018, when this suit had come up for admission.2. Rather than re-writing what has transpired, it is deemed appropriate to reproduce the orders passed in the suit from time to time.3. As aforesaid, the suit came up for ...
Ravi @ Ravinder vs.sajjan Kumar & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2019
$~OS-26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CS(OS) 100/2017 RAVI @ RAVINDER Pronounced on:16. 10.2019 ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.K.Sunil and Ms.Akshita Salampuria, Advs. SAJJAN KUMAR & ORS. versus ..... Defendants Through Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advs. for D-8 to 10 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH. J.(JUDGMENT) IA No.677/2018 1. This application is filed by the defendants No.1 and 8 to 10 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.2. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of partition by allocating shares and thereby partitioning the properties granting share of the properties as mentioned in para 10 of the plaint to the plaintiff as per the share of the plaintiff. Other connected reliefs are also sought.3. The case of the plaintiff is that Shri Sajjan Kumar/defendant No.1 is sitting on a huge tract of properties as described in para 10 of the plaint which are HUF properties. It is pleaded that the ancestor of the p...
Tarunjeet Singh Taneja & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2019
$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16. 10.2019 + CRL.M.C. 5266/2019 TARUNJEET SINGH TANEJA & ORS. Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. ........ Petitioners versus STATE & ANR. Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State. SI Devi Lal, PS Maurya Enclave Mr. Rupesh Sharma, Adv. for R-2 ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 38266/2019 (Exemption) 1.2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. CRL.M.C. 5266/2019 3. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.14/2011 dated 13.01.2011 registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave and consequent proceedings arising therefrom.4. Notice issued. CRL.M.C.5266/2019 Page 1 of 3 5. Notice is accepted by learned APP for the State and counsel for the respondent no.2 and with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.6. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 g...
M/S National Insurance Co Ltd vs.mohit & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2019
$~9 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MAC.APP. 1124/2018 & CM APPL. 52823/2018 Decided on:16. 10.2019 M/S NATIONAL INSURNACE CO LTD Through: Ms. Aishna Jain, Advocate. ..... Appellant versus MOHIT & ORS Through: Mr. Chiranjeev Chauhan, Advocate ........ RESPONDENTS for R-1 & R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral) 1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 06.10.2018 passed by the learned MACT in MACP No.608/17, which has taken into consideration the minimum wages applicable to a skilled workman in Delhi. The claimants had set up a case that the deceased, who was merely 22 years of age at the time of the motor-vehicular accident, had qualified as a medical nurse and was working with Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. Since, the claimants were not able to produce any documents apropos her employment with the said hospital, the minimum wages applicable in Delhi was taken into consideration for computation of loss of depende...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.shanti & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2019
$~5 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:16. 10.2019 MAC.APP. 564/2018 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate. versus SHANTI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant, Advocate for R-2 & R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral) 1. This appeal seeks right of recovery against the owner and driver of the vehicle i.e. respondent nos. 2 and 3, which was declined to the appellant by the impugned order passed by the learned MACT dated 06.01.2018 in MACP No.451139/16. The learned Tribunals rationale for disallowing the right of recovery is as under:-"25. It has also been argued by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company that R-1 was not having valid DL at the time of the accident and to prove the same he has examined witness R3W2 who has deposed that he has seen the DL bearing No.P08072007538147 purported to be issued in the name of Simar Preet Singh S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh from the licensin...
Virender Kumar vs.sardar Iqbal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2019
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:16. 10.2019 RC.REV. 65/2019 & CM APPL. 5503/2019 VIRENDER KUMAR versus SARDAR IQBAL SINGH ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Chhabra, Advocate with petition in person. For the Respondent: Mr. K.R. Chawla and Mr. Dhruv Chawla, Advocates. with respondent in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns order dated 09.01.2019, whereby the Leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Rent Controller and an eviction order passed.2. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 from a shop bearing Private No.3, (measuring about 83 sq. Ft.), Ground Floor, Portion of Property No.1963, Ward No.XVI, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- ...
Gaurav Gupta & Ors vs.state of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2019
$~31 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 914/2019 Date of decision:16. 10.2019 GAURAV GUPTA & ORS Through Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv. ........ Petitioners versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT SI Ramesh Kumar, PS Nihal Vihar Adv. (appearance not given) for R-2 JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.0657/2014 dated 06.10.2014 registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar and consequent proceedings arising therefrom.2. 3. Notice issued. Notice is accepted by learned APP for the State and counsel for the respondent no.2 and with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.4. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 got married on 09.12.2012 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Due to extreme incompatibilities between the CRL.M.C. 914/2019 Page 1 of 2 petitioner and respondent no.2, they start...
Iti Goyal & Ors vs.royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd. & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2019
$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + MAC.APP. 88/2019 Decided on:16. 10.2019 ..... Appellants ITI GOYAL & ORS ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. for Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral) 1. This appeal seeks enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal in MACT No.522/2017 dated 12.10.2018 on the ground that there were five claimants, of whom even if the father of the deceased is not considered as a dependent, there are still four dependents. Therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been considered as 1/4th and not 1/3rd , as computed in the impugned award.2. The aforesaid contention is valid. Accordingly, the deduction towards personal expenses shall be made as 1/4th.3. The appellant seeks further enhancement on the ground that the ITR of the Assessment Year prior to the dem...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »