Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 18 of about 750 results (0.018 seconds)Lupin Limited and Anr. Vs.union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
* % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:22. 02.2019 + W.P.(C) 10917/2018 & CM APPL. No.45389/2018 ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS LUPIN LIMITED AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners: For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr. Arvind Ray and Mr. Karan Gupta, Advs. Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC and Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj , Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Ms. Shruti Dutt and Mr. Parth Semwal, Advs. + W.P.(C) 10965/2018 & CM APPL. Nos.42724-25/2018 WITH ........ Petitioner M/S SYSTOPIC LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. UNION OF INDIA versus ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners: For the... RESPONDENTS: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC and Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Ms. Shruti Dutt and Mr. Parth Semwal, Advs. Mr. Deepak Kumar Mahapatra,...
Tag this Judgment!Holoflex Limited and Anr. Vs.union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1816/2019 & CM Nos.8499/2019 &8500/2019 HOLOFLEX LIMITED AND ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr Abhijeet Sinha, MrKumarjit Banerjee, Mr Gaurav Gupta and MsSanchari Chakraborty, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: MrRipu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC for R-1 to R-6/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER2202.2019 % VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioners have filed the present petition impugning an order dated 13.12.2018 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), wherein the review petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act,1992 (hereafter FTDR Act), against an order dated 05.03.2018, was rejected. By the said order, the Additional DGFT had rejected petitioner no.1s appeal preferred under Section 15 of the FTDR Act, against an order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Joint DGFT, Kolkata. Page 1 o...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Kumar & Ors vs.the State of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Order: February 22, 2019 CRL.M.C. 1016/2019 & CRL.M.A. 4045/2019 SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. C.S. Rathour, Mr. Ranjana Singh and Ms. Anjali, Advocates Versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with SI K.P. Singh Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 4046/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 1016/2019 & CRL.M.A. 4045/2019 Quashing of FIR No.190/2015, under Sections 498-A/4of IPC & Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at police station Khajuri Khas, Delhi is sought on the basis of Affidavit of 11th February, CRL.M.C. 1016/2019 Page 1 of 3 2019 of respondent No.2. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Pandey vs.state ( Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:22. 02.2019 BAIL APPLN. 262/2019 RAJESH PANDEY versus STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Ravinder Kumar. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.61/2018 under Sections 392/397/506/411/120-B/34 of the IPC, Police Station Jama Masjid.2. The subject FIR has been registered on the complaint of an employee of Sanjay Sales Agency.3. As per the complainant, he was instructed by the owner to transport goods and money in a van from their shop at Fateh Puri, Delhi to the factory at Patparganj, Delhi. It is alleged that the complainant had put four boxes in the back of the van containing BAIL APPLN. 262/2019 Page 1 of 4 goods and Rs. 15 lakhs in cash. As per the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of Dyerslime and Chemicals Private Limited (Vol. Liqn.) ...
Court: Delhi
$~CP-76 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.PET. 5/2019 IN THE MATTER OF DYERSLIME AND CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED (VOL. LIQN.) ....... Petitioner Date of decision:22. 02.2019 Through Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr.Standing Counsel and Ms. Megha Bharara, Adv. for OL. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. This petition is filed under section 497(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (herein referred to as the Act) by the Official Liquidator (OL). The prayer made in the petition is that the subject company i.e. DYERSLIME & CHEMICALS PVT. LIMITED (herein referred to as the said company), may be wound up and finally dissolved from the date of the filing of the instant petition.2. A perusal of the record shows that t he said Company was incorporated under the provisions of the Act on 31.10.1974 with Registration No.7506 of 1974-75 with the Registrar of Companies (ROC), NCT of Delhi and Haryana.3. The registered office of the said company is situated within the territor...
Tag this Judgment!Anuja Sharma vs.memo Devi & Ors
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.157/2019 % ANUJA SHARMA22d February, 2019 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. J.K. Srivastava, Advocate (Mobile No.9891210660). versus MEMO DEVI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. Appl. No.8376/2019 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.157/2019 and C.M. Appl. No.8375/2019 (for stay) 2(i). This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant No.1 in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 27.10.2018 by which the trial court while dismissing the suit for specific performance RFA No.157/2019 Page 1 of 15 filed by the respondent/plaintiff, has passed a money decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/buyer for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-, as the appellant/defendant No.1/seller had received this amount from...
Tag this Judgment!O v S vs.r S @ R K
Court: Delhi
$~27 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgement:22. d February, 2019 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 48/2019 O V S CORAM: R S @ R K Through: Mr.Ankur Gulyan Panda, Advocate ..... Appellant versus Through: ..... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) C.M.8259/2019 (exemption) 1.2. Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. C.M.8258/2019 (delay in filing) & C.M.8260/2019 (delay in refiling) 3. CM82582019 has been filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 444 days delay in filing the present appeal and CM82602019 has been filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 12 days delay in re-filing the present appeal.4. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellant/husband of the respondent had filed a petition, being HMA No.61463/2016, seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said petition was dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Gupta vs.union of India & Anr
Court: Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C.) No.4252/2018 SANJAY GUPTA Through: versus Date of Decision:22. 02.2019... Petitioner in person. ........ Petitioner UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA JUDGMENT A.K. CHAWLA, J.(ORAL) in short Aggrieved of the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Central 1. 'CAT', Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby, an OA No.898/2015 filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent No.1 for payment of legitimate dues of sumptuary allowance w.e.f. 23.05.2013 was dismissed, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.2. At the onset, we observe, the subject matter of the instant writ petition is almost covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9908/2017 'Union of India & Anr. vs. Sanjay Gupta', which pertained to the claim of the petitioner towards training allowance. Since the fact...
Tag this Judgment!Beena Kumari & Ors. Vs.manoj Kumar
Court: Delhi
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 02.2019 CRL.REV.P. 50/2019 BEENA KUMARI & ORS versus MANOJ KUMAR ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Narang, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kr. Singh, Adv. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns judgment dated 04.12.2018 whereby the maintenance petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr. P.C. has been dismissed, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to establish that she had withdrawn from the society of the respondent for reasonable cause.2. Trial Court, in the impugned order has noticed that though the petitioner had taken a stand that she was subject to cruelty and had made several complaints to the police as well as Crime against Women Cell, no such complaint was placed on record. CRL. REV. P. 50/2019 Page 1 of 3 3.... Petition...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Deccan Charters Private Limited vs.sarita Tiwari
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. 02.2019 + W.P.(C) 3422/2014 M/S DECCAN CHARTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Praveen Kumar & Mr.Sameer Rai, Advs. versus SARITA TIWARI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rishi Jain, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL) C.M. No.3505/2016 (u/S17 of the ID Act) 1. The present application has been filed by the respondent/workman under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for a direction to the petitioner to pay her the wages last drawn by her from the date of the impugned Award i.e. 04.10.2012 to 02.07.2013 and thereafter from 01.01.2016 till the disposal of the present writ petition. However, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondent/applicant on 03.05.2018 wherein the respondent has categorically stated Page 1 of 3 W.P.(C) 34that she is now claiming the benefit of Section 17 B of the Act only from 01.01.2016.2. The...
Tag this Judgment!