Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 20 of about 750 results (0.009 seconds)Hc (Min) Jai Prakash vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~50 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 9417/2017 HC (MIN) JAI PRAKASH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi and Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawah, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA % ORDER2102.2019 SANJEEV NARULA, J.:1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the decision of the... RESPONDENTS for not promoting the... Petitioner from the rank of HC (MIN) to ASI (MIN) in Border Security Force (BSF). Brief Facts 2. The... Petitioner was enrolled as direct entry HC (MIN) with BSF on 26th March 2011 as an OBC candidate. During the course of his service, his APAR has been assessed/graded by the... RESPONDENTS for the period from 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2016 as under: W.P.(C) 9417/2017 Page 1 of 13 S.No Period of Assessment Grading Remarks 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 01-04-2011 to 31-03-2012 Good 01-04-2012 to 31...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs.aerens Entertainment Zone Limited
Court: Delhi
$~CP-11 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. 02.2019 CO.PET. 482/2009 SURINDER SINGH MARWAH & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through Mr. Vivek Kohli, Ms.Prerna Kohli, Mr. Mudit Gupta and Ms. Yeshi Rinchhen, Advs. versus AERENS ENTERTAINMENT ZONE LIMITED..... Respondent Through Mr. Siddharth Bhatli and Ms.Lashita Dhingra, Advs. for the respondent. Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Jatin Sehgal, Ms.Devna Arora, Mr.Ashish Garg and Ms.Shriya Misra, Advs. for the applicant in CA No.1277/2018 Mr.Neeraj, Adv. for the applicants in CA Nos. 2917/2016, 3196/2016, 3198/2016, 3200/2016, 3199/2019. Mr.Aman Nandrajog, Adv. for Manasvi Securities Services. Mr.Suresh Dobhal and Mr.Saaransh Parashar, Advs. for Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Mr.Kunal Sharma, Adv. for the OL. Mr. Abhinav Garg, Adv. for the applicant in CA No.118/2017 Mr.Sahil Monga, Adv. for CA N. 8/2019. Mr.Jayant Mehta and Mr.Gursat Singh, Advs. for the applicant in CA No.1279/2018 Mr.Shivi Sanyan, Mr.Jappanpreet Hora, ...
Tag this Judgment!State (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi) vs.nitin
Court: Delhi
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 02.2019 CRL.REV.P. 588/2016 & Crl.M.A. 13717/2016 STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ........ Petitioner NITIN versus ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Sushil Sharma, PS Rajinder Nagar. For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Anand, Advocate with respondent in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns discharge order dated 31.03.2016 whereby the respondent, Nitin has been discharged of all the offences i.e. SectionsIndian Penal Code, 1860.2. Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of one Naresh Kumar alleging that there was a dispute between his family and the family of other accused, consequent to an altercation which took place and thereafter his father was assaulted. It is alleged that his father was suffering from a heart ailment and had undergone angioplasty a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Prasad Psycho Corporation & Anr. Vs.labour Department & Anr
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21. 02.2019 + W.P.(C) 8660/2016 & C.M. No.35636/2016 (for stay) M/S PRASAD PSYCHO CORPORATION & ANR........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Mukesh Rana, Mr.Mohit Singhal, Mr.Abhay & Ms.Mamta, Advs. versus LABOUR DEPARTMENT & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Pramod Kumar & Mr.Shavej Khan, Advs. for R-1. Mr.Rishu Kant Sharma, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners namely M/s. Prasad Psycho Corporation based in Delhi and M/s. Indian Institution of Psychology based in Noida have sought quashing of order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the competent authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) based on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2.2. The brief facts as emerge from the record and are necessary for adjudication of the present petition may be noted. The respondent no.2 Page 1 of 4 W.P.(C) 8660/2016 ...
Tag this Judgment!s.m. Bagley & Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs.m/s Iitl Nimbus, the Expre ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.119/2019 + % S.M. BAGLEY & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. & ORS21t February, 2019 ...... Appellants Through: Mr. Hem C. Vashisht, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Malik, Advocate (M. No.9811039867). M/S IITL NIMBUS, THE EXPRESS PARK VIEW versus ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.6258/2019(exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.119/2019 and C.M. Nos. 6256/2019 (under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC) & 6257/2019 (stay) RFA No.119/2019 Page 1 of 9 2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 26.11.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent/plaintiff on account of the respondent/plaintiff having paid the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to...
Tag this Judgment!Maninder Singh vs.state
Court: Delhi
* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 21, 2019 BAIL APPLN. 2442/2017 MANINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S.Chaggar and Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Advocates versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Dr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor with Inspector Kanchan Mr. Harpreet Singh Popli, Mr. Mukul Girdhar and Mr. Anuj Yadav, Advocates for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.184/2016 registered under Section 304B/34 of IPC at Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi while claiming to be innocent.2. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that Mandeep Kaur had committed suicide as she had a liaison with a boy, who was getting married, and she could not withstand it and had committed suicide. It is further submitted that there was no demand of dowry and so, no offence BAIL APPLN. 2442/2017 Page 1 of 3 under Section 304-B of IPC or Section 302...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavya Singh Naruka vs.university of Delhi and Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:21. t February, 2019 + W.P.(C) 7781/2018 & CM APPL. 32141/2018 % 1. BHAVYA SINGH NARUKA Through: Mr. Puneet Jain and ........ Petitioner Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advs. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Seema Dolo, Adv. for Mr. Amit Bansal, Adv. for University of Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) Arguments in this matter were heard in part on 13th February, 2019.2. The matter was listed, thereafter, on 15th February, 2019, when it was passed over for non-appearance of Respondent No.2, and could not be taken up on second call owing to paucity of time.3. The matter was again listed on 18th February, 2019, and was called out twice at the end of the Board. The order of the said date also discloses non-appearance on behalf of Respondent No.2.4. Today, again, Respondent No.1 and the petitioner are W.P.(C) 7781/2018 Page 1 of 15 represented and there is no appearance on ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Urvashi Aggarwal vs.shri Inder Paul Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
$~7. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CONT.CAS(C) 236/2014 SMT URVASHI AGGARWAL SHRI INDER PAUL AGGARWAL Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate with Mr. Kustubh Singh, Advocate Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI % ORDER2102.2019 C.M.No.7708/2018 (by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the reply to the review application) 1. This application has been filed by the non-applicant/petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 40 days in filing a reply to the review petition.2. Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent states that he does not wish to file a reply to the application.3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 40 days in filing the reply to the review petition is condoned.4. The application is disposed of. REVIEW PET. 472/2017 (by the respondent/review petitionist for review of the ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Cimmco Limited vs.pramod Krishna Agrawal
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.231/2013 + % M/S CIMMCO LIMITED Through: versus PRAMOD KRISHNA AGRAWAL Through:21. t February, 2019 Sh. Ashish Verma, Advocate. ..... Appellant ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 11.01.2013 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 11,48,532/- along with pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum.2. Out of the suit amount of Rs. 11,48,532/-, the principal amount is only a sum of Rs. 3,48,870/-, and the same becomes clear RFA No.231/2013 Page 1 of 4 from para 5 of the impugned judgment. Therefore, the difference of Rs. 11,48,532/- and Rs. 3,48,870/- is the claim towards pre-suit interest, which is a huge amount of ...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Singh Kochhar & Anr vs.gurpreet Singh Bindra & Ors
Court: Delhi
$~6 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 611/2016 ARJUN SINGH KOCHHAR & ANR Through: Mr. Salim A. Inamdar with ..... Plaintiffs Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Advs. versus GURPREET SINGH BINDRA & ORS Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan & Mr. Sarthak Mehrotra, Advs. ..... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % IA No.13280/2017(u/O.XII R-6 CPC) ORDER2102.2019 1. Though the suit is ripe for framing of issues but the counsel for the plaintiffs states that IA No.13280/2017 of the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is pending consideration.2. 3. The counsel for the plaintiffs has been heard on the said application. The counsel for the plaintiffs contends that it is not in dispute that the two plaintiffs as natural heirs of their deceased maternal grandmother Smt. Gurbir Kaur Bindra, would have a share in the flat, for partition of which the suit has been filed and the only plea of the defendants in para 2 of the written statement is of an oral family agreement and in...
Tag this Judgment!