Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 26 of about 750 results (0.009 seconds)State (Nct of Delhi) vs.pawan Kumar
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:19. h February, 2019 CRL.L.P. 456/2016 STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ........ Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP Inspector PS Okhla Singh, for the State with Dara Industrial Area. versus PAWAN KUMAR Represented by: Mr. Anukalp Jain, Advocate ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A. No.13503/2016 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application delay of 197 days in filing the leave to appeal petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 456/2016 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 17th October 2015, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC, the State has preferred the present leave petition.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 16th September 2008, at about 5:36 P.M., DD No.26 regarding a road traffic accident was received and marked to HC Ami Chand. He alongwith Ct. K...
Tag this Judgment!Sikandar Lal Bhatia & Ors vs.sheila S. Kapoor
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.147/2019 + % SIKANDAR LAL BHATIA & ORS. 19th February, 2019 SHEILA S. KAPOOR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Advocate (M. No.9724243214). Versus Through: ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. Nos. 7728/2019 & 7730/2019 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M.s stand disposed of. RFA No.147/2019 and C.M. No.7729/2019 (stay) RFA No.147/2019 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 partition filed by the respondent/plaintiff with respect to property bearing No.C-1/22, Lajpat Nagar, Part-I, Delhi (hereinafter 'C-1/22') and thereby passing a preliminary decree of 1/3rd share ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohit Wadhwa and Ors. Vs.the Principal Aryabhatta College & Anr
Court: Delhi
$~20, 46, 48 and 53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h February, 2019 + W.P.(C) 8779/2018 & CM APPL. 33767/2018 W.P.(C) 8782/2018 & CM APPL. 33772/2018 W.P.(C) 12796/2018 & CM APPLs. 49667-49668/2018 W.P.(C) 9205/2018 & CM APPL. 8067/2019 MOHIT WADHWA AND ORS. MUSKAN GOEL AND ORS. MANIK GUPTA AND ORS. ADITYA KHURANA AND ANR .... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ratan K. Singh, Adv. with Ms. Sushila and Mr. M.P.Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashu Khurana, Adv. THE PRINCIPAL ARYABHATTA COLLEGE & ANR versus .... RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Adv. with Mr. Akash Yadav, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. with Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. for University of Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % W.P.(C) 8779/2018, W.P.(C) 12796/2018 & W.P.(C) 9205/2018 1. The petitioners in these cases are students pursuing various courses in the Aryabhatta College (Respondent No.1 herein and W.P.(C) 8779/2018 & connected matters Page 1 of 12 referred to, he...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Khattar vs.punjab National Bank and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~30. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:19. 02.2019 W.P.(C) 1697/2019 JAGDISH KHATTAR ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Ms. Jayashree S. Dasgupta and Ms. Swati Sharma and Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advs. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sartaj Singh, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) C.M. No.7764/2019 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1697/2019 & C.M. No.7763/2019 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the setting aside of the orders dated 29.01.2019 and 07.02.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in the Miscellaneous Appeal No.37/2019, preferred by the petitioner.3. The petitioner is arrayed as respondent No.2 in the Original W.P.(C.) No.1697/2019 Page 1 of 8 Application preferred by the creditor bank i.e. Punjab National Bank (PNB)....
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Unilever Limited vs.eureka Forbes Limited & Anr
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h February, 2019 CS(COMM) No.236/2018 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED .... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pallav Pandey, Mr. Pragalbh Bhardwaj and Mr. Toyesh Tiwari, Advs. versus .... Defendants CORAM: EUREKA FORBES LIMITED & ANR Through: Mr. S. M. Vivekanandh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The following issue framed on 30th September, 2008 and ordered to be treated as preliminary issue is for adjudication:-"1. Whether a suit for permanent is maintainable by one registered patentee against another registered patentee under the provisions of Patents Act, 1970?. OPD injunction 2. The counsel for the defendants and the senior counsel for the plaintiff have been heard.3. The plaintiff has sued the defendants for injunction restraining infringement of Patent No.IN19831 of the plaintiff in relation to a water purifier and for ancillary reliefs of delivery, rendition of accounts and recovery ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil @ Andla vs.state
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:19. 02.2019 BAIL APPLN. 248/2019 ANIL @ ANDLA STATE versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Kapil Lalwani, Mr. S.K. Pandey and Mr. Devender Sakya, Advs. For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with W/SI Madhavi Bist CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.961/2014 under Section 323/363/376(D)/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi.2. As per the case of the prosecution, subject FIR was registered on the complaint of a girl aged 16 years, who contended that while she was on the way from her tuition classes in the evening, she was called by one of her friends to a park near railway lines. When she went to the park another friend joined subsequently. BAIL APPLN. 248/2019 Page 1 of 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority vs.m/s Inspriration Dealers Pvt Ltd & Ors
Court: Delhi
+ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h February, 2019 % LPA372018 & CM. Nos. 3759/2018, 3760/2018, 3761/2018 and 48781/2018 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant versus M/S INSPRIRATION DEALERS PVT LTD & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS AND + AND + AND + AND + LPA382018 & CM. Nos. 3843/2018, 3844/2018 and 3845/2018 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant versus ASHULOK TRADERS PVT LTD & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS LPA392018 & CM. Nos. 3846/2018, 3847/2018 and 3848/2018 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY M/S JEEVAN JYOTI ENTERPRIESE PVT LTD & ORS versus ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS LPA402018 & CM. Nos. 3855/2018, 3856/2018, 3857/2018, 49752/2018 and 50126/2018 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant versus M/S SUMERMAL PATWARIY TRUST & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS LPA412018 & CM. No.3858/2018, 3859/2018 and 3860/2018 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ..... Appellant LPA372018 & connected matters Page 1 of 10 HUM LOG TRADERS PVT LTD & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS...
Tag this Judgment!Sarita Saxena vs.south Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
+ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h February, 2019 % LPA1182017, CM Nos. 6015/2017 & 6017/2017 SARITA SAXENA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv. with Mr. Hemant Kumar, Ms. Vandita and Ms. Sakhi Jain, Advs. versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (SDMC) & ANR. Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Mr. Sharaf, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Chirag Sharma, Mr. Pratish Goel and Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advs. for SDMC LPA3322017, CM No.16850/2017 M/S SHASHVAT ADVERTISING PVT LTD Through: Mr. Syed Anis Nizami, Adv. ..... Appellant Versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. with ........ RESPONDENTS Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Sharaf, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Chirag Sharma and Mr. Pratish Goel, Advs. for SDMC Mr. Ajjay Aroraa and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for NDMC. AND + LPA1182017 and connected matter. Page 1 of 4 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V. KAMESW...
Tag this Judgment!Paramjeet Singh vs.jasbir Kaur
Court: Delhi
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:19. 02.2019 CRL.REV.P. 689/2017 & CRL.M.A. 15127/2017 PARAMJEET SINGH versus JASBIR KAUR ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Narendra Kalra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Adab Singh Kapoor, Adv. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns order dated 16.05.2017 whereby interim maintenance has been fixed at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month. By order dated 14.11.2017, 50% of the arrears of maintenance were stayed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been paying maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month in terms of the orders of this Court, however, for the months of January and February, 2019 payment has not been made. CRL.REV.P.689/2017 Page 1 of 3 3. He further submits that the petitioner has lost his job on 01.02.2019 and accordingly he has ap...
Tag this Judgment!Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs.additional Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:19. h February, 2019 + W.P.(C) 11511/2016 IHHR HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. Through: Mr.Mayank Nagi, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Standing Counsel CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) % 1. The assessee challenges a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of an assessment completed for A.Y. 2011-2012 complaining that the Revenue/respondent exceeded the liberty granted by the statute, and that invocation of power was not based upon any fresh or tangible material but re-appreciation of the existing material which was available in the course of the original scrutiny assessment.2. The assessee is into the hospitality business. During the relevant assessment year it had filed a return on 30.09.2011 declaring 76,94,77,310/- as losses. Its case was selected for ...
Tag this Judgment!