Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 42 of about 750 results (0.037 seconds)Dhl Express (P.) Ltd. Vs.m/s Enchante Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
* + % DHL EXPRESS (P.) LTD. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.113/2019 14th February, 2019 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh and Mr. K. Enatori Sema, Advocates (Mobile No.9958540003). versus M/S ENCHANTE JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent 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.5667/2019 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. Appl. Nos. 5666/2019 and 5668/2019 (for delays) 2. For the reasons stated in the applications the delays of 138 days in filing the appeal and 27 days in re-filing the appeal stand condoned, subject to just exceptions. RFA No.113/2019 Page 1 of 17 C.Ms. stand disposed of. RFA No.113/2019 3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 17.05.2018 by which the trial court has...
Tag this Judgment!State of Nct of Delhi vs.kailash & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 840/2019 Date of Order: February 14, 2019 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel with Inspector Sanjay and SI Omveer Dabas Versus KAILASH & ANR .....Respondents Through: Counsel (appearance not given) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Crl.M.A. 3376/2019 (Exemptions) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 840/2019 and CRL.M.A. 3375 (Stay) In FIR No.22/2019, under Section 21(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 trial court vide order of 6th February, 2019 has found that the Investigating Officer has not adhered to the dictum of Supreme Court in Arif Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2018 SCC Online SC459and so, the Commissioner of police has been called upon to appear before the trial court to apprise him about the conduct of the Investigating Officer. Vide subsequent order of 8th February, 2019, trial court has exempted the perso...
Tag this Judgment!Nitish Kumar vs.atul Kumar Singh & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~9 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:14. h February, 2019 FAO(OS) (COMM) 307/2018, C.M.Nos.53558-53559/2018 NITISH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Ranjit Kumar and Mr.P.D.Gupta, Senior Advocates with Mr.Abhinav Mukerji, Ms.Bihu Sharma and Mr.Abhishek Gupta, Advocates versus ATUL KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Atul Kumar Singh, Respondent no.1 in person. Mr.Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) C.M.53559/2018 (delay) 1. The present application has been filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal.2. There is no opposition to the prayer made in the application. Accordingly, the delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.3. The application stands disposed of. FAO(OS) (COMM) 307/2018, C.M.53558/2018 4. Challenge in this appeal is to order dated 08.10.20...
Tag this Judgment!Sansys Exim pvt.ltd vs.balprada Hotels & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. And Anr ...
Court: Delhi
$~CP-28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:14. 02.2019 + CO.PET. 616/2015 and CAs.2457-2458/2015 SANSYS EXIM PVT.LTD ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Rajendra Sahu, Adv. BALPRADA HOTELS & HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. AND ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Sumit Gehlawat and Mr.Abhishek Bhardwaj, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) This petition is filed under sections 433(e) & (f), 434 (l)(a), 434 (2) 1. and 439 (l)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for winding up of respondent No.1 company.2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 company approached the petitioner to provide and lay Italian/equivalent imported marble in flooring, dado, wall cladding and counter top etc. at Sector-56, Golf Course road, JMD Hilton Hotel, Gurgaon. Both the parties agreed to terms and conditions of the work order and accordingly various work orders were issued to the petitioner. It is also the case o...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Pandit vs.state of Nct of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:13. 02.2019 BAIL APPLN. 1471/2018 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1023/2018 SUSHIL PANDIT ........ Petitioner versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State. Mr.Talha Rahman, Adv. for R-2.... Petitioner in person. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1. Mr.Talha Rahman, Adv. enters appearance for the State of Jammu & Kashmir.2.... Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.49 of 2018 under Section 505 of the Ranbir Penal Code P.S. Pampore District Pulwama, Jammu & Kashmir.3. The allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner had uploaded a tweet on his twitter account which was alleged to be in contravention of Section 505 of the Ranbir Penal Code and BAIL APPLN. 1471/2018 Page 1 of 3 accordingly FIR was registered at the Pampore Police Station.4.... Petit...
Tag this Judgment!Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. Vs.m/s Volvo Holidays & Anr.
Court: Delhi
6 $~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 1275/2018 & I.A. 16760/2018 AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr. Raunaq Kamath with Ms. Kruttika Vijay and Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocates versus M/S VOLVO HOLIDAYS & ANR. Through: None. ..... Defendants Date of Decision:13. h February, 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, passing off, damages, delivery up, etc against the defendants. The prayer clause is reproduced hereinbelow:-"their partners, proprietors, (a) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, affiliates, franchisees, officers, servants, agents, distributors, representatives and anyone acting for or on their behalf from using the mark/name VOLVO HOLIDAYS with or without the Impugned Device or any mark/name or device similar to the Plaintiffs' trade mark/name VOLVO or the Volvo Iron Mark, including without i...
Tag this Judgment!The State (Gnct of Delhi) vs.shiv Raj Naidu @ Sulli & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 13, 2019 CRL.REV.P. 766/2018 THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor Versus SHIV RAJ NAIDU @ SULLI & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Robindra Tiwary, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Vide impugned order of 29th May, 2018, respondents herein have been discharged in FIR No.339/2017, under Sections 302/307/506/120B/147/148/149 IPC, registered at police station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi. It is a matter of record that respondents herein have been charge-sheeted for the offences in question with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. Trial court vide impugned order has not relied upon the statement of eye-witnesses, who have categorically stated that the respondents herein had enmity with the complainant and had threatened to get the complainant and his family implicated but in the opinion of trial court, element of criminal conspiracy by r...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen N. Shah vs.c.b.i.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 158/2019 PRAVEEN N.SHAH Date of Order: February 13, 2019 .....Appellant Through: Mr.Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhilash Mathur, Mr. Prashant Jain and Mr. Manyank Sharma, Advocates versus C.B.I. Through: Mr .Ashutosh Ghadi and Mr. Nikhil .....Respondent Goel, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Crl.M.A.3280/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.(BAIL) 285/2019 For the offence under Section 120B IPC, appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for period of two months and fine of 50,000/- with default clause and for the offence under Section 420 IPC, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of two months and fine of 2,20,00,000/- with default clause. Learned senior counsel for appellant seeks suspension of the sentence awarded to appellant by submitting that out of the total stock of 5,000 meteric tons of metal, appellant had lifted 200 tons of metal ...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Autocomponents Limited vs.energy Efficiency Services Limited & Anr ...
Court: Delhi
$~28 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 12/2019 & I.A.No.1957/2019 Date of Decision :13. h February, 2019 JAY AUTOCOMPONENTS LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ratan K. Singh, Mr.Suran Prakash and Ms.Mrinal Litoria, Advs. versus ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES LIMITED & ANR. Through: Mr.Sandarshi Sanjay, Adv. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia praying for the following reliefs: the respondent no.1 (a) restrain its agents, representatives, assignees, affiliates, any acquired company until the conclusion of the trial of this action or further order meanwhile from accepting any payment from the respondent No.2 under the Performance Bank Guarantee bearing number 003GT02181290028; and restrain the Respondent No.2, its agents, (b) representatives, assignees, affiliates, any acquired company until the conclusion of the t...
Tag this Judgment!Ujjval Constructions vs.larsen and Toubro Ltd.
Court: Delhi
$~O-10 & O-11 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:13. h February, 2019 + 10 CS(COMM) 538/2017 & O.A. 106/2018 & I.A. 11521/2018 SUNIL KUMAR Through: Mr.Vikas ..... Plaintiff Kumar, Mr.Aliya Durafshan and Mr.Manish Paliwal, Advocates Through: Mr.A.C. Mishra, Advocate ..... Defendant versus LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. + 11 UJJVAL CONSTRUCTIONS CS(COMM) 540/2017 & O.A. 105/2018 & I.A. 11519/2018 ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Vikas Kumar, Mr.Aliya Durafshan and Mr.Manish Paliwal, Advocates versus LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. Through: Mr.A.C. Mishra, Advocate ..... Defendant JUDGMENT (ORAL) I.A. 11519/2018 & I.A. 11521/2018 1. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. Both applications are disposed of. O.A. 106/2018 & O.A. 105/2018 2. The defendant has challenged the order dated 26th July, 2018, whereby the learned Joint Registrar has dismissed the defendants applications for condonation of delay in filing the written statements and has directed the CS(COMM) 538/2017 & CS(COM...
Tag this Judgment!