Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 45 of about 750 results (0.022 seconds)Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited vs.drugs Controller General of India & A ...
Court: Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + W.P.(C) 38874/2018 9978/2018 Judgment delivered on:13. 02.2019 and CM APPL. 38873/2018 & M/S MICRO LABS LIMITED versus ........ Petitioner DRUGS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS WITH + W.P.(C) 10757/2018 and CM APPL. 41978/2018 & 41979/2018 INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED ........ Petitioner versus DRUGS CONTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS WITH + W.P.(C) 10936/2018 and CM APPL. 42605/2018 & 44745/2018 LUPIN LIMITED & ANR ........ Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS AND W.P.(C) 9978/2018 & other connected matters Page 1 of 24 + W.P.(C) 11278/2018 and CM APPL. 43787/2018 & 43788/2018 ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Sahadeva Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners: Ms Archana 9978/2018. Ms Bitika Sharma, Ms Namrita Kochhar and Ms Vrinda Pathak in W.P.(C) 10757/2018. Mr Gopal Jain, Senior Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.lok Nayak Hospital
Court: Delhi
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.127/2019 13th February, 2019 WELL PROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar ..... Appellant Nath, Advocate (M. No.9810162373), Ms. Shashwat Sagar, Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Advocate (M. No.9582099257) & Mr. Sushil Shukla, (M. No.9716801384) versus Advocate LOK NAYAK HOSPITAL ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.6650/2019 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.127/2019 Page 1 of 13 RFA No.127/2019 2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 08.10.2018 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 26,55,684.11/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff and in this suit, a declaration was also...
Tag this Judgment!Gail (India) Limited vs.jindal Saw Limited
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on:07. h February, 2019 Pronounced on:13. h February, 2019 + O.M.P. 410/2009 GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate Mr.Kaushik and Mr.Anupama Dhurve, Advocates. Laik versus JINDAL SAW LIMITED ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Arun Kumar Varma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Abhay Raj Varma and Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.1. The petitioner filed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) against an arbitral award dated 20.02.2009.2. The petitioner is a Limited Company duly constituted under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The factual matrix of the case leading to the filing of this petition are as follows:-"(i) on 06.05.2002 RFQ and Global Notice for Invitation of Bid (IFB) was issued by Gail in relation to a pipeline project (HBJ Upgradation Project) for supply of, inter al...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Vashisht & Others vs.state of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 13, 2019 CRL.M.C. 793/2019 & Crl.M.As. 3221-22/2019 VISHAL VASHISHT & OTHERS Through: Mr. D.Hasija, Advocate .....Petitioners Versus STATE OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Dr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Section 3IPC in FIR No.32/2011, registered at police station Rajinder Nagar, Central District, Delhi. Against the order on Charge, petitioner had preferred a Revision Petition, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order of 20th December, 2018 as time-barred.... Petitioners counsel assails the impugned order of 9th December, 2014 on the ground that it discloses utter non-application of mind and the stand of petitioners has not been considered. It is submitted that no case under Section 3IPC is made out and at best, the case made out against petitioner will come within the a...
Tag this Judgment!Samyak Projects Private Limited vs.ansal Housing & Construction Limite ...
Court: Delhi
+ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:13th February, 2019 % FAO(OS) 33/2019 & CAV No.130/2019 and CM. No.6506/2019 SAMYAK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Bhuraria, Ms. Neetika Bajaj, Ms. Prerna Kohli & Mr. Sunil Tyagi, Advs. versus ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Through: Mr. Neeraj Kr. Gupta, Adv. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.(ORAL) CM. No.6506/2019 (for exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CAV No.130/2019 Learned counsel for the caveator has put in appearance. Caveat stands discharged. FAO(OS) 33/2019 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated November 20, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA140312018 which is an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 8 FAO(OS) 33/2019 Page 1 of 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for shor...
Tag this Judgment!Narinder Kumar vs.state of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 13, 2019 CRL.M.C. 5745/2018 and CRL.M.A. 47314/2018 NARINDER KUMAR Through: Nemo. Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ Petitioner .....Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State Mr. Arun Vohra, Mr. Dilip Kumar and Mr. Pranay Mehta, Advocates for Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL)... Petitioner is accused No.2 in complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and upon his appearance before the trial court, he had pleaded guilty, and it is so recorded in the order of 9th February, 2018. However, lateron while taking plea of mental illness, petitioner had filed an application seeking withdrawal of his plea of guilt and the said application has been rejected by trial court vide impugned order of 5th May, 2018. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material on record, I find that the trial court has observed that the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Faqir Chand & Ors. Vs.nisha & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~SB-1 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA1852017 FAQIR CHAND & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advs. NISHA & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Through: None. Versus ........ RESPONDENTS % CM No.6815/2019 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ORDER1302.2019 2. The application is disposed of. Review Petition No.58/2019 & CM No.6814/2019 (for condonation of 106 days delay in filing for review) 3. Review of paras 3 to 9 of the order dated 20th September, 2018, though admitting this Second Appeal, but declining to frame substantial questions of law as proposed by the counsel for the appellants/review petitioners, is sought, after withdrawing SLP(C) No.32296/2018 preferred against the said order with liberty to file Review Petition before this Court.4. The counsel for the appellants/review petitioners, under his signatures, in para 2(i) of the Review Petition has pleaded what transpired in the hearing befor...
Tag this Judgment!Anzar Ali Alias Saddam vs.state of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~5 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:20. h Decemeber,2018 Judgment pronounced on:13. h February 2019 + CRL. A. 385/2016 ANZAR ALI alias SADDAM .... Appellant Through: Mr. M. M. Kashyap, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.12.2015 and order on sentence dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, North-East, District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Sessions case No.78/2012 in FIR No.156/2012 under Sections 302/498-A/304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) registered at Police Station Seelampur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/- for the offence punishable under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldeep Singh vs.the State & Anr
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 13, 2019 CRL.M.C. 812/2019 KULDEEP SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.P.S.Bhagel, Advocate versus THE STATE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public respondent-State Prosecutor for with SI Jivan Lal Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.A.3274/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 812/2019 Quashing of FIR No.290/16, under Sections 354/354A/354D/509 of IPC, registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 13th February, 2017. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court is the complainant/first informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by SI Jivan Lal, on the basis of identity proof produced by her. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the...
Tag this Judgment!Shivraj Naidu @ Sully vs.state Nct of Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 13, 2019 CRL.REV.P. 981/2018 SHIVRAJ NAIDU @ SULLY ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Robindra Tiwary, Advocate Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Impugned order of 23rd October, 2018 summons petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sectionsr/w Section 34 IPC and the charges against petitioner for the above said offences have been ordered to be framed by the trial court.... Petitioners counsel submits that till date charges have not been framed and without giving an opportunity to petitioner to cross-examine Santa Kumar (PW-1), Vijay Kumar (PW-2) and Shiv Balan (PW-3), petitioner has been erroneously summoned by the trial court. It is pointed out by petitioners counsel that these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so, they have been cross...
Tag this Judgment!