Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Swarup Group of Industries & Anr. Vs.national Agricultural Co Operativ ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :18. 02.2019 Pronounced on :28. 02.2019 FAO (OS)(COMM) No.26/2019 SWARUP GROUP OF INDUSTRIES & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Mohit Chaudhary & Ms.Garima Sharma, Advocates versus NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act) challenges the dismissal of its petition in the present appeal, under Section 37.2. The award, dated 31-12-2013 directed the appellant to pay to the claimant (hereafter NAFED) a sum of `92,88,46,688/-. The award reads as follows:"1. During the meetings held on 29th June, 2012 and 9th October, 2012, Mr. Guruswarup Srivastava (Respondent No.2 and owner of Respondent No.1) appearing before the Tribunal ad...
Gaurav Manchanda vs.namrata Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2019
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 02.2019 CRL. REV. P. 343/2018 & Crl. M.A. 7320/2018 GAURAV MANCHANDA versus NAMRATA SINGH ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Bajaj, Adv. with petitioner in person. For the Respondent: Mr. Varun Chawla, Adv. with Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns judgment dated 08.03.2018 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner impugning order dated 01.12.2017 was dismissed.2. Trial court by order dated 01.12.2017 disposed of the application filed by the respondent under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short DV Act) and awarded maintenance to the respondent (petitioner before the trial court) of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- for the minor daughter.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has ...
M S vs.m
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2019
$~30 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:27. 02.2019 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 59/2019 M S Through: Mr. Satpal Malik & Mr. S.K. Gulati, ..... Appellant M versus Through: Advocates ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Family Court on an application filed by the respondent/wife under Section of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as HMA) whereby the Family Court has fixed maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month for the wife and her two children, who are in the care and custody of the respondent.2. The necessary facts to be noticed for the disposal of the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.02.2000 at Dehradun as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two sons were born out of the said wedlock on 09.12.2000 and 21.08.2004 and are staying in the care and custody of the respondent at D...
Softdesule Private Limited vs.the Union of India and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2019
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11047/2017 & CM No.45210/2017 SOFTDESULE PRIVATE LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr Ashish Aggarwal, Ms Gurkamal Hora Arora and Ms Sanyogita Jatin, Advocates. versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr Saurabh Tiwari, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER2702.2019 VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Central Government rejecting the petitioners review application preferred under paragraph 12 of the Drugs Price Control Order, 1995 (hereafter the DPCO). The Central Government (Reviewing Authority) had rejected the review petition on the ground that the said petition is not maintainable against any overcharging order under paragraph 13 of the DPCO, as it proceeded on the basis that the demand order dated 11.05.2017, which was impugned by the petitioner in the s...
In the Matter of M/S Mayur Syntex Ltd. Vs...........
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2019
$~CP-44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CO.PET. 169/1992 Date of decision:27. 02.2019 IN THE MATTER OF M/S MAYUR SYNTEX LTD......... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Adv. for IDBI Bank Ltd. Mr.Abhishek Puri and Mr. Yasharth Misra, Advs. for Ghaziabad Ispat Udyog, Advs. for the applicant in CA No.1834/2011 Mr.Rajesh Raina, Adv. for UPSIDC with Mr.Ajay Deep Singh, Regional Manager, Suraj Pur, UPSIDC and Mr.C.P. Verma, Official form UPSIDC Ms.Anam Ahmad, Adv. Manchanda, Adv. for OL Mr.B.L. Wali, Adv. for Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for Mr.Rishi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) CA No.1834/2011 1. This application is filed by the applicant-M/s.Ghaziabad Ispat Udyog Ltd. for initiation of contempt proceedings for committing contempt of the orders of this court dated 18.08.2010.2. The background facts are that this court had directed auction of the assets of the respondent Company-M/s.Mayur Syntex Ltd. On 15.09.2005, M/s. Chaudhary & Sons (Forgoing)...
Rakhee Sen vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2019
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 02.2019 BAIL APPLN. 447/2019 RAKHEE SEN STATE versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr.Rajiv Mohan, Mr.Abhimanyu Kampani, Mr.Tejasva Mehra, Mr.M.A.Karthik and Mr.Samarth Theotia, Advs. For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.99/2018 under Sections 174A of the IPC, Police Station Chitranjan Park, Delhi.2. The allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner failed to appear before the trial court after having been enlarged on bail in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court noticed that petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender not only in the subject case but in three other cases and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C were pending against the petiti...
Suresh vs.state (Govt of Nct of Delhi) & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 27, 2019 CRL.M.C. 1149/2019 SURESH Through: Mr. Anil Garg, Advocate ........ Petitioner Versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State with ASI Rajesh Kumar... RESPONDENTS No.2 & 3 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.288/2005, under Section 363 IPC, registered at police station Ashok Vihar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Affidavits of respondents No.2 & 3. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State submits that respondents No.2 & 3, are present in the Court and they have been identified to be so, by ASI Rajesh Kumar on the basis of identity proof produced by them. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, supports the stand taken by her in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and respondent No.3 submits that the misunderstanding, which led to registr...
The New India Assuracne Company Ltd vs.kusum & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2019
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment dated:27. ht February, 2019 CM(M) 1311/2017, CM APPL. 4082/2019 & CM APPL. 42116- 42117/2017 THE NEW INDIA ASSURACNE COMPANY LTD ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Parveen Kumar Mendiratta, versus Advocate KUSUM & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Jatinder Kamra, Advocate for R-1 to R-5 & R-7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA I.S.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The appellant has preferred the present petition against the impugned order dated 16.10.2017, passed by the learned tribunal.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned tribunal vide impugned order dated 16.10.2017 has wrongly closed the right of the petitioner to examine the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. He further submits that he wants to examine them as a witness. CM (M) 1311/2017 Page 1 of 2 3. Learned counsel for the claimants opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the driver and owner of the offending vehi...
Mrs. Nancy Panagat & Anr. Vs.state &Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI TEST. CAS. 78/2017 Date of Decision:27. 02.2019 $~OS-18 * % + MRS. NANCY PANAGAT & ANR. ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.A.P. Vinod, Advocate. STATE &ANR versus Through Ms. Barnali Basak, Adv for R1 ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners have filed this present petition under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act seeking grant of probate in favour of the petitioners with respect to the will dated 03.10.2012 which was executed by Late Sh. Raphael Thanjan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who has expired on 10.01.2016 at New Delhi.2. It has been averred in the petition that the two petitioners and respondent No.2 are the daughters of the deceased and only surviving legal heirs of the deceased.3. Notice was issued by this court on 10.01.2018 and was served on respondent No.1/ State on 19.02.2018 and Respondent No.2 on 13.06.2018. Valuation Report with respect to the property of the deceas...
Gian Chand Tuteja vs.union of India& Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:27. 02.2019 + W.P.(C) 8195/2008 GIAN CHAND TUTEJA versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioners: Mr S.N. Kalra, Ms Divya Sharma, Mr Lalit Gupta, and the petitioner in person. For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC, Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj and Mr JatinTeotia CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The controversy involved in the present petition relates to an additional strip of land, admeasuring approximately 100sq.yd. (hereafter the Additional Land), located adjacent to the property bearing No.7, Ram Puri Colony, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 (hereafter the Property). The petitioner has occupied this additional strip of land and has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the same be regularized in his favour. W.P.(C) No.8195/2008 Page 1 of 7 2. Further, the petitioner impugns a communication dated 07....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »