Delhi Court February 2019 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2019 Page 51 of about 750 results (0.020 seconds)Sh. Rajesh Kumar @ Raju vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 12, 2019 CRL.M.C. 771/2019 and CRL.M.A. 3149/2019 SH. RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJU ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramendra Kumar and Mr. B. Karuna Karan, Advocates. Versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public for State with SI Prosecutor Pradeep Kumar Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate with Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.609/2015, under Sections 354-A/34 of IPC registered at police station Sagarpur, New Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavit of 5th December, 2018 of respondent No.2. 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 Pradeep Kumar, on the basis of identity proof produced by her. Respondent No.2 present in the Court, submits that the FIR in questio...
Tag this Judgment!K N vs.r G
Court: Delhi
$~10 * % + MAT.APP(F.C.) 93/2018 & CM APPL183172018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:12. 02.2019 K N R G ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arvind Kr Gupta, Mr. C Prakash, Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Mr. Manmohan Singh, Mr. Anuraj Tirthankar, Advocates versus Through: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Rosemary Raju, Ms. Aishwarya, Ms. Upasana Goel, Advocates ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JYOTI SINGH, J.(ORAL) MAT.APP(F.C.) 93/2018 1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Family Court whereby an application filed by the appellant/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as HMA) claiming interim maintenance of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month has been dismissed.2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.06.2012 at New Delhi as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of t...
Tag this Judgment!Sachin vs.rajneesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % SACHIN RFA No.118/2019 11th February, 2019 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rama Shankar, Advocate (Mobile No.9811214465). versus RAJNEESH KUMAR ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. Appl. No.6251/2019 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. Appl. No.6249/2019 (for delay) 2. For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal stands condoned, subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.118/2019 Page 1 of 6 RFA No.118/2019 and C.M. Appl. No.6250/2019 (for stay) 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 22.03.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXVII CPC on acco...
Tag this Judgment!Indo-Rama Synthetics India Ltd. Vs.iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. L ...
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :04. 09.2018 Pronounced on :11. 02.2019 CM No.16560/2015 in FAO (OS) 156/2015 INDO-RAMA SYNTHETICS INDIA LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Sh. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. with Sh. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms. Roohina Dua and Sh. Cheitanya Madan, Advs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .... Respondent versus Through: Sh. Saurav Agrawal with Sh. Trinath Tadakamalla, Sh. Ishaan Chhaya, Sh. Hitabhilash Mohanty, Sh. Aaryan Pareek and Ms. Rashi Goswami, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. M/s Indo Rama Synthetics Ltd (hereafter Indorama or the appellant) is aggrieved by the decision of a learned single judge who accepted the objections of the respondent-insurer (hereafter IFFCO Tokio or the insurer) against an award, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act).2. Brief facts of the present case are that the Indorama is a company...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ravi Agarwal vs.usha Kumar & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:11. h February, 2019 CS(OS) 575/2016, IA No.250/2017 DR. RAVI AGARWAL Through: Mr. S. Bhandari, Adv. ..... Plaintiff Versus USHA KUMAR & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Rohit Rattu, Adv. for D-1 to 3 along with Defendant nos. 1 to 3 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 On 18th December, 2018, the following order was passed in IA No.250/2017 of defendant nos. 1 to 3 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) in this suit: for The counsel the applicants/defendants states that 1. rejection is sought on the ground of this suit for partition being barred by res judicata. It is stated that the defendants No.1&2 had earlier filed CS(OS) No.315/2016 against the plaintiff and one Gopal Agarwal for recovery of possession of a portion of the said property and the said suit was disposed of as compromised vide order dated 12th August, 2016. The applicants/defendants have however not placed ...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Hussain vs.the State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi)
Court: Delhi
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:11. 02.2019 BAIL APPLN. 185/2019 ANWAR HUSSAIN ........ Petitioner versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Shamsher Ali and Mr. Mohd. Idrish, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Prateek Saxena, PS Jaitpur CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.319/2018 under Section 354- A/323/509/5IPC, Police Station Jaipur, Delhi.... Petitioner has been in custody since 30.04.2018.2. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner has misbehaved with the complainant when she had come to her mothers house. It is alleged that the petitioner had used abusive language and called her a whore and even offered her money in exchange for favour. When the mother of the complainant went to the house of the petitioner to speak to his m...
Tag this Judgment!The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs.padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
$~96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision :11. h February, 2019 + ITA No.140/2019 & CM No.6355/2019 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 .. Appellant Through : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel. PADMINI VNA MECHATRONICS PVT. LTD. ... Respondent versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN Through : None. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) 1. The Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A is aggrieved by the ITATs order, which had affirmed the Appellate Commissioners decision, setting aside a reassessment order.2. The substantial question of law raised is that the lower appellate authorities have returned unreasonable and perverse findings on merits. For Assessments Year 2008-09, reassessment notices were issued to the assessee, on the ground that the latter had made bogus purchases. The assessee manufactured various kinds of automobile parts and electronic parts. The precise complaint was that the two concerns, M/s Om Industr...
Tag this Judgment!S J vs.d C & Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:11. 02.2019 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 333/2018 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Anuj Jain, Advocate along with Appellant in person. versus S J % + D C & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Gurtinder Singh Gujral and Mr.Sandeep Vishnu, Advocates along with respondents in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Family Court on an application filed by the appellant-mother for grant of interim custody of her minor children, daughter about 08 years of age and son about 03 years of age. MAT.APP (F.C.) No.333/2018 Page 1 of 6 2. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are as under: (i) Marriage between the parties was solemnised on 23.01.2007. Two children were born out their wedlock. The parties resided together uptil 30.03.2018. It is the case of the appellant that p...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Pal Singh vs.uoi & Ors.
Court: Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:16. hJanuary , 2019 Pronounced on:11th February,2019 W.P.(C) 6222/2002 & CM No.10600/2002 SURENDRA PAL SINGH ........ Petitioner UOI & ORS. Through:... Petitioner in person. versus Through: Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Standing ........ RESPONDENTS Counsel. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J1 The... Petitioner, who superannuated from the services of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) inter-alia seeks a writ of mandamus for granting ante-dated promotion to the post of Assistant Security Officer (ASO) and consequential benefits arising therefrom. Factual Background 2. The writ petition has reference to several other writ petitions and it transpires that the... Petitioner has been engaging in litigation with the Respondent - RPF since 1975 and as yet there is no effective conclusion to his grievances. W.P.(C) 6222/2002 Page 1 of 21 3. The... Petitioner joined the RPF as Prosecuting Inspector in the...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Rajbir Singh vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
$~33. * + % W.P.(C) 1382/2019 SH. RAJBIR SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:11.02.2019 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. T.D. Yadav, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. N. K Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (the Tribunal) in O.A. No.4102/2012. The Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application preferred by the petitioner wherein he had assailed the charge memo dated 11.08.2004 issued to him, the Inquiry Report dated 25.03.2008, and the orders dated 10.10.2011and 15.10.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, subjecting him to punishment on account of the proven misconduct. W.P.(C.) No.1382/2019 P...
Tag this Judgment!