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.
Urmil vs.gaurav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on:30. h January, 2019 Pronounced on:06. h February, 2019 + RC.REV. 33/2019 & CM APPL No.2702/2019 URMIL ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.Shailesh Kapoor, Ms.Suruchi Mr.Devashish and Thapar Marwah, Advocates versus GAURAV ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.K.Gahalot, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J.1. This revision challenges the impugned order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge- Rent Controller(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter Trial Court) in Eviction Petition E- 77318/2016 titled Gaurav vs Urmil filed by the landlord/respondent herein against the tenant/petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act).2. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner and passed an eviction order in respect of one shop on ground floor of property bearing No.8777, Shidipura, Karol...
Suraj Prakash Ratra & Anr. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2019
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 1873/2017, Crl.M.A.7659/2017 SURAJ PRAKASH RATRA & ANR Through: Mr. L.S.Solanki & Date of Order: February 06, 2019 .....Petitioners Ms. Anu Solanki, Advocates Versus STATE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for State with SI Sikander Gautam, PS Sarita Vihar. Mr. Pravin Sharma, Advocate for R-2 CRL.M.C. 1880/2017, Crl.M.A.7688/2017 ATUL KUMAR RATRA Through: Mr. L.S.Solanki & .....Petitioner Ms. Anu Solanki, Advocates Versus STATE & ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for State with SI Sikander Gautam, PS Sarita Vihar. Mr. Pravin Sharma, Advocate for R-2 ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of charge sheet filed in FIR No.265/2012, under Sections 498A/4of IPC registered at police station Sarita Vihar, Delhi and withdrawal of look out circular (LOC) issued against petitioners is sought. In the above captioned second petition, complainants husband makes a similar prayer. Since...
Satendra & Ors vs.state of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2019
$~15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"06th February, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 2390/2018 and Crl. M.A. 8508/2018 SATENDRA & ORS ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Harish Pant and Mr. Mohindra Kumar, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Jitender Kumar Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 29.11.2008. A daughter named Kirti took birth out of the said wedlock. On 24.03.2013, the second respondent lodged first information report (FIR) no.under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of police station Welcome Colony, against her husband (first petitioner), his father (second petitioner) and his mother (third petitioner). Crl. M.C. No.2390/2018 Page 1 of 8 2. It appears the second respondent h...
Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs.rinku
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:5thFebruary,2019 + MAC.APP. 930/2017 1. NARESH KUMAR (REGISTERED OWNER) S/o Satya Pal Gupta 2. PARMOD KUMAR (DRIVER) S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh... APPELLANTSThrough: Mr. Anuj Soni, Advocate. versus RINKU S/o Sh. Vishun Pal ... Respondent Through: Mr. J.P. Singh, Advocate with Mr. Baljeet Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA I. S. MEHTA, J.JUDGMENT1 The appellants have challenged the impugned award dated 11.09.2017 in MACT Case No.2passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as the Tribunal) awarding Rs.4,86,518/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization in favour of claimant by the appellants. MAC.APP. 930/2017 Page 1 of 7 2. The brief facts stated are that injured Rinku stopped his motorcycle bearing No.DL-5S-AL-0810 at 5th Pusta red light main road, Usman Pur, Delhi on 30.04.2015 at about 4 PM. One S...
Pradeep Kumar vs.state of Gnct (Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:5. h February, 2019 CRL.L.P. 100/2019 PRADEEP KUMAR Represented by: Mr. S.N. Pandey and Ms. ........ Petitioner Ananya Roy, Advocates versus STATE OF GNCT (DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondent Represented by: Ashok Kr. Garg, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.2602/2019 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Crl.M.A. No.2601/2019 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the application delay of 20 days in filing the leave to appeal petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 100/2019 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 12th October 2018, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the petitioner/complainant has preferred the present leave petition.2. Facts of the present case as per the complaint are that the petitioner knows respondent no.2 through his ...
Vipul Gupta vs.m/s Japan Estate Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2019
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 646/2017, CRL.M.A.-. 27Date of Order: February 05, 2019 VIPUL GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Mudit Jain, Ms. Barkha Rastogi, Mr. Shailesh Pandey, Mr. Ayush Jindal, Mr. Khurram Salim & Ms. Shephali Ailawadi, Advocates. versus M/S JAPAN ESTATE PVT LTD Through: Mr. Arun Vohra, Advocate. .....Respondent CRL.M.C. 1323/2017, CRL.M.A.-5339-5340/2017 HARENDRA SINGH KHOKHAR Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal with .....Petitioner Mr. Mudit Jain, Ms. Barkha Rastogi, Mr. Shailesh Pandey, Mr. Ayush Jindal, Mr. Khurram Salim & Ms. Shephali Ailawadi, Advocates. versus M/S JAPNA ESTATE PVT LTD Through: Mr. Arun Vohra, Advocate. .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Since the above captioned petitions arise out of one complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short NI CRL.M.C. 646/2017 & CRL.M.C. 1323/2017 Page 1 of 4 Act), therefore with the consent of learned counsel for ...
Irfan vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2019
$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 02.2019 CRL.REV.P. 127/2019 IRFAN STATE versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Archit Upadhayay, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State. SI Shiv Singh, PS Saket. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) Crl.M.A.2235/2019 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.A.2234/2019 (for condonation of delay) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was incarcerated, the petition was filed through jail, on account of which, the delay took place. He further submits that the petitioner did not have resources to appoint a private counsel and petition has been filed through legal aid. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the 2. CRL.REV.P. 127/2019 Page 1 of 9 averments in the application, she does not oppose condon...
M/S Gauri Shankar Educational Trust & Ors. Vs.m/s Religare Finvest Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI OMP (COMM) No.57/2019 + % M/S GAURI SHANKAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST & ORS. 5th February, 2019 ........ Petitioners Through: Ms. Jasmine Damkewala and versus M/S RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. Through: Ms. Prabjot Kaur, Advocates (9818311929) ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) I.A. No.1766/2019 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. I.A stands disposed of. I.A. Nos. 1767/2019 (delay in filing) & 1768/2019 (delay in re- filing) 2. For the reasons stated in the applications, delays in filing and re-filing are condoned. I.As stand disposed of. OMP (COMM) No.57/2019 Page 1 of 16 OMP(COMM) 57/2019 & I.A. No.1765/2019 (stay) 3. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'The Act'), filed by the respondents in the arbitration proceedings, impugning the ex parte Award of the Arbitration Tribunal dated 0...
Navneet Singh & Ors. Vs.state (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 05, 2019 CRL.M.C. 630/2019 NAVNEET SINGH & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vishal Balecha, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.P.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with ASI Ram Lakhan Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 2617/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 630/2019 Quashing of FIR No.145/2011, under Sections 420/406/120B of IPC, registered at police station Roop Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of trial court order of 18th December, 2018 (Annexure P-7) and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and he has been CRL.M.C. 6...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs.sony Mobile Communications
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2019
$~41 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :5. h February, 2019 ITA1232019 & CM Nos.5324-25/2019 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Through : Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Adv. ..... Appellant versus SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Nageswar Rao, Mr.Sandeep S. Karhail and Mr. Parth, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred as ITAT) and impugns it in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred as Act). It is urged that the ITAT fell into error in reversing the order of the Assessing Officer, who confirmed the transfer pricing analysis by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in respect of the respondent-assessees international transactions reported for the assessment years.2. The facts are that the assessee filed its income tax returns on 30.09.2008 decla...
- ‹ Prev
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- Next ›
- Last »