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.
Ntpc Ltd. Vs.m/s Raj Kishan & Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :8. h October, 2018 Date of decision :4. h February, 2019 + NTPC LTD. O.M.P. 329/2010 Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja and Ms. Laxmi Kumari, Advocates. (M:9810208494) ........ Petitioner versus M/S RAJ KISHAN & CO. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. D. Moitra, Advocate. (M:9971075019) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.JUDGMENT1 The present petition has been filed by NTPC Ltd. (hereinafter, NTPC) challenging Award dated 13th November, 2009 and correction order dated 22nd February, 2010. Another O.M.P. arising out of the same Award i.e. O.M.P. 320/2010 was dismissed vide order dated 12th September, 2012 by a Ld. Single Judge of this Court. An appeal was filed against the said judgment, which has been admitted and is pending before a Division Bench of this Court.2. NTPC awarded contract dated 21st March, 1989 for general civil works (GCW) 4 X210Mega Watt at NCPS Dadri District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP to the contractor - M/s. ...
Raman Kapoor vs.o.p. Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:08. 10.2018 Pronounced on:04. 02.2019 FAO (OS) 373/2011 RAMAN KAPOOR ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Joy Basu, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Sunil Magon, Sh. Abhinav and Sh. Kanak Bose, Advocates. Versus O.P. KAPOOR Through: Sh. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Rajender Agarwal, Advocate. ......... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % FACTS AND BACKGROUND1 In this appeal, the correctness of the learned single judges order dated 08.06.2011 is in question, in OMP No.245/2015 which was a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred as the Act). The award of the arbitral tribunal, was set aside by the learned single judge in the impugned judgment. The respondents had challenged an award dated 01.05.2005 of the sole arbitrator in the disputes between Raman Kapoor (hereafter referred as appellant) and O.P. Kapoor and...
Abhishek Mohatta vs.m/s Spack Engineers & Consultants and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % ABHISHEK MOHATTA RFA No.237/2007 4th February, 2019 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Advocate (M. No.9810103765). versus M/S SPACK ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the Judgment of the trial court dated 09.01.2007 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,70,000/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff by pleading that the respondent/defendant had taken a loan from the father of the appellant/plaintiff and respondents/defendants had confirmed the amount due vide Letter dated 31.03.2003 under the signatures of the respondent RFA No.237/2007 Page 1 of 3 No.2/defendant No.2 who was the partner of respondent No.1/defendant No.1, a partnership firm.2. The respondents/defendant...
Bkfc & Company Engineers & Contractor vs.commercial Engineers & Body B ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2019
$~17 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. (COMM) 53/2019 Date of Decision :4. h February, 2019 BKFC & COMPANY ENGINEERS & CONTRACTOR ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Mr.Kushagra Bansal, Mr.Aman Dhayani, Ms.Kanchan Semwal, Advs. versus COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS & BODY BUILDERS CO. LTD Through: Nemo ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) IA16462019 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. IA16472019(delay of 46 days in re-filing the petition) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned and the application stands allowed. OMP(Comm.) 53/2019 1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award OMP(Comm.) 53/2019 Page 1 dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the acceptance of tenders for...
Satya Prakash Gupta vs.lala Kanshi Ram Gupta and Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.94/2019 & RFA No.96/2019 * + % RFA No.94/2019 SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA4h February, 2019 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate (Mobile No.9810270876). versus LALA KANSHI RAM GUPTA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Kejriwal and Mr. Sujidt Keshri, Advocates (Mobile No.9811100909). Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocate for R-9 (A and B). RFA No.96/2019 RAGHUBAR DAYAL GARG AND ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate (Mobile No.9810270876). versus LALA KANSHI RAM GUPTA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS RFA No.94/2019 & RFA No.96/2019 page 1 of 24 Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Kejriwal and Mr. Sujidt Keshri, Advocates (Mobile No.9811100909). CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) RFA No.94/2019 CAVEAT No.103/2019 1. Since counsel for the caveator(s) has entered appearance, the caveat stands dischar...
Union of India vs.gagandeep Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 04, 2019 CRL.A. 294/2018 & CRL.M.A. 4513/2018 UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Dhruv Pande, Advocate Versus GAGANDEEP SINGH Through: Mr. Faraz Khan, Advocate ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.A.4514/2018 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.A. 4515/2018 (delay) There is delay of 38 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.M.A. 4512/2018 (delay) There is delay of 65 days in filing the accompanying appeal. Upon hearing, I find that averments made in the instant application CRL.A. 294/2018 Page 1 of 3 provide sufficient cause to condone the delay occasioned. The application is allowed and the delay stands condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.A. 294/2018 & CRL.M.A. 4513/2018 In proceedings under t...
Virender vs.krishna & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2019
$~32 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI VIRENDER Date of Order:04. 02.2019 C.R.P. No.30/2019 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunal Manav, Advocate. versus KRISHNA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % ORDER0402.2019 C.M. No.5231/2019 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.2. C.R.P. No.30/2019 & C.M. No.5230/2019 (stay) 3. The impugned order dated 24.11.2018 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (ADJ) dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment in the preliminary decree dated 21.03.2017 in Civil Suit No.7648/2016, is the subject matter of challenge in this revision petition. CRP No.30/2019 Page 1 of 5 4. The Civil Suit No.234/20(New No.607648/2016) for partition and permanent injunction in respect of the property in question was filed by three...
Ashok & Anr. Vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 04, 2019 CRL.M.C. 619/2019 ASHOK & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Dinesh Sah and Mr. Rajeev Rajan, Advocates STATE Versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Madan Lal CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Crl.M.A. 2548/2019 (Exemptions) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.A. 2549/2019 (delay) There is delay of 13 days in re-filing the accompanying petition. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 619/2019 and Crl.M.A. 2547/2019 (Stay)... Petitioners application seeking recall of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 stands dismissed vide trial courts order of 25th August, 2018. Counsel for petitioners submits that PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 are CRL. M.C. 619/2019 Page 1 of 3 material witnesses, who could not be cross examined as previous counsel of the accused persons/petitioners wa...
M P vs.a M
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2019
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 315/2018 & CM APPL. 50100/2018 Date of Judgment:04. 02.2019 M P Through Mr.Mimansak Bhardwaj, Advocate ..... Appellant alognwith father of the appellant versus Through Mr. Paranjay Chopra, Advocate ..... Respondent A M CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2018 1. passed by the Family court on an application under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 moved by father/respondent herein seeking interim custody of the minor child. The substantive petition under Section 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act is also pending and the same is being contested. The case set up by the respondent/father before the Family Court was that the custody of the child was removed forcibly from him on 16.04.2016 and child was brought to Delhi from Mumbai. It was highlighted that the child MAT. APP. (F.C.) 315/2018 Page ...
Uma Gupta & Ors. Vs.indu Gupta & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2019
$~7. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(OS) 63/2019 & IA No.1557/2019 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC). UMA GUPTA & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Ms. Sonakshi Singh and Mr. Rommel Khan, Advs. versus ..... Defendants Through: None. INDU GUPTA & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % ORDER0102.2019 IA No.1558/2019 (for exemption).1. 2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CS(OS) 63/2019 & IA No.1557/2019 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC).3. The four plaintiffs have sued the five defendants for partition of property no.B-33, Pushpanjali, Vikas Marg Extension, Delhi 110 092 comprising of ground floor, mezzanine floor, first floor and barsati with terrace above the first floor. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said property belonged to the father-in-law of the plaintiff no.1 and paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs no.2 to 4, who died leaving the plaintiffs and the defendants no.1 to 5 as his natural heirs.4. The plaintiff...
- ‹ Prev
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- Next ›
- Last »