Delhi Court March 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.
Delton Cables Ltd. Vs.department of Telecommunications
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :11. h February, 2019 Date of decision :14th March, 2019 + O.M.P. (COMM) 194/2016 DELTON CABLES LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Advocate with Mr. Nitinjay and Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocates (M:98107. 8121). versus DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Yadav and Mr. Arun Sanwal, Advocates for MTNL. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Advocate for R- 3(M:88002. 7326). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.JUDGMENT1 The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the Act) challenges the impugned award dated 14th February, 2007 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator rejecting the claims of Delton Cable Limited (hereinafter Delton) against the DG, DOT and MTNL.2. The brief background of the petition is that the Department of Telecommunications (hereinafter DOT) issued notice inviting tenders bearing tender num...
Cta Apparels Pvt Ltd vs.govt of Nct of Delhi Collector of Stamps
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:14. 03.2019 + W.P.(C) 3587/2018 & CM No.42241/2018 CTA APPARELS PVT LTD ........ Petitioner Versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI COLLECTOR OF STAMPS .... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent :Mr Suhail Dutt, Sr. Advocate with Mr Divij Kumar and Mr Rohit Jolly. :Mr Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel GNCTD with Ms Nikita Goyal. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 16.03.2018 (hereafter the impugned order), passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, rejecting the petitioners appeal preferred under Section 47A(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter the Stamp Act).2. The controversy involved in the present petition relates to the quantum of stamp duty payable on the sale deed in respect of a property admeasuring 1100 sq. yards bearin...
National Highways Authority of India vs.pune Sholapur Road Development ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:23. 01.2019 Date of Decision :14. 03.2019 O.M.P. (COMM) 128/2018 & I.A. No.3857/2018 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Keshav Mohan, Mr.Rishi K.Awasthi and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advs. versus + PUNE SHOLAPUR ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Laik, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA1 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 dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Concession Agreement dated 30.09.2009 executed between the parties for the work of Design, Engineering, Construction, Development, Finance, Operation and Maintenance of 4 laning of Pune Solapur Section of NH 9 ...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs.c.m.i & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2019
$~ * + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :11. h February, 2019 Date of decision :14. h March, 2019 O.M.P. (COMM) 134/2016 CMI LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Gupta, Mr. K.R. Gupta and Mr. Harsh Tayal, Advocates for C.M.I. (M:98100. 5583). versus MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD & ANR....... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Yadav and Mr. Arun Sanwal, Advocates for MTNL. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. ........ Petitioner O.M.P. (COMM) 198/2016 AND Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Yadav and Mr. Arun, Advocates. versus C.M.I & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S. K. Gupta, Mr. K.R. Gupta and Mr. Harsh Tayal, Advocates for C.M.I. (M:98100. 5583). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.JUDGMENT1 The present petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, the Act) have been filed challenging the impugned award dated 2nd December, 2010. The dispute ari...
M/S Shiv Shakti Enterprises vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2019
$~5 * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 902/2018 M/S SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISES Through Ms. Seema Singh, Adv. Date of Decision:14. 3.2019 ........ Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL) Notice in this petition was issued on 19.12.2018. 1.1 On that date, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari accepted notice for the respondents.2. It was made clear that if the counsel for respondents receive instructions to resist the petition, a reply will be filed before the next date of hearing.3. 4. To be noted, no reply has been filed. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that this Court vide order dated 11.1.2017 passed in ARB.P. No.696/2016, passed an order to the effect that respondent no.1/UOI will appoint a named Arbitrator as the sole Arbitrator.5. Pertinently, the petitioner at that point in time waived the applicability of the provisions of Section ...
The State Govt. Of Nct of Delhi vs.shaukender
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2019
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:14. 03.2019 CRL.REV.P. 822/2016 & Crl. M.A. 19927/2016 THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ........ Petitioner versus SHAUKENDER ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Adv. For the Respondent : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner State impugns order on charge dated 13.07.2016 whereby respondent has been discharged of the offences under Section 354 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) read with Sections 7 & 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO for short).2. The allegations in the FIR are that the prosecutrix along with her sister had gone to V3S Mall where there was a game zone by the name of Haunted House. In the Haunted House, it was pitch dark and nothing was visible. It is alleged that one person held the foot of the CRL.REV.P8222016 Page 1 of 3 sister of the...
Dr. Praveen Kumar Bhati & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Order: March 14, 2019 CRL.M.C. 1387/2019 & Crl.M.A. 5539/2019 DR. PRAVEEN KUMAR BHATI & ORS. Through: Ms. Sunita Bansal & Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocates. .....Petitioners Versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor with Inspector Satyabir Singh. Mr. Gyan Mitra, Advocate with Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.294/2015, under Sections 498-A/4of IPC, registered at police station Anand Vihar, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 18th April, 2018 reached between the parties. Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-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 Inspector Satyabir Singh on the basis of identity proof produced by her. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that terms...
Satish Sharma vs.state & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2019
$~4 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"14th March, 2019 Crl.M.C. 3727/2016 & Crl. M.A. 15596/2016, 20060/2016 SATISH SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. versus STATE & ORS. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. K.S. Ahuja, APP for the State with ASI Omvir Singh, PS CAW Cell. Mr. Manoj Chaudhary, Adv. for R-2 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. Amit Sharma, son of the petitioner, was married to Pooja Kaushik on 01.02.2013. The marriage having run into rough weather, Pooja Kaushik statedly left the matrimonial home on 11.01.2014. She eventually lodged first information report (FIR) No.125/2014 dated 03.04.2013, with police station Pul Prahlad Pur, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/3of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), against the members of the matrimonial family, including the petitioner and his son Amit Sharma. In the wake of the said FIR, the petitioner had moved the Court of Sessions for anticipatory bail,...
Commissioner of Police and Anr. Vs.ravinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:14. 03.2019 $~07. * + % W.P.(C) 5458/2015 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD and Mr.G.C. Shyamsundar, Advocate versus RAVINDER KUMAR Through: Mr.Gopesh Tripathi, Advocate ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) 1. Commissioner of Police has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 25.2.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.3733/2012. The Tribunal has held that the respondent was entitled to one mark on account of the fact that one of the questions framed in the examination was confusing, and the answer given to the same by the respondent was the more appropriate one than the model answer. The question related to the maximum sentence which could be awarded under the Public Gambling Act. The Tribunal noted that there are two Acts, namely The Public Gambling Act, 18...
R K Jain vs.the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:14. h March, 2019 W.P.(CRL) 1383/2018 and Crl.M.A. No.8410/2018 (stay) R K JAIN ........ Petitioner Represented by:... Petitioner in person. versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Jamal Akhtar and Mr. Amanpreet Singh, Advocates with Insp. Satyabir Singh, SI Dhananjay Dubey. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks following prayers:-"a) Issue a writ of Mandamus thereby directing the ld. CMM (E) Ms Shivali Sharma at Karkardooma District Courts, for: (i) Summoning the material witness PW-9 and conducting evidence/allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the said witness as per prescribed Criminal Procedure and Indian Evidence Act, (ii) Following the pronouncements of superior courts which bind the trial court, including those specifically relied upon, thereby expeditiously W.P.(CRL) 1383/2018 Page 1 of 5 concluding th...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »