Delhi Court April 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.
Govind Yadav & Ors. Vs.state n.c.t. Of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2019
$~11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:3. d April, 2019 + CRL.A. 587/2002 GOVIND YADAV & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Sangam Singh, Advocate versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with SI Reena, PS Paschim Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. By judgment dated 29.07.2002 in Sessions Case No.87/1998, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) held the appellants guilty and convicted on charge for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The trial had been held on the basis of charges for offences punishable under Sections 3IPC, Section 498-A/34 IPC and Section 4IPC, the case also involving two others, namely, Kavita and Varsha as accused. By the aforementioned judgment, the trial court held that charges under Section 3IPC and sections 4IPC had not been proved. It was also held that the prosecution had failed to prove the complicity of ...
Swami Sharan vs.smt. Sivani Sharan & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2019
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:03. 04.2019 CRL.REV.P. 661/2016 SWAMI SHARAN versus SMT SIVANI SHARAN & ANR ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: Mr.Jatin Rajput, Adv. with petitioner in person. For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr.Zishaan Iskandari, Amicus Curiae with respondent in person. : JUDGMENT0304.2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner-Husband impugns order dated 31.05.2016 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner to verify the address of the petitioner has been dismissed.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition as admittedly the respondent is the resident of Noida and petitioner is also resident of CRL.REV.P.661/2016 Page 1 of 4 Noida and no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction o...
Vikas Kumar vs.union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3372/2019 VIKAS KUMAR $~41 * Date of decision:03. 04.2019 ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Vikram Hegde, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj & Mr.Prateek Rai, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby directing the respondent to consider the petitioner as a OBC-NCL candidate. Consequently, to allocate the petitioner to an appropriate service by considering him an OBC-NCL candidate.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an OBC candidate and appeared in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Services Commission. He qualified in the said examination and obtained the rank of WP (C) 3372/2019 Page 1 of 5 829, however, could normally have been allocated a post in the Indian Revenue Service if considered as an OBC candidate. He is being denied an allotment of servi...
Intel Corp. Vs.c. L. Dhingra and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2019
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:3. d April, 2019 + CS (COMM) 467/2018 INTEL CORP. Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Himani Makkad and Ms. Payal Kalhan, Advocates. (M:9717517630) ..... Plaintiff versus C. L. DHINGRA AND ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Gaurav Miglani and Mr. Anand Raj, Advocates. (M:9871304455) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. The present suit is listed before the Court after conclusion of evidence. Matter has been heard on behalf of both the counsels. The present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts, etc., has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking protection of the mark INTEL.2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants are using the name Intel Cable Industries as the name of their firm. Knowledge about the business of the Defendants was acquired by the Plaintiff sometime in January, 2002, and thereafter, the Plaintiffs counsel ...
M/S a G Enviro Infra Projects Pvt Ltd vs.ravi Kumar & Ors ( the New In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2019
$-12 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:03. 04.2019 MAC.APP. 739/2018 and CM APPL. 33081/2018 M/S A G ENVIRO INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Dhirander Mathur, Advocate versus RAVI KUMAR & ORS ( THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.D.K. Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA JUDGMENT A.K. CHAWLA, J.(ORAL) By the instant appeal, the appellant, who is the owner of the insured 1. vehicle, i.e. truck bearing No.DL-1M5783(for short, offending vehicle), assails the finding returned by the tribunal, whereunder, the liability to pay the compensation awarded on account of motor accident, has come to be fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e. the appellant. Since the issue agitated in the appeal is limited and hinges on the plea that the driving licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle was not valid or he had possessed a valid licence, the other facts giving rise to the filing of ...
Bhushan Lal Rajpal vs.govt. Of Nct Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:03. 04.2019 + W.P.(C) 2409/2015 MANOJ KUMAR AND ANR. Versus GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners For the... RESPONDENTS + W.P.(C) 5767/2015 AND :Mr Puneet Taneja, Ms Laxmi Kumari, Advocates. :Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mrs K.K. Kiran, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr M.S. Akhter, Advocates for R-2/ADM/LAC/ GNCTD. Mr Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate with Mr Shushant Tripathi, ALO of R-4/DMRC. Ms Manika Tripathy Pandey, Mr Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates for DDA. RAMESH KUMAR GOEL & ORS. Versus GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. ........ Petitioners ........ RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioners :Mr Puneet Taneja, Ms Laxmi Kumari, Advocates. W.P.(C) Nos. 2409/2015 & Other connected matters Page 1 of 15 For the... RESPONDENTS + W.P.(C) 5779/20Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mrs K.K. Kiran, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr M.S. Akhter, Advocates for ...
Sh. Pankaj Gandhi & Anr. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: April 03, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 1758/2019 SH. PANKAJ GANDHI & ANR. Through: Mr. M.R. Chanchal, Advocate .....Petitioners versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.S.Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Rahul Kumar Mr. Yogesh Gaur and Mr. Deepak Gautam, Advoctes with respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.A.7049/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 1758/2019 Quashing of FIR No.302/2010, under Sections 498-A/406/5of IPC, registered at police station Shakarpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of mediated settlement of 18th November, 2011 (Annexure P3 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 CRL.M.C. 1758/2019 Page 1 of 3 identified to be so, by SI ...
Monu Kumari vs.staff Selection Commission and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2019
$~6 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:03. 04.2019 W.P.(C) No.925/2017 MONU KUMARI ..... PETITIONER Through Mr.Rishi Vohra, Adv. versus STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS. ..RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Mohit Bhardwaj, Adv. with Mr.Raja Pandit, Adv. or R-1 to 3. Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr.G.C. Shyamsundar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI VIPIN SANGHI, J (ORAL) 1. The present petition assails the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal) in OA No.3809/2013. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application preferred by the petitioner, wherein she had assailed Note II in para 10(D) of the advertisement issued for the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police & Central Armed Police Forces, Assistant Sub-Inspectors in Central Industrial Security Force, and Intelligence Officers in Narcotics Control Bureau (Recruitment Advertise...
Nisha Saifi vs.mohd. Shahid
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2019
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:03. 04.2019 CRL.REV.P. 237/2015 NISHA SAIFI MOHD SHAHID versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Rai Sharma and Mr. Sanjeet, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Ahif Ojha, Adv. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns order dated 25.02.2015 whereby interim maintenance of Rs. 4000/- has been awarded to the petitioner besides grant of Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses.2.... Petitioner seeks enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has also erred in awarding maintenance from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. Learned counsel submits that in case the directions are issued for payment of maintenance from the date of the application, petitioner shall not press her p...
Pooja Garg (Minor) vs.union of India & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2019
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:3. d April, 2019 + W.P.(C) 7535/2018 POOJA GARG (MINOR) ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Batra, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC for UOI with Mr. Hari Shankar Shrama, Adv. Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % 1. The grievance of the petitioner, in this writ petition, was that, JUDGEMENT (ORAL) thought she was eligible for being admitted to the Commerce Stream in Class-XI in the Kendriya Vidyalaya , Dwarka Sec-5, where she had undertaken her Class-X, the Respondent No.2/ Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dwarka, Sec-5 (hereinafter referred to as the KVS) illegally denied her admission to the Commerce Stream in Class-XI and admitted her to the Arts Stream.2. The KVS, in its counter affidavit, has stated that the cut-off percentage for admission to the Commerce Stream in Class-XI was 55%, which the petitioner did not score. W.P.(C) 7535/2018 P...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »