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.
Kanwal Kishore vs.dr Seema
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2019
$~5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:-"29th April, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 4436/2016 KANWAL KISHORE ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.G.K.Chauhan, Advocate, alongwith petitioner in person. versus Through: Respondent in person. ..... Respondent DR SEEMA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner and the respondent were married to each other on 09.03.1998. From out of their cohabitation two daughters took birth, the first named Kiran born on 25.03.1999 and the other named Rishika born on 15.10.2004. The parties had some differences, the respondent (wife) accusing the petitioner (the husband) of certain acts of commission and omission statedly constituting cruelty and domestic violence. It appears that the petitioner also had his own set of grievances against the respondent wife, he accusing her of subjecting him to cruelty.2. Against the above backdrop, the respondent wife filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act...
State (Nct of Delhi) vs.jitender Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2019
#J-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On:11. 03.2019 Judgment Delivered On:29. 04.2019 CRL.L.P5892018 STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ......... Petitioner versus JITENDER SHARMA ...... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with SI Sandeep, PS- Begumpur, Inspector Suman Kumari, Community Policing Cell, Outer District : Mr. Manu Sharma, Ms. Mahima Wahi and Mr. Kartik Khanna, Advocates CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.1. There can be no manner of doubt that a conviction for committing penetrative sexual assault can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. [Ref: State (GNCT Of Delhi) vs. Vicky @ Karan & Anr. reported as 2019 (1) JCC322 State (GNCT Of Delhi) vs. Kuldeep @ Kallu CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 1 of 12 & Anr. reported as 2019 (1) JCC298(Del); Boby vs. State, Crl.A11192014; Vishnu (alias) Undrya vs. State of Mahar...
Medical Council of India vs.sangeeta Sharma and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on:22. 02.2019 29.04.2019 % + W.P.(C) 10451/ 2017 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA .Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate along with Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Puja Sarkar, Mr. Tarun Verma, Ms. Biakthansangi Das, Ms. Amandeep Kaur and Mr.Abhijit, Advocates. versus SANGEETA SHARMA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Ms. Vriti Anand and Ms. Surabhi Dhar, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC and Mr.Waize Ali Noor, Advocate for respondent No.2/ UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as MCI) has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 09.11.2017 passed W.P.(C) 10451/ 2017 Page 1 of 22 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No.1256/ 2012 preferred by respondent 1- Sangeeta Sharma...
Ram Kumar vs.delhi Development Authority and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. h April, 2019 Pronounced on:29. h April, 2019 + W.P.(C) 4902/2018 & CM APPLs.4903/2019, 4904/2019 % 1. RAM KUMAR ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Adv. with Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, SSC for DDA with Mr. Dhanesh Relan, SC, Mr. Sumit Mishra, Ms. Komal Sorout and Mr. Rajiv Jha, Advs. Mr. P.S. Singh, Sr. Panel counsel with Mr. Rajpal Singh, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT The petitioner, whose land was compulsorily acquired, in 1992, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Land Acquisition Act), is, as per the information stated to be available on the website of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), being allotted an alternative plot in Narela. Prior thereto, however, the petitioner had, in 1992 itself, been paid W.P. (C) 4902/2018 Page 1 of 65...
Ram Brij Sagar & Anr vs.the State & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 1677/2019 RAM BRIJ SAGAR & ANR Date of Order: March 29, 2019 .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Manish Kr. Pratihast & Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocates THE STATE & ANR Versus .....Respondents + Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI RajuYadav Mr. Shourya Garg, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.1598/2004, under Sections 102/103/104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 and Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 registered at police station Sultan Puri, Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement agreement of 20th October, 2018 (Annexure-B) reached between the parties. Mr. Shourya Garg, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and submits that he has instructions to state that settlement agreement of 20th October, 2018 (Annexure-B) has been fully acted upon and there is no objection to quash the FIR in question and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in que...
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs.royal and Sun Alliances It So ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2019
$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:29. h April, 2019 + ITA4222019 & CM APPL. 19849/2019 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Std. Counsel. ..... Appellant versus ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCES IT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Tapas Ram Misra, Adv. ..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) % 1. The Revenues appeal under Section 260A complains that the ITAT fell into error in setting aside the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation (7). It is contended that the assessee had in its Transfer Pricing Report furnished for the purpose of ALP determination to the TPO, showed that the arithmetic mean of the profit margin of the comparable was at 13.41% only. However, the assessee offered the amount lower than that, on the basis of its actual income to the profit margin. The TPO rejected it and in the report brought all the transactions t...
Yogesh vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2019
$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:29. 04.2019 BAIL APPLN. 1050/2019 YOGESH STATE versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Mr. Sumit Singh and Ms. Pratistha Dobhal, Advs. Mr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with SI Gajender with ASI Rajesh CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.456/2018 under Sections 3of the IPC at Police Station Bawana (Rohini).2. Learned Addl. PP, under instructions from the Investigating Officer submits that petitioner has already been declared a Proclaimed Person under Section 82 Cr. P.C. and as such cannot be admitted to anticipatory bail.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings smack of arbitrariness. He submits that there was a fight BAIL APPLN. 1050/2019 Page 1 of 3 which had taken placed in whi...
M/S Paridhi Udyog vs.jagdev Raj Sarwan Ram Dhiman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Reserved on:3. d April, 2019 Pronounced on:29th April, 2019 CS (COMM) 313/2018 M/S PARIDHI UDYOG ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Umesh Mishra, Adv. JAGDEV RAJ SARWAN RAM DHIMAN versus ..... Defendant Through: Ms. RajdipaBehura, Advocate with Mr. PhilomonKani and Ms. Kirti Handa, Advocates JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J1 The present suit concerns Plaintiff's intellectual property rights in its registered trademark AADHAR SHREE [label].. Case of the Plaintiff 2. Plaintiff, a partnership firm is the registered proprietor of the trademark AADHAR SHREE (Label) in Class 19. The firm is manufacturing and marketing Plaster of Paris and Plaster Sheets bearing Trademark AADHAR SHREE. Plaintiff adopted and conceived the said mark in the year 2005 and has been using the same since then. It is claimed by the... Petitioner that the goods bearing the afore-noted trade mark have acquired distinctiveness, substantial goodwill and reputation amongst the consumers bec...
Laxmi Narayan & Ors. Vs.state & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: April 29, 2019 CRL.M.C. 2237/2019 & CRL.M.A. 8943/2019 LAXMI NARAYAN & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Nimmi Sharma, Advocate. Versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Prem Yadav. Ms. Manju Datt, Advocate with Respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.412/2016, under Sections 406/498-A/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Nangloi, New Delhi is sought on the basis of Compromise Deed of 17th August, 2018 (Annexure B) 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 SI Prem Yadav on the basis of identity proof produced by her. Crl.M.C. 2237/2019 Page 1 of 3 Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submit...
Dr. Deepak Juneja vs.central Information Commission and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: April 08, 2019 Judgment delivered on: April 29, 2019 + W.P.(C) 11489/2016, CM No.2470/2018 DR. DEEPAK JUNEJA Through: Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. with petitioner in person. ........ Petitioner versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, SC with Ms. Nazia Parveen, Advs. for DDA ........ RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J CM No.2470/2018 This is an application filed by the Delhi Development Authority seeking condonation of 120 days delay in filing the counter affidavit. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 120 days in filing the counter affidavit is condoned and the same is taken on record. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 11489/2016 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner W.P.(C) No.11489/2016 Page 1 of 17 challenging the order dated March 08, 2016 passed by the Central Information Commission (in short CIC) whereby...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »