Delhi Court August 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.
Inder Singh vs.sumitra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2019
$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 08.2019 CRL.REV.P. 774/2017 & Crl.M.A.17058-17059/2017 INDER SINGH SUMITRA versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : : Ms.Tanya Agarwal, Advocate Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) JUDGMENT1... Petitioner/husband impugns order dated 24.05.2017 whereby the Trial Court has assessed the monthly income of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as an ad- interim maintenance to the respondent/wife.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that on 25.02.2017 respondent had withdrawn application seeking interim maintenance and thus she was disentitled from receiving any maintenance. Learned counsel further submits that it is not the case of the Page 1 of 10 3. CRL.REV.P77...
Meenu vs.the State (n.c.t of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2019
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: August 05, 2019 CRL.M.C. 1465/2019 MEENU Through: Mr. Shamsher Ali & Mr. Chandan .....Petitioner Kumar, Advocates THE STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) & ANR. Versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Standing Counsel with Ms. Anjo Thomas & Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, Advocates for respondent No.2-BSES CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.53/2018, under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 registered at police station Mehrauli, New Delhi is sought in this petition on the basis of Settlement of 10th February, 2018 reached between the parties at Special Lok Adalat . Mr. Izhar Ahmad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and submits that the subject matter of this FIR stands amicably resolved between the parties in ...
Delhi Development Authority vs.m/s Ashok Kumar & Co
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2019
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:5. h August, 2019 + CM(M) 264/2017 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, Std. Counsel with Ms.Nazia Praveen, Advocate versus M/S ASHOK KUMAR & CO ..... Respondent Through: Mr.S.K.Jain, in person Proprietor of the respondent company. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J.(ORAL) % 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner Delhi Development Authority [hereinafter referred to as DDA]., against the order dated 24.08.2016, passed by ASCJ-CUM- JSCC-CUMCJ (South), Saket District Courts, Delhi in M.No.02/2013 by which the petitioners application under Section 144 and Order XXI read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC]. for restitution of the amounts paid to the respondent has been dismissed.2. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into a construction contract, which gave rise to certain disputes b...
Pankaj Kumar Sharma vs.union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * + W.P.(CRL) 3008/2018 & CRL.M.As. 33406/2018, 2262/2019 & 2271/2019 PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Varun Singh, Advocate with Mr. Lenin Raj K., Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Mr. Kamaldeep and Mr. P. Updendra Sai, Advocates for respondent No.1 and 2 with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Superintendent, Customs Patna. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL Reserved on : Date of Decision:05. h August, 2019 16th July, 2019 MANMOHAN, J: JUDGMENT1 Present petition has been filed by Pankaj Kumar Sharma challenging the legality and validity of the Preventive Detention order dated 9th April 2018 passed against him by Respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA) Page 1 of 25 W.P.(Crl.) 3008/2018 and all other proceedings emanat...
M/S Prabhakar Nirman vs.m/s Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2019
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on 29.11.2018 Judgment pronounced on 05.08.2019 + O.M.P. (COMM) 417/2017 & I.A. 13744/2017 1. M/S PRABHAKAR NIRMAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sahil Sethi with Mr. Shivam versus Sharma, Advs. M/S TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER Through: Mr. Shivram, Adv. ..... Respondent RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: This petition is preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as 1996 Act) to assail the award dated 8.8.2017 (impugned award). Sans unnecessary details, the following broad facts are required to be noticed to contextualize the background in which the impugned award has been assailed by the petitioner.2. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner i.e. M/s Prabhakar Nirman, would be referred to hereafter as PN while the respondent i.e. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd., would be referred to as TCIL. Likewise, the petitioner a...
Naresh Sharma @ Narender Sharma & Ors. Vs.state (Govt. Of Nct of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: August 05, 2019 + CRL.M.C. 3818/2019 NARESH SHARMA @ NARENDER SHARMA & ORS. Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar and Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Advocates .....Petitioners versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State with SI Sunny Kumar Respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 32733/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 3818/2019 Quashing of FIR No.1421/2014, under Sections 498-A/4of IPC, registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of compromise deed of 4th October, 2018. 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 Sunny Kumar on the basis of identity proof CRL.M.C. 3818/2019 P...
Santokh Singh vs.state
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2019
$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 08.2019 BAIL APPLN. 1880/2019 SANTOKH SINGH Versus STATE ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner : For the Respondent : Mr.J.S.Kushwaha, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP, Addl. PP for the State with ASI Joginder, P.S.Crime Branch. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner seeks extension of interim bail granted by order dated 05.07.2019. It is contended that the petitioner has undergone surgery on 03.08.2019 and has been called for review on 08.08.2019.2. 3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned APP for the State. The medical condition of the petitioner has been verified. A certificate issued by the Sant Parmanand hospital stating that petitioner has undergone surgery has been placed on record by the IO. The doctor has opined that petitioner requires three weeks bed rest post surgery. BAIL APPLN. 1...
Bharti Axa General Insurance Co Ltd. Vs.naresh Khanna & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:05.08.2019 MAC.APP. 707/2019 & CM Nos.35046-47/2019 BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate. ........ RESPONDENTS $~20 * % + CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.(Oral) 1. NARESH KHANNA & ORS. Through: Versus This appeal impugns the award of compensation on two grounds. Firstly, that the computation of loss of income is based on three Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 filed by the injured respondent. The ITRs of first two years show an income of Rs.2.27 lacs and Rs.2.97 lacs respectively, on which tax was paid. The third ITR shows an income of Rs.4,08,940/-. An Officer from the Income Tax Office was examined and he testified that the aforesaid three ITRs were correct.2. In the circumstances, the learned Tribunal found nothing to disregard the aforesaid ITRs. It rightly took into consideration the last ITR for the asse...
Super Engineering Works vs.ishwar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2019
$~55 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:05. h August, 2019 + W.P.(C) 6003/2008 1. SUPER ENGINEERING WORKS Through: Mr. D.R. Bhatia, Advocate. ........ Petitioner versus ISHWAR SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Arati Mahajan, Mr. Vidur Dwivedi and Ms. Swati Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court whereby Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim and the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged at the time of hearing that the respondent claims to have worked with the petitioner for a period of less than two years and he was drawing a salary of Rs.3,200/- per month, which is more than the minimum wages at the relevant time. It is submitted that the amount awarded by the Labour Court is on a higher side. It is further W.P.(C)6003/2008 Page 1 of 3 submitted th...
Bhagwan Das vs.the State & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2019
#9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:5. h August, 2019 W.P. (CRL) 2153/2019 BHAGWAN DAS versus THE STATE & ORS. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS : Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate. : Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal) with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate for State with Insp. Sanjay Kumar and SI Omkar Singh, PS Kishan Garh. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (OPEN COURT) 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, essentially, seeks a direction to respondent No.3 to 5, to handover the custody of the minor child, Darshana to the petitioner, who claims to be her father.2. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition, briefly encapsulated as follows: W.P. (CRL) 2153/2019 Page 1of 9 a. The petitioner is a former employee of the Indian Army and pres...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »