Delhi Court September 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.
M/S Gail (India) Ltd vs.m/s Rathi Special Steel Limited & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 440/2019 M/S GAIL (INDIA) LTD Date of decision:26. 09.2019 ........ Petitioner $~A-33 * % + Through: Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, Mr. Krishanu Adhikary, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocates M/S RATHI SPECIAL STEEL LIMITED & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS versus Through: Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JYOTI SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties pertaining to a long term Gas Sale Agreement (GSA) dated 31.08.2010.2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the GSA is valid till 30.04.2028 however, the respondent has unilaterally stopped off-taking Gas from 01.01.2014 which is illegal. She submits that as per clause 14.1 of the GSA, in respect of each contract year the respondent is liable to pay to the petitioner for t...
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Vs.kishore Kumar & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2019
$~8 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:26. 09.2019 MAC.APP. 438/2014 Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. ..... Appellant versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral) KISHORE KUMAR & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Partap Singh, Adv. for R-1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the 1. disability certificate, respondent no.1 had suffered enucleation of the right eye with 30% permanent visual disability, therefore, the functional disability should have been much less than 30% in relation to the whole body and in any case it should not have been considered at 50%, as the impugned order did.2. The Court is of the view that for assessment of functional disability, the nature of the injury and the extent of disability has to be seen. In the present case, the victim was a driver of a commercial vehicle. The appellant admits that the right eye of the claimant was enucleated i.e. the eye ball wa...
Rajesh Sabharwal vs.rajasavi Estate & Deveopers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EX.P. 88/2019 & EAs No.601/2019 (u/O XXI R-41 CPC) & 602/2019 (u/O XXI R-37 & 38 CPC) RAJESH SABHARWAL ..... Decree Holder Jain and Mr. Through: Mr. Fanish K. Deepanshu Garg, Advs. $~21 * + Versus RAJASAVI ESTATE & DEVEOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ..... Judgement Debtors ORDER2609.2019 Execution is sought of a money decree, by (i) arrest and detention in % 1. civil prison of judgment debtors (JDs) No.2&3; and, (ii) attachment of moveable and immoveable properties of the JDs to be disclosed by the JDs themselves under Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).2. Though the Registry of this Court put an objection, that the list of moveable and immovable properties had not been filed along with the Execution Petition, but the counsel for the decree holder (DH) insisted that the Execution Petition be listed; the Execution Petition has been listed subject to office objection.3. ...
Mr. Sunit Suri vs.sdu Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2019
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 177/2019 ASHEESH CHAUDHARY versus SUNIT SURI & ORS. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 264/2019 MR. SUNIT SURI versus SDU TRAVELS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Counsel for the petitioner: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS + + $~A-35 & 36 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. 09.2019 Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Surendra Dube, Mr. S. Chakraborty, Ms. Harshita Verma, Advocates (Item35) Mr. B.B. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Singh, Ms. Mayanka Dhawan, Mr. Pranav Gambhir, Advocates (Item36) Counsel for the respondent: Mr. B.B. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Singh, Ms. Mayanka Dhawan, Mr. Pranav Gambhir, Advocates Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate for respondent No.2, 3 and 4 Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Surendra Dube, Mr. S. Chakraborty, Ms. Harshita Verma, Advocates for respondent No.11(Item36) O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 177/2019 & 264/2019 Page 1 of 6 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JYOTI SINGH...
Shobha & Ors vs.satish Kumar & Ors (Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2019
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + MAC.APP. 718/2019 & CM APPL. 35981/2019 Decided on:26. 09.2019 SHOBHA & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate. versus SATISH KUMAR & ORS (IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD) Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for R-3. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.(Oral) 1. The award of compensation dated 23.04.2019 passed by the learned MACT in MACP No.76224/2016 is impugned on the ground that it has erred in not taking into consideration the relevant records. The appellant contends that PW-2- Naveen Gulia was an eye-witness, and his deposition clearly proved that he had seen the motor-vehicular accident. The impugned order discussed the evidence led by the claimant, inter alia, reads as under:-"12. Admittedly, Smt. Shobha, wife of deceased, was not an eye-witness to the accident. So far as the testimony of PW2/Naveen Gulia is concerned, he claimed himself to be the eye-witness to the ...
Principal Commissioner of Customs vs.ahamed Mujjaba Khaleefa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2019
$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h September, 2019 + CUSAA252019 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Mr. Aman Rewaria, Advs. versus AHAMED MUJJABA KHALEEFA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % ORDER2609.2019 D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) CUSAA252019 1. This appeal was admitted for the following substantial questions of law : i. Whether the Ld. CESTAT has failed to appreciate that the Commissioner, (Appeals) has relied upon evidences i.e. invoices/bills which were not produced at the time of investigation and adjudication proceedings ?. CUSAA252019 Page 1 of 10 failed the Ld. CESTAT to ii. Whether appreciate that the onus of proving that the goods are not smuggled falls under the ambit of Section 123 and accordingly the burden of proving the fact that the goods are not smuggled and have been purchased locally shall be o...
Naveen Jain vs.sushma Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2019
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:26. 09.2019 C.R.P. 135/2019 & CM APPL. 27649/2019 & 30032/2019 NAVEEN JAIN SUSHMA JAIN versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Khanna, Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, Mr.Akash Kedia and Ms.Aakriti Mittal , Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. M.P.Chaudhary, Advocate. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) C.R.P. 135/2019 & CM APPL. 27649/2019 (stay) 1.... Petitioner impugns order dated 22.03.2019 and 27.04.2019 whereby the objections to the execution filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC have been dismissed and consequently warrants of attachment issued.2. The only objection raised by the petitioner is that the cause title of the award is M/s.Mahavir Papers vs. M/s.Naveen Board Co & others and the legal status of M/s. Mahavir Papers has not been C.R.P. 135/2019 Page 1 of 4 mentioned an...
Rakesh Devi vs.state of Nct of Delhi & Anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2019
$~27 * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 4196/2017 Date of decision:26.09.2019 RAKESH DEVI Through: Mr. Dharamraj Ohlan, Adv. ........ Petitioner versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP for State with Inspector Akshay Kumar and SI Subhash Chandra, PS S.P. Badli Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT (ORAL) Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the accused/respondent No.2 in FIR No.549/2017 under Sections 304/3IPC, Police Station - S.P. Badli, granted vide order dated 18.09.2017 by the court of the learned A.S.J., Rohini, Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the crime scene has been recorded on the CCTV camera. As per the CCTV footage, the deceased husband of the petitioner/complainant had knocked on the gate of accused persons. The gate was opened by the co-accused mother of respondent No.2 and she star...
Raghbir Singh vs.state (Nct of Delhi) & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h September, 2019 TEST.CAS.51/2013 RAGHBIR SINGH ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Joginder Tuli and Ms. Joshini Tuli, Advs. with petitioner in person. Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Phool Kumar, Adv. for R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 This petition was filed seeking Letters of Administration on the basis of registered document dated 30th April, 2009, claimed to be the validly executed last Will of Chaudhary Ved Pal Singh son of Munshi Ram resident of 3345/222, Vishram Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi, in favour of the petitioner.2. Besides Govt. of NCT of Delhi, two sons of the deceased Chaudhary Ved Pal Singh namely P.K. Chaudary and Shiv Kumar were impleaded as respondents No.2&3 and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as respondent No.4.3. The petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued and citation ordered to be published.4. The two natural heirs of...
Master Shivam vs.vijay Pal Yadav & Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2019
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + MAC.APP. 1058/2017 MASTER SHIVAM Decided on:26. 09.2019 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Maini and Ms. Hreeshika Bhargava, Advocates. versus VIJAY PAL YADAV & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. P. Srinivasan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J.(Oral) 1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned MACT in DAR No.D-6on the ground that lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been awarded to the minor apropos the 12% disability with respect to whole body, caused due to a motor- vehicular accident.2. In the present case, the 11 year old child has suffered 12% permanent physical disability in his left lower limb. Keeping in view the extent of the disability and the dicta of Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2014) 14 SCC396 the learned Tribunal has right...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »