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.
Tilak Raj Jain vs.mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8859/2011 & CM No.35029/2018 Date of decision:18. h September 2019 SARITA GUPTA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal and Mr. Karan Setiya, Advocates. MCD ..... Respondent versus Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Kalra, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Siddharth Panda, LAC. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. K.K.Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S.Akhtar, Advocates for R-LAC/GNCTD (L&B). + W.P.(C) 8867/2011 & CM Nos. 35100-101/2018, 49735/2018 PUSHPA DEVI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal and Mr. Karan Setiya, Advocates. MCD ..... Respondent versus Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Kalra, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Siddharth Panda, LAC. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. K.K.Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S.Akhtar, Advocates for R-LAC/GNCTD (L&B). + W.P.(C) 1601/2012 & CM No.49734/2018 TILAK RAJ JAIN W.P.(C) No.8859/2011 & connected matters ........ Petitioner page 1 of 65 Thr...
Ramesh Kumar Chaudhary vs.krishan Kumar Tyagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2019
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:18. 09.2019 RC.REV. 412/2019 & CM APPL. 30981/2019 RAMESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY KRISHAN KUMAR TYAGI versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sidhant Chopra, Mr. Vineet Kumar, Mr. Navneet Thakran, Ms.Bhagya and Ms.Komal, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr.Arvind Chaudhary, Adv. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns order dated 14.07.2016, whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed.2. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition on the ground of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of the petitioner from Shop No.1 situated on the ground floor of property No.WZ-150, Central Market, RC.REV.412/2019 Page 1 of 3 Budhella, Vikas Puri, New ...
Raj Singh & Anr. Vs.state & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 851/2001 & CRL. A.01/2002 Reserved on Date of Decision :23. 08.20 18.09.2019 IN THE MATTER OF: CRL.A. 851/2001 RAJ SINGH & ANR. STATE Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, Advocate ..... Appellants with appellants in person Versus Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State with Insp. Pradeep Kumar, P.S. Naraina. ..... Respondent AND CRL.A. 1/2002 MAHINDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate with appellants in person STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI Versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State with Insp. Pradeep Kumar, P.S. Naraina. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.1. The above appeals are taken up together and disposed of vide this common judgment as both the appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment dated 11.10.2001 and order on sentence dated 31.10.2001 CRL A8512001 & CRL. A.01/2002 Page 1 of 24 arising out of FIR No.registered under Sect...
Shanti Devi & Anr vs.hari Om & Ors (Reliance General Ins Co Ltd)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2019
$~12 * % + MAC.APP. 765/2018 SHANTI DEVI & ANR Decided on:18. 09.2019 ..... Appellants IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate. versus HARI OM & ORS (RELIANCE GENERAL INS CO LTD) ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. A.K. Soni and Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocates for insurance company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral) The appellant seeks enhancement of the award of compensation dated 1. 19.03.2018 passed by the learned MACT in MACP No.5656/2016 on the ground that the deceased albeit a minor i.e. 17 years and 8 months old at the time of his demise, was a matriculate. At about 4:00 a.m. in the morning of 21.02.2015 after finishing his work, the deceased was returning home alongwith his other co-workers when he met with the accident, in front of Fisrat Farm House. He was a matriculate, therefore, the minimum wages applicable to a matriculate ought to have been applied. MAC.APP. 765-2018 Page 1 of 3 2. The deceased being a matriculat...
Union of India and Ors. Vs.shri Shiv Ram Singh Naulakha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2019
$~10 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment :18. h September, 2019 + W.P.(C) 8051/2018 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Mr.A.S.Singh and Mr.Amit Sinha, Advts. versus CORAM: SHRI SHIV RAM SINGH NAULAKHA Through: Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate. ..... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. The present petition is directed against the order passed on 04.05.2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), by which the O.A. filed by the respondent herein stands allowed.2. Some facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that the respondent was appointed as Postal Assistant on 01.04.1963. The respondent superannuated on 30.11.2003 from the post of Sub-Postmaster. Post his retirement, the respondent settled at Mathura which admittedly is not a Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) covered city. Based on the representations made b...
Vinod Kohli & Anr. Vs.aman Deep Singh Gandhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2019
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:18. 09.2019 RC.REV. 78/2019 & CM APPL. 6277/2019 VINOD KOHLI & ANR AMAN DEEP SINGH GANDHI versus ........ Petitioners ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner: Mr.Jai Sahai Endlaw, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sumit Ahuja, Mr.Sachin Jain and Ms. Divya Kapoor, Advocates. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner impugns order dated 30.07.2018, whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed.2. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition on the ground of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of the petitioner from one Shop bearing No.4/5203-B, Ground floor, Krishan Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- RC.REV.78/2019 Page 1 of 3 110005, more particularly as shown in red colour in t...
Madan Mohan Wadhawan vs.state (Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2019
$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. 09.2019 + CRL.M.C. 4627/2019 and CRL.M.A. 35812/2019 MADAN MOHAN WADHAWAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Paruthi, Mr. Sachin Kumar, Mr. Aakash Dubey and Ms. Tanushi, Advs. versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for State with SHO V.K.P.S. Yadav, SI Rajesh Kumar (IO) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner prays for setting aside and modification of orders dated 20.07.2019 and 09.08.2019 and the order issuing NBW in FIR No.175/2017 in Cr. Case No.3919/2018 against the petitioner. He further prays for setting aside the order of forfeiture of the surety and for restoration of the surety bond earlier submitted by the petitioner to its original number.2. Pursuant to the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by this Court, SHO V.K.P.S. Yadav is present today in Court with relevant documents. CRL.M.C.4627/2019 Page 1 of 3 ...
State vs.tanveer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2019
$~28 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.L.P. 187/2017 STATE ........ Petitioner Through SI Satish Singh, P.S. Mayur Vihar. versus TANVEER Through ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1809.2019 VIBHU BAKHRU, J The State has filed the present application seeking leave to 1. appeal against a judgment dated 24.09.2016 (hereafter the impugned judgment), whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offences under Sections 398/3of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Trial Court held that there were glaring discrepancies and inherent improbabilities in the testimony of PW-2 and thus, it held the same to be unreliable. The Trial Court held that the investigating agency failed to procure enough evidence to convict the accused. Another reason enunciated by the Trial Court was that there was an inexplicable delay in filing of the FIR. Moreover, a copy of the relevant DD (DD No.6- A dated 15.10.2013) was also not placed on record. The complainant (who was e...
Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta vs.m/s. Hythro Power Corporation Ltd & Ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:18. h September, 2019 CS(OS) 304/2017 SH. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA ..... Plaintiff Represented by: Mr.Avinash Kapoor, Advocate. versus ..... Defendants M/S HYTHRO POWER CORPORATION LTD & ORS Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.(ORAL) I.A. 5811/2018 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CS(OS) 304/2017 1. By this suit under Order XXXVII CPC the plaintiff seeks a decree of recovery of a sum of 11,12,49,455/- from the defendants along with the interest pendente-lite and future besides cost.2. Summons in the suit were issued to defendant No.1 in the prescribed performa under Order XXXVII CPC on 30th November, 2017 returnable for 22nd January, 2018 when the office report indicated that the defendant No.1 was unserved as the premises was sealed. Plaintiff despite efforts could not trace the fresh address of defendant No.1 and hence filed an application seeking service of defendant No.1 thro...
Sarita Gupta vs.mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8859/2011 & CM No.35029/2018 Date of decision:18. h September 2019 SARITA GUPTA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal and Mr. Karan Setiya, Advocates. MCD ..... Respondent versus Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Kalra, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Siddharth Panda, LAC. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. K.K.Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S.Akhtar, Advocates for R-LAC/GNCTD (L&B). + W.P.(C) 8867/2011 & CM Nos. 35100-101/2018, 49735/2018 PUSHPA DEVI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal and Mr. Karan Setiya, Advocates. MCD ..... Respondent versus Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Kalra, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Siddharth Panda, LAC. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. K.K.Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S.Akhtar, Advocates for R-LAC/GNCTD (L&B). + W.P.(C) 1601/2012 & CM No.49734/2018 TILAK RAJ JAIN W.P.(C) No.8859/2011 & connected matters ........ Petitioner page 1 of 65 Thr...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »