Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:11. h May, 2017 Decided on:31. t May, 2017 CRL.M.C. 1777/2011 and Crl. M.A. No.6391/2011 (Stay) PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. Represented by: Mr. Lalit Kumar Jha, Advocate. ........ Petitioners versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with SI Bharat, PS Civil Lines. Mr. S.P. Jha, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 A complaint case was filed by respondent No.2 as proprietor of M/s. Tridev Construction & Consultants against the two petitioners and one S.K. Agarwal alleging that on 8th May, 2006 the University had floated a tender vide a newspaper advertisement for the purpose of renovation of toilets of SES Jawahar Lal Nehru University. The complainant had participated in the tender and thereafter an agreement was entered into between the parties. However later he was informed by a corrigendum dated 28th February, 2007 that the rebate q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: May 30, 2017 Judgment reserved on: January 30, 2017 + W.P.(C) 494/2013 + W.P.(C) 616/2013 + W.P.(C) 1174/2013 and CM Nos. 28932/2016 and 19213/2014 THE HINDU EDUCATIONAL TRUST THE INDRAPRASTHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST DAULAT RAM COLLEGE SOCIETY, DELHI AND ANR ........ Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Manu Seshadri, Mr. Ishan Bisht and Ms. Sahiba versus Ahluwalia, Advs. (in W.P.(C) 494/2013 & 1174/2013) Mr. G.K. Mishra, Adv. (in W.P.(C) 616/2013) UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Ms. Simran Jeet, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 As the reliefs prayed for in all these writ petitions being the same with more or less identical facts, the same are being disposed of by this common order / judgment. Suffice to state the primary prayer in these petitions is for quashing of Executive Council Resolution W.P.(C) 494/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:18. 05.2017 $~10. * + % LPA5482016 C L KHANNA (RETD) ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Mr.Himanshu Gautam & Mr. Rishabh Garg, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Senior Central Govt. Counsel with Dr. G.L. Bhatia, G.P. and Ms. Prativarani Varma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC respondent/ UOI. Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocates for respondent No.2. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal & Ms.Disha Malhotra, Advocates for respondent No.3/ DU. Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Advocate for respondent No.4/ UGC. for LPA5482016 Page 1 of 16 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA VIPIN SANGHI, J.(OPEN COURT) C.M. No.47649/2016 1. This application has been preferred by the applicant/ Sh. G.L. Bhatia, Advocate to mark his appearance in the order dated 07.10.2016.2. For the reasons stated in the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:16.05.2017 ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS + O.M.P. (COMM) 22/2016 SUDHIR GOPI Versus INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY AND ANR. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU : : Mr Ashish Dholakia with Mr D. Kishore, Mr Gautam Bajaj, Ms Raji Joseph and Mr N. P. Rakesh. Mr Aly Mirza for Respondent No.1. Mr Jaimon Andrews for Respondent No.2. JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J I.A. No.1239/2016 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the present petition is condoned.2. The application stands disposed of. O.M.P. (COMM) 22/2016 3. Shri Sudhir Gopi, Chairman and Managing Director of Universal Empire Institute of Technology (UEIT) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the O.M.P. (COMM) 22/2016 Page 1 of 24 Act) for setting aside the arbitral award dated 20.0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2016, passed by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore (CCH-9), allowing the interlocutory application filed by the first respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, in O.S.No.2911/2016, thereby restraining the appellants by a temporary injunction from interfering with the management and affairs of the second respondent-Company and the third respondent University and etc. This Miscellaneous First Appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment on 05.04.2017, and coming on for pronouncement this day, the court made the following:) 1. The appellants have challenged the legality of the Order dated 30-8-2016, passed by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-9), whereby the learned Civil Judge has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No. 1, Ms. Shreya Sanjeev. By the said order, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN G.A.No.687 OF2017G.A.No.1172 OF2017C.S.No.35 OF2017RAJAT AGARWAL & ORS.versus SPARTAN ONLINE PVT.LTD.& ORS.For the Petitioners : Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Adv., Mr.S.N.Mookherjee, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr.Adv., Mr.P.Sinha, Adv., Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Adv., Mr.S.Sengupta, Adv., MRS.Arunima Lala Sengupta, Adv., Mr.Ayan Dey, Adv.For the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 : Mr.S.K.Kapoor, Sr.Adv., Mr.M.K. Singh, Adv., Mr.Suman Kr. Mukherjee, Adv.For the Respondent No.7 : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Tilak Bose, Sr.Adv., Anindya Basu, Adv., Sayantan Bose, Adv., Supriya Ranjan Saha, Adv.Heard On : 27.02.2017, 07.03.2017, 20.03.2017, 07.04.2017. Judgment On : 12th May, 2017 Soumen Sen, J.:- The game of dice which led to an epic battle of Kurukshetra has not deterred generations after generations irrespective of ancient or modern to pursue gambling whether we may enscon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On:03. 12.2016 Judgment Pronounced On:12. 05.2017 CRL.REV.P. 262/2016 ANOOP SINGH versus STATE CRL.REV.P. 263/2016 D. V. MALHOTRA versus STATE CRL.REV.P. 264/2016 GOPAL ANSAL versus STATE CRL.REV.P. 265/2016 SUSHIL ANSAL versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner STATE ..... Respondent CRL.REV.P. 262/2016, CRL.REV.P. 263/2016, CRL.REV.P. 264/2016 & CRL.REV.P. 265/2016 Page 1 of 106 Advocates who appeared in the cases: For the... Petitioners : Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Arushi Tangri, Advocate, for Mr. Anoop Singh in CRL.REV.P.262/2016. Mr. Pawan Narang, Advocate with Ms. Vasundhara Chauhan and Mr. Karan Jain, Advocates, for Mr. D.V. Malhotra in CRL.REV. P. 263/2016 Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Ansal in CRL.REV.P.264/2016. Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurpre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On:03. 12.2016 Judgment Pronounced On:12. 05.2017 CRL.REV.P. 262/2016 ANOOP SINGH versus STATE CRL.REV.P. 263/2016 D. V. MALHOTRA versus STATE CRL.REV.P. 264/2016 GOPAL ANSAL versus STATE CRL.REV.P. 265/2016 SUSHIL ANSAL versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner STATE ..... Respondent CRL.REV.P. 262/2016, CRL.REV.P. 263/2016, CRL.REV.P. 264/2016 & CRL.REV.P. 265/2016 Page 1 of 106 Advocates who appeared in the cases: For the... Petitioners : Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Arushi Tangri, Advocate, for Mr. Anoop Singh in CRL.REV.P.262/2016. Mr. Pawan Narang, Advocate with Ms. Vasundhara Chauhan and Mr. Karan Jain, Advocates, for Mr. D.V. Malhotra in CRL.REV. P. 263/2016 Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Ansal in CRL.REV.P.264/2016. Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurpre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved On:03. 12.2016 Judgment Pronounced On:12. 05.2017 CRL.REV.P. 262/2016 ANOOP SINGH versus STATE CRL.REV.P. 263/2016 D. V. MALHOTRA versus STATE CRL.REV.P. 264/2016 GOPAL ANSAL versus STATE CRL.REV.P. 265/2016 SUSHIL ANSAL versus ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent ........ Petitioner STATE ..... Respondent CRL.REV.P. 262/2016, CRL.REV.P. 263/2016, CRL.REV.P. 264/2016 & CRL.REV.P. 265/2016 Page 1 of 106 Advocates who appeared in the cases: For the... Petitioners : Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate with Ms. Arushi Tangri, Advocate, for Mr. Anoop Singh in CRL.REV.P.262/2016. Mr. Pawan Narang, Advocate with Ms. Vasundhara Chauhan and Mr. Karan Jain, Advocates, for Mr. D.V. Malhotra in CRL.REV. P. 263/2016 Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Ansal in CRL.REV.P.264/2016. Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurpre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2016, passed by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore (CCH-9), rejecting the interlocutory application filed by the appellant and to allow the interlocutory application filed by the appellant under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, in O.S.No.3006/2016 by restraining the respondents from interfering with the affairs of the appellant University and etc. This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2016, passed by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore (CCH-9), and reject the interlocutory application filed by the respondents under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC, in O.S.No.3006/2016, seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the appellant-plaintiff, his wife, or any persons claiming under him from entering upon or into the c...
Tag this Judgment!