Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: delhi Page 4 of about 50,520 results (0.406 seconds)

Sep 23 2016 (HC)

Karmanya Singh Sareen and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

G. Rohini, C.J. 1. The petitioners claim to be the users of WhatsApp , an Internet Messaging Application, provided by the respondent No.2/"WhatsApp Inc.", a company based in USA. 2. The present writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation has been filed with the following prayer: "(a) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ or direction in the nature thereof prohibiting respondents No. 2 to 4 from sharing, in any manner whatsoever, details and data of every kind of the subscribers / users of WhatsApp with any entity including Facebook or its family of companies; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondent 1 and 5 or any other appropriate authority to discharge their executive, statutory and all other obligations in relation to protection and safety of privacy of details / data of every kind of the subscribers / users of WhatsApp all over the territory of India by taking all necessary steps / actions in discharge...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2016 (HC)

Siddharth International Public School Vs. Motor Accident Claim Tribuna ...

Court : Delhi

G. Rohini, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2016 in W.P.(C) No.2699/2016. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. As could be seen from the material available on record, Master Priyanshu, aged about 7 years, was injured in a motor accident and his left leg was amputated below knee. In the petition (MACT No.123/11) for compensation pending before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), NE, Karkardooma Courts, the mother of the injured boy moved an application seeking a direction that the boy be admitted in a school under the 'Economically Weaker Section (EWS Category) stating that he was unable to go to the school as the financial condition of the family was not good. On 18.01.2016, MACT passed an order directing Siddharth International Public School (the writ petitioner/appellant herein), which is nearby to the residence of the injured boy, to consider the adm...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2016 (HC)

Mini Appa Kanda Swami @ Mani Vs. Mindra

Court : Delhi

Deepa Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant husband against the order of the Family Court, Rohini, Delhi, dated 12.08.2010 whereby his petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereafter the Act ) was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the parties got married according to Hindu rites and customs at JJ Colony, Delhi on 06.09.2003 and through the wedlock one male child was born on 01.07.2004. 3. The petition for divorce was filed by the appellant on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the respondent wife was pressurizing him to setup a separate home as she did not want to live in a joint family. The appellant worked as a labourer and it is his contention that owing to limited financial means it was not possible for him to set up a separate independent household. It is further contended that despite several attempts to explain the difficulty of setting up a separate household, the respondent refused to cooperate...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2016 (HC)

Sunil Mohan Buckshee Vs. M.M. Buckshee and Others

Court : Delhi

Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. The present second appeal under section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment dated 04.10.2006 and decree dated 13.11.2006 passed by the First Appellate Court, namely the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in RCA No.62/2005, whereby said first appeal under section 96 CPC preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff has been dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Trial Court, namely the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 208/02/93 affirmed. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of property bearing no. D-394, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The suit had initially been filed against four defendants. Defendant No.1 is the real brother; defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the half brothers, and; defendant No.4 is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, and step mother of defendant Nos 2 and 3. 3. The claim of the plaintiff/ appellant emerging from the record is tha...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2016 (HC)

Zillion Inraprojects Pvt Ltd Vs. Alstom Systems India (P) Limited and ...

Court : Delhi

Vibhu Bakhru, J. IA No.11700-01/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 377/2016 3. The petitioner (hereafter 'ZIPL') has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act ), inter alia, praying as under:- "(i) Grant Ad-interim ex-parte Stay and Suspend the enforcement of the letter dated 16.09.2016 issued for the termination of the sub contract until the resolution or adjudication of disputes between the parties by way of mediation or arbitration ; and (ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to maintain status quo at the work sites and permit the petitioner to proceed further with the execution of the project which is of a national importance until the resolution or adjudication of disputes between the parties and; (iii) Restrain the Respondent no. 1 from encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee BG - 1003 dated 14.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.20,000,000/- (Rupees Two Crore...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2016 (HC)

Manju Panwar Vs. V.P.S. Panwar

Court : Delhi

Deepa Sharma, J. 1. In the present appeal the respondent- wife challenges an order dated 13.12.2001 of the Delhi District Court, which dissolved the marriage of the parties on the ground of cruelty. The parties to the dispute were married on 24.12.1975 at Meerut and they were blessed with two children in the year 1976 and 1983. The petitioner/husband at the time of filing of the divorce petition was employed with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as a Commandant. The divorce petition, which was initially filed before the Family Court, Meerut, was transferred to Delhi by an order, dated 28.03.2000 of the Supreme Court. 2. The petitioner/husband alleged that he and his family members were treated with cruelty by his wife (the appellant); she did not like his family members visiting their house, did not like his father to reside with them and that she was abusive towards him and all other family members. The husband alleged further that the wife had humiliated his father on several ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2016 (HC)

Indian Defence Service of Engineers Association (Govt. Approved) Vs. U ...

Court : Delhi

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The petitioners in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge two set of rules- i.e. the Military Engineer Services (Army Personnel), Regulations, 1989 hereafter ("the 1989 Regulations") framed under the Army Act, 1950 and notification bearing no. SRO. 4E dated 09.07.1991 ("the 1991 Rules") framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India as well as the notification dated 29.06.2004 issued by Ministry of Defense (MoD)- which amended the 1991 Rules. The petitioner association complains that these impugned regulations and rules violate the fundamental rights- embodied in Articles 14 and 21, of its members, who are members of the Military Engineer Services ("the MES") 2. MES was originally set up with effect from 26.09.1923 during the British rule; it comprised of the Corps of Sappers and Miners (now called Corps of Engineers and Military of Works Services) headed by the Director of Military Works. The service (MES) w...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2016 (HC)

Narendra Khetwani Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others

Court : Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Narendera Khetwani is the petitioner in the above captioned petitions. In Crl.M.C.No.3923/2013 he challenges the order dated July 03, 2013 passed in CC No.82/2010, by which order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued summons to him to appear on August 22, 2013 in a complaint filed by Hema Devi and her husband Narender Prasad alleging that he and one Raju Chetri have committed offences punishable under Section 467/468/471 IPC. In Crl.M.C.No.4834/2014 he challenges the order dated March 03, 2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing an application filed by him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which application he prayed that the concerned SHO be directed to register an FIR against Raju Chetri and one Satyadev. He also challenges the order dated July 08, 2014 whereunder the learned ASJ has dismissed the revision petition filed by him against the order dated March 03, 2014. 2. The relevant facts are that Narender Prasad and Hema Devi were...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2016 (HC)

Tendril Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Namedi Leasing and ...

Court : Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellants : six in number, instituted CS(OS) No.2281/2006 impleading the nine respondents as defendants Pleading that the decree for declaration and perpetual injunction arose out of malicious acts of defendant No.7 : Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt.Ltd. in selling shares of defendant No.8 : M/s Blue Coast Hotels and Resorts Ltd. held by the plaintiffs and pledged with defendant No.7 as security for inter-corporate deposits made by defendant No.7 with defendant No.9 : M/s Morepen Laboratories Ltd. Defendants No. 5 and 6 were stated to be the entities to whom the shares were sold initially and defendants No.1 to 4 were the entities to whom defendants No.5 and 6 sold the shares. 2. The suit as also IA No.13721/2006 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC), IA No.14158/2006 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC), CCP(O) No.57/2007, IA No.291/2007 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC), IA No.1922/2007 (under Order 12 Rule 12 and 14 CPC), IA No.1389/2008 (under Section 47 CPC) and IA No...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2016 (HC)

Aditi Upadhyay Vs. Lalit Kumar and Others

Court : Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction and partition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dated August 27, 2015. 2. Defendants No.1 and 2 are the brothers of the appellant. Defendant No.3 is the sister of the appellant. Defendant No.4 is her mother. The common link would be late Sh.Om Prakash Kumar, the father of the appellant and defendants No.1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.4. It is the case of the appellant that her grandfather Hira Lal was the owner of property bearing municipal No.R-298, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi on which he had constructed a three storyed building. He had four sons, one of whom was late Om Prakash Kumar. During his life time late Sh.Hira Lal desired to partition the property owned by him and desired to give to late Sh.Om Prakash the second floor with roof rights above, but Om Prakash expressed a desire to his father to bequeath said floor in favour of h...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //