Case Law

Sources in this library

• Appellate Tribunals
• Armed Forces Tribunal
• Authority for Advance Rulings
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
• Central Information Commission
• Company Law Board
• Competition Commision of India
• Debt Recovery Tribunals
• High Courts
• National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
• Securities and Exchange Board
• State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
• Supreme Court
• Trademark Tribunal

Latest documents

• CO.PET.--43/2017. Case: IN THE MATTER OF KUNAL BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED (IN VOL. LIQN.) Vs. ......... Delhi High Court

  1. This is a petition under section 497(6) of the Companies 1956 (hereinafter as „the Act‟) by the Official Liquidator, seeking voluntary winding up of Kunal Brothers Private Limited (hereinafter „petitioner company‟). 2. The petitioner company was incorporated on 10.11.1983 having Corporate Identity Number U74899DL1983PTC016928, under provisions...

• CO.PET.--312/2015. Case: NILKAMAL BITO STORAGE SYSTEMS PVT LTD Vs. BRAHMA AUTO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Delhi High Court

  1. The petitioner is a private limited company, engaged in business of manufacturing, purchasing, supplying, distributing dealing in all kind of extensive range of quality products for food service industry. Respondent is also a company and it purchased the goods from the petitioner vide purchase orders in the year 2012. The goods supplied through

• CO.PET.--548/2015. Case: A.R. CONSTRUCTION Vs. C.C.C. INFRASYS PRIVATE LIMITED. Delhi High Court

  1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 433 and 434 of Companies Act, 1956 on the basis of a work order dated 29.09.2014 given by respondent for doing the M.S. Structural work. The rate agreed between the petitioner and respondent was ₹74 per kg for the said work. 2. After getting the work order dated 29.09.2014, the petitioner execut...

• TEST.CAS.--72/2014. Case: SHALINI CHADHA & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS. Delhi High Court

  2. The petitioner No.1 Smt.Shalini Chadha is the wife of deceased and whereas the petitioner No.2 is the business partner of the deceased. The deceased Deepak Chadha s/o late Sh.Kailash Chand Chadha, resident of 10/1, Punjabi Bagh Extension, Delhi 110026 expired on 02.02.2013 at Medanta – The Medicity Hospital, Gurugram, Harayana. He was a Hindu an...

• CS(OS)--2046/2006. Case: DALJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. HARI STEEL & GENERAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.. Delhi High Court

  shareholding of 10,00,000 shares in the Defendant No. 1 Company. The reliefs sought in the application are premised on the claimed admissions made by Defendant no. 1 to 6 in their written statement or otherwise. As per plaint, defendant No. 2 – the Managing Director and the Shareholder of Defendant No. 1 company, approached the for the sale of

• FAO--307/2017. Case: SATISH SHARMA Vs. INDIA INFOLINE LIMITED. Delhi High Court

  the judgment of the court below dated 7.3.2017 which has dismissed the objections filed by the appellant. The respondent/trading member filed arbitration claim in the arbitration proceedings against the appellant/constituent/client with respect to the debit balance of Rs.3,57,227/- as on 3.1.2009 in the account of the appellant/objector. This debit...

• EX.F.A.--19/2017. Case: SUMATI WADHWA Vs. PRINCE TANDON & ANR.. Delhi High Court

  2. This Execution First Appeal is filed by the objector against the impugned order of the executing court dated 26.5.2017 dismissing the objections filed by the appellant/objector and who is claiming through the defendant/judgment debtor. 3. The facts of the case are that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/Mr. Prince Tandon/respondent no.1 seeki...

• BAIL APPLN.--1230/2017. Case: PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF DELHI. Delhi High Court

  1. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction this court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (in short „Cr.PC‟) praying for grant him anticipatory bail in a registered vide FIR No. 62/2017, under Section 409 of Indian Code, 1860 (in short „IPC‟) with Police Station Vasant Kunj New Delhi. 2. This bail app...

• CRL.A.--357/2017. Case: MADHU GUPTA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI. Delhi High Court

  that even accepting the case of the prosecution having been proved reasonable doubt, it can at best be held that the appellant caused an injury to the deceased in exercise of her right of private defence as laid down in clause thirdly to Section 100 IPC. It is further submitted that the appellant discharged the burden as required under Section 105

• CRL.A.--514/2017. Case: VIRENDER @ BIJENDER Vs. STATE. Delhi High Court

  that even accepting the case of the prosecution having been proved reasonable doubt, it can at best be held that the appellant caused an injury to the deceased in exercise of her right of private defence as laid down in clause thirdly to Section 100 IPC. It is further submitted that the appellant discharged the burden as required under Section 105