High Courts

Jurisdiction/Issuing Court

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

Featured documents

• R.C. Rev. No. 214 of 2010. Case: 'Sudarsans' Partnership Firm Vs Kunjunni Nair alias K.K. Unni. Kerala High Court

  1. The tenant, a partnership firm, challenges in this revision under Section 20 an order of eviction passed concurrently against them on the grounds under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior Counsel for the...

• Special Civil Application No. 12382 of 2010 with Special Civil Application No. 15308 of 2010. Case: (The) Bhagyodaya Co-oerative Bank Limited Vs Natvarlal K Patel and Anr.. Gujarat High Court

  Whether while challenging the award passed by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court or the Industrial Tribunal, particularly in a case where no specific relief is sought for against the concerned Labour Court/Industrial Court/Industrial Tribunal, such Labour Court/Industrial Court/Industrial...

• Writ Petition No. 2068/2010. Case: 1- Ajay Pal S/o Sri Mahendra Pal 2- Sanjay Pal S/o Sri Mahendra Pal 3- Sandhya Pal D/o Sri Mahendra Pal 4- Nisha Pal D/o Sri Mahendra Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand and three others. Uttarakhand High Court

  Heard Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder, appearing on behalf of the respondents. By means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue caste certificate to the petitioners. According to...

• Cr. M. P. No. 1651 of 2009. Case: 1. A. K. Srivastava @ Ajay Kumar Srivastava, 2. Manju Sinha, 3. Kunal Sinha, 4. Alankar Sinha Vs 1. The State of Jharkhand, 2. Mrs. Gita Singh. Jharkhand High Court

  2. The petitioners, in this application have prayed for quashing the order dated-16.11.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 825 of 2006, whereby the learned court below has issued summons directing the petitioners to appear in the case and to face trial for the...

• Second Appeal No. 1484 of 1995. Case: 1. A. Srinivasan, 2. S. Rukmani Ammal Vs Tahsildar, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk. Chennai (Madras) High Court

  1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31.1.1995, made in A.S.No.197 of 1994, on the file of the IVth additional City Civil Court, Madras, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 24.2.1994, made in O.S.No.6499 of 1991, on the file of the Vth Assistant City...

• Writ Petition(MD). No. 13214 of 2009. Case: 1. Aayee, 2. M. Aayee, 3. Piravian, 4. A. Raman Vs 1. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2. Inspector of Police. Chennai (Madras) High Court

  2. It has been stated that all the four petitioners are cultivating tenants in the Nanja lands, comprised in Survey Nos.26/1-F, 26/1-B, 26/1-C, 26/1-B, 26/1-A, 25/2, 41/3, 43/5-A, 44/3-B, 45/1-B, 41/1-A, 41/5, 41/5-A, 42/1- A, 42/2-A, 42/3, 43/1, 43/2, 43/5-A, 44/3-B, 45/1-B and 40/1-B, having an...

• Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 999 of 2011. Case: 1. Abdul Rasheed, 2. Sharafat Both S/o Abdul Gaffur, 3. Najakat Ali, S/o Abdul Gaffur, 4. Ajijurrahman @ Gama, 5. Guddu Vs Masitulla, S/o Abdul Gaffur. Uttarakhand High Court

  2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 416 of 2011, Masitulla vs. Abdul Rasheed and others, relating to offences punishable under section 147, ...

• Writ Appeal No. 1491 of 2012 and Writ petition No. 34156 of 2012. Case: 1. Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, 2. Sri. M. Devender Reddy Vs 1. Sri. M. Devender Reddy and Ors. [Alongwith WA Nos. 1522 of 2012 and 13 of 2013], 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [Alongwith PIL No. 387 of 2012]. Andhra Pradesh High Court

  1. In these cases, the issue that arises for consideration is with regard to the procedure to be adopted for appointment of Vice-Chancellor to Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad. As such, all the cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the...

• Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4112 of 1997. Case: 1. Advocates Association, Patna High Court, through its President Shyama Prasad Mukherjee S/o Late Ashutosh Mukherjee, 2. B. P. Verma S/o Late J. P. Verma Vs 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi, 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi, though its Director (TPL). Patna High Court

  1. This writ petition has been preferred by an Association of Lawyers as well as a lawyer, with the prayer to quash the offending portion of circular No.715, dated 8.8.1995 (Annexure-1), whereby the person(s) contemplated by section 194-J (a) of the Income Tax 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the...

• RSA No. 1241 of 2013 (O&M) and RSA No. 578 of 2011 (O&M). Case: 1. Ajay Kumar, 2. Ajay Kumar Syal Vs 1. Jarnail Singh, 2. Charanjit Singh, [Alongwith RSA Nos. 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585 of 2011 (O&M)]. Punjab & Haryana High Court

  1. This judgment shall dispose of nine appeals i.e. RSA No. 1241 of 2013 and RSA No. 578 to 585 of 2011, as in all these appeals, common questions of law on identical facts have been raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants, who are aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court...