Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 12 of about 128 results (0.022 seconds)Rajora Builders Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Administrator) and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT194
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) By this petition under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner had sought to revoke the authority of the appointed Arbitrator, namely, Sh. S.L. Khurana and for appointment of an independent person as an Arbitrator. During the pendency of this petition, Shri Y.P. Singh was appointed as the sole Arbitrator in place of Sh. S.L. Khurana. The said Sh. Y.P. Singh made and published his award on 27th September, 199 i which award was filed in Court and proceedings were taken in OMP. No. 187/91 (2) By order dated 14th December, 1995 passed in Omp Nos. 187/91 & 106/92, I have set aside the award made and published by the Arbitrator on 27/29th September, 1991. (3) The only question which now refrains for consideration is as to what is the effect of setting aside the award and as to how the disputes between the parties are to be settled. It is agreed by the parties that in case, the appointed Arbitrator is unable to act, it was not the intention of the par...
Tag this Judgment!Sethi Engineering Corporation Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT269; 1995(35)DRJ656
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) Under an agreement entered into between the parties for construction of 400 Ews houses including internal development in Group Vi at Kondli Gharoli Complex, there arose certain disputes between the parties which were referred for adjudication to the arbitration of Mr.J.K.Varshneya, Sole arbitrator vide letter dated 10th December, 1991. The said disputes, I have been informed are still pending before the arbitrator and award has not yet been made. By letter dated 18th February, 1992 the petitioner requested for the revision of his claims and also filed a copy of the additional/revised list of disputes/claims for decision of the arbitrator. The respondents, however, did not refer the said additional disputes to the arbitrator for adjudication which has resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of these additional disputes to the arbitrator.(2) The only objection taken in the written statement is that ...
Tag this Judgment!FakhrudIn Contractor Government Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT177
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The Petitioner has filed the petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act objecting to the Award paused by the Arbitrator in so far as it is against him. (2) 2. The Union of India granted contract to the Petitioner to remove melba material from the area between Guru Nanak Eyes Centre and G.P. Pant Hospital (Pocket C, D and E). This area was occupied by Jhuggi dwellers unauthorisd and the melba constructed of broken floor, walls, roofs and other things. The Union of India insisted that the work shall be done on war footing within 15 to 20 days. Tenders were invited on 7.12.1983. Level to work out the exact quantity of melba to be removed were taken on 17.12.1983. The work was awarded on 24.12.1983. The work was commenced on 25.12.1983 that as per the record the work was started on 3.1.1984. The work was completed and the amount was paid by the Union of India which was received by the Petitioner under protest. (3) The Petitioner made five claims before ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Devi Vs. Bhag Chand Lohia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ669
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The parties to the suit were stated to be partners under a written deed of partnership and were running the business under the name and style of Cloth Services of India, Mysore with offices in Delhi and Coimbatore. Certain disputes are stated to have arisen amongst the partners which in terms of an arbitration agreement existing between the parties were allegedly liable to be referred to arbitration. The plaintiff, thereforee, had filed the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of such disputes to an arbitrator. (2) The defendants have objected to the reference of disputes on various grounds and one of the grounds is that this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit inasmuch as the registered office of the partnership firm was at Mysore, there was no branch office of the firm at Delhi, all transactions pertaining to even the depot at Delhi were rendered at the registered office at Mysore, all the books of accounts were being maint...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Siddhartha Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)697; I(1996)BC338; 61(1996)DLT606; 1996(36)DRJ416
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The present application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code by the defendant to implead M/s Canara Bank, Foreign Department, New Delhi and Citi Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi as parties/defendants to the present suit. Reply has been filed opposing the application. (2) The plaintiff, M/S. State Bank of India, has filed the above suit for recovery of Rs. 5,99,000.00 against the defendant M/S. Siddarth Enterprises, its proprietor M/s. Manorama Gardner and her husband Mr. Brian Anthony Gardner as the guarantor. A major item of the claim in the suit is an export bill of $32,000 which had been negotiated under the Letter of Credit dated 19-3- 84. The export bill was not honoured on presentation by the Citi Bank, New York on the ground that documents contained discrepancies and the objection as to bifurcation of Letter of Credit. (3) Learned counsel for the defendant has argued that there were no groun...
Tag this Judgment!Bharati Chadha Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)120; 61(1996)DLT146; 1996(36)DRJ225
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) This order will dispose of application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code, the application of the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code as well as the application of the defendant under Section 10 of the CPC.(2) The short point which arises for consideration in the present suit is whether a person who has transferred the shares in a joint stock company to another person, is a trustee of the transferee in respect of the dividends, bonus shares and the right shares which may be issued by the company before the transferee applies for transfer of shares in his name and as to whether the principle of equity which makes the transferor a constructive trustee extends even to a case where a transferee does not take active interest to get on to the register.(3) Before dealing with this question, I may give the facts in short which have resulted in the filing of the present suit.(4) The plaintiff was holding 6,000 or so equity shar...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay M. Shah Vs. Flex Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)260; [2001]103CompCas1063(Delhi); 61(1996)DLT378; 1996(36)DRJ283
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioners have Filed this Company Petition under Section 81 and Section 10 and Rule 11 (b) and 17 of the Companies Act, 1959. The petitioners are shareholders of respondent Flex Industries Limited. They hold 1,37,500 shares among themselves. (2) The respondent-company issued 'Right Issue' on 16th September, 1995 and the Right Issue was closed on 15th October, 1995. According to the scheme of the issue, the petitioners were entitled to two right shares and one warrant, for every Five shares held as on the said date. According to the petitioners, they were entitled to 54960 right shares and warrants attached thereto and 27480 Rights debentures and warrants attached thereto as mentioned in the letter of offer. It is submitted by the petitioners that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) have issued instructions to all the companies that with a view to protect the interest of investors , the letter of offer for 'Right Issue' be sent to the shareho...
Tag this Judgment!Coronation Marketing Services Ltd. Vs. Mmtc Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT61; 1995(35)DRJ658
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) By a contract entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.1 bearing No.MMTC/95- 96/FZ(U)/2 dated 15th March 1995, the petitioner agreed to sell the quantity of 1,00,000 Mt plus minus 5% Urea (Bulk) - 46% Nitrogen Fertilizer Grade at the rate of US$ 234 PMT. The shipment schedule specified in the contract was from 1st April, 1995 to 31st May, 1995. The origin of supply of the said Urea was Confederation of Independent States (in short CIS) which included Russia as well as Ukraine. It is stated by the petitioner that only port of shipment of goods from the said countries was Yuzhny. The petitioner was required to furnish a performance bank guarantee to the tune of 2% of the value of the contract. On account of certain difficulties, the petitioner requested for extension of time for furnishing the performance bank guarantee and the same was furnished on 1st May, 1995. The said performance bank guarantee was furnished by respondent No.2 on behalf of Union Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Ghisa Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)1021; 1995(35)DRJ692
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Appellant, Ghisa Lal, S/o Hazari, r/o Village Sanod, Police Station Nasirabad, Distt.Ajmer, Rajasthan has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . for having committed the murder of Jeewan, resident of the same village some time on June 12, 1987 in a room in House No.TA/213, Tughlakabad Extension, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi vide judgment dated January 13, 1992 of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and vide subsequent order dated January 15, 1992,he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100.00 and in default of payment of fine,to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. He has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and the sentence. (2) The story of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased and the appellant, who were residents of the same village, had come over to Delhi so as to work as labourers in a quarry of stones some t...
Tag this Judgment!Haren P. Chowksey Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)197; 1996(36)DRJ147
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The petitioner is carrying on the business of auto consultancy as well as the sale, purchase and hiring of new and second hand cars as a broker on commission basis.(2) On 5.9.1988, officers of the Directorate of Revenue lntelligence,on the basis of a specific information, conducted a search of Mercedez Benz, 190 Car bearing registration No.DDU-9761. After search and recovery of certain documents the car was seized. During the course of inquiry conducted by the Directorate statements of various persons were recorded and it was found that the said car was imported to India without the cover of a valid import license/CCP.(3) A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, in pursuance of which the petitioner showed cause. Personal hearing was fixed on 13.12.1991 when the petitioner prayed for adjournment for another date. His request was acceded to and the hearing was fixed on 27.12.91. On that day the counsel for the petitioner appeared and filed his written submissi...
Tag this Judgment!