Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 12 of about 167 results (0.020 seconds)N.J. Contractors and Engineers and anr. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(2)ARBLR495(Delhi); 60(1995)DLT457
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The petitioner is a contractor. He has entered into with, and performed several contracts under, the respondents. On 17.8.95 the petitioner(2) On a special mention made on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was taken up for hearing on 17.8.95, late in the day. This Court directed a notice to be issued to the respondents. Interim relief was allowed to the petitioner by directing that no work order shall issue pursuant to the acceptance of any tender under challenge in the petition. (3) The respondents have filed their counter and explained in details the facts and circumstances in which the tenders were invited by them. According to the respondents they had notified four works initially by inviting open tenders. In all 19 tenders were received. A high level Tender Evaluation Committee was constituted which opened the tenders on 30.5.95. Seven tenders were rejected for the reasons assigned on the file. The petitioner was one of the tenderers and his tender was reject...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Singh and ors. Vs. Sarla Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 59(1995)DLT830; 1995(35)DRJ122; (1995)111PLR66
M.J. Rao, C.J. (1) The application for exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Rfa (OS) 14/95 & C.Ms 1226 & 1227 /95 (2) This is an appeal by the defendants(vendors) against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit for refund of Rs. 3 lakhs paid by the (purchasers) respondents/plaintiffs to the appellants under a contract of sale. Learned single Judge awarded decree for the said amount and also pendente lite interest. (3) The suit was filed under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code . The agreement was dated 22.2.1990 and was executed by the appellants in favor of the respondents for sale of immovable property. The appellants received a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs under the contract. The time for performance was 7 months. If a suit for specific performance was to be filed, it should have been filed on or before 21.2.1993. But the present suit was one for refund of money and was filed on 10.7.1994. This suit for refund came to be filed under the following circumstances. (4)...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Khushalani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1995)ACC573
C.M. Nayar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the present appeal and cross-objections (CM. No. 3538/1981) filed by the respondent-claimant.The respondent filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on account of grievous injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place at the crossing of Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg on April 27, 1973 at about 1.30 p.m. It was alleged in the petition that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DLP 4870 (Mini bus) on the part of respondent No. 3 Mir Chand. The respondent-claimant was traveling on his motor cycle No. DHS 7250 from his office at R.K. Puram towards Delhi Railway Station. He sustained compound fracture of left femur and immediately after the accident was removed to Irwin Hospital where he remained under treatment of Dr. Kohli till April 28, 1973 and then he was transferred on April 29, 1973 to Safdarjung Hospital. The respondent since the time of accident has undergone six operat...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Lucky Home Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Shanti ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi148; 60(1995)DLT123
M. Jagannadha Rao, CJ.1. This as an appeal by Lucky Home Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited against the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 4th March, 1994 in OMP No. 64/92. The appellant before us was the petitioner in that application filed under Sections 5, 8, 11, 12 and 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The 1st respondent was M/s. Shanti Developers and Promoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., M-4, Anupam Bhawan, Azadpur Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi-110003 and the second respondent was Arbitrator Mr. A. Shankaran. 2. The appellant prayed in that application that the authority of the Arbitrator be revoked and another Arbitrator, preferably a retired Judge of the Court be appointed for adjudication of the claims and counter claims of the parties. is 9548/92 was also filed by the appellant in the said OMP and there was an interim order on 31st July, 1992 in this appeal that the Arbitrator would not make and publish the award and that he could proceed with the matter and the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Shanti Developers and Promoters
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ209
M. Jaganadha Rao, C.J. (1) This is an appeal by Lucky Home Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited against the orders of the Learned Single Judge dated 4th March,1994 in Omp No. 64/92. The appellant before us was the petitioner in that application filed under Sections 5, 8, 11, 12 and 31 of the Arbitration Act,1940. The 1st respondent was M/s Shanti Developers & Promoters(India) Pvt. Ltd., M- 4, Anupam Bhawan, Azadpur Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi-110003 and the second respondent was Arbitrator Mr. A. Shankaran. (2) The appellant prayed in that application that the authority of the Arbitrator be revoked and another Arbitrator, preferably a retired Judge of the Court be appointed for adjudication of the claims and counter claims of the parties. is 9548/92 was also filed by the appellant in the said Omp and there was an interim order on 31st July,1992 in this appeal that the Arbitrator would not make and publish the award and that he could proceed with the matter and the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Fashion Linkers and ors. Vs. Savitri Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)398; 60(1995)DLT169; 1995(35)DRJ195; (1996)112PLR14
M.J. Rao, C.J.(1) This is a review application filed by the appellants,(defendants in the Suit No. 1590/88) for review of our order dated 17th August,1995 passed in FAO(OS) 167/95. The said Fao was filed by the appellant against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in is No. 3671/95 in S.No. 1590/88. We confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge refusing the request of the appellant for a declaration that the evidence recorded by the local commissioner was not sustainable and tenable in law. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant could not take such an objection to the evidence recorded by the Local Commissioner as per the consent order of the Court dated 8th July,1992, particularly after the whole evidence was recorded without any objection and the appellant led the evidence before the Commissioner. (2) When the Fao was argued before us, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment in Sh. Deepak Kapur vs . Ashok K. Ghose &...
Tag this Judgment!Computech International Ltd. and anr. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commissi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ421
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) In this petition the petitioner seeks for quashing of the letter No. MAT/IND/SCON/E- A/002/91-92 dated 25.4.1995 issued by the General Manager (MAP), Oil & Natural Gas Commission Limited, notifying that the telex/Letter of Intent dated 16.11.1993 conveying Oil & Natural Gas Commission's intention to award the work of processing of land and marine seismic data would stand terminated on expiry of 30 days from the date of the said notice. The petitioner in this petition has further sought for a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law and the provisions and conditions as laid down in the tender notice. (2) In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondents inviting tenders to get some of its 2D Seismic data processed, the petitioner submitted its bid for the said tender. By letter dated 16.11.1993 the petitioner was informed by the respondents that the respondents intended to award tender to the petitioner. Subsequent thereto inspire of repeate...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Tirath Sharma Vs. Administrator and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ75
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) The two appellants filed the writ petition Cwp 2551/92. The writ petition having been dismissed, they have filed this LPA. In the writ petition, they sought issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the notification dated 25.2.1980 issued by respondents 1 and 2(Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and the Director of Education, Delhi Administration) dated 1.1.92 and 29.5.92 appointing respondent 5 as Vice Principal and subsequently as Principal and the order dated 21.7.92 appointing respondent 6 as Vice Principal and for further directions to the respondents for appointing the petitioners to the post of Principal and Vice Principal respectively. (2) The appellants were working with M.B.D.A.V. Sr. Secondary School, (recognised by the Delhi Administration), Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. It was submitted by the appellants that they were seniors to respondents 5 and 6 and that they were to be promoted on the basis of the circular dated 10th May,19...
Tag this Judgment!Sarala Devi and ors. Vs. Daya Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT3; 1995(35)DRJ36
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) ADMIT.(2) This is an appeal from the order of the learned single Judge in I.A.9565/94 in Suit No.1518/94 whereby the suit filed under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code has been treated as an ordinary regular suit. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-(3) The first appellant herein is the first plaintiff while the second and third appellants herein are the second and third plaintiffs in the suit. The first appellant is the widow and the second and third appellants are the son and daughter respectively of late Brahm Parkash, who died on July 6, 1990. The first two respondents in this appeal are the first two defendants in the suit. The third and fourth respondents,the legal representatives of late Tej Ram, are the third and fourth defendants in the suit.(4) On April 2, 1990 Brahm Parkash entered into an agreement with the first and second respondents and Tej Ram. Under the agreement, the first and second respondents and Tej Ram agreed to sell a piece of l...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash Chand Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1996)DMC108
J.K. Mehra, J.1. In the present petition the petitioner has sought setting aside of orders dated 6th May, 1994 and 9th May, 1995 passed by the Trial Court. On 6th May, 1994 Trial Court ordered that the petitioner and four others be charged under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. Four others that is the brother, mother and two sisters of the petitioner challenged the said order vide Cr. Rev. No. 142/94 whereon this Court passed an order dated 8th September, 1994 setting aside order dated 6th May, 1994 and quashing the charge qua those four. The petitioner moved a separate petition before the Trial Court seeking reconsideration of order dated 6th May, 1994 which was declined by the ASJ vide order dated 9th May, 1995.2. I have heard the parties. There is no dispute about the statement of wife, which has been reproduced in the order dated 8th September, 1994 passed by Arun Kumar, J. in Crl. R. 142/94. The said statement is reproduced hereunder:'There used to be altercation often in the house...
Tag this Judgment!