Delhi Court May 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
India Information Technology Ltd. Vs. Prime Cable Network (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)365; 1996(37)DRJ684
S.K. MahaJan, J.(1) By an agreement dated 25th January, 1995, the petitioner company agreed to purchase all the assets of the respondent company. The said assets included all franchise permits and licenses relating to the provision of services to subscribers of the cable system being run by the respondent as also all the fixed assets including the distribution plant, head end equipment, cables, subscriber installations, machinery equipment, decoders and encoders tape, etc. The respondent had informed the petitioner that he had 4,200 number of subscribers in its cable Tv system operating in the areas of Civil Lines, Jawahar Nagar, etc. and the petitioner had agreed to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs.2,400.00 per subscriber and calculating the same for 4,200 subscribers a sum of Rs.1,00,80,000.00 was agreed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent in full and final settlement of the agreement. As per the agreement, a sum of Rs.50,40,000.00 , 50% of the total purchase price, w...
Anant Raj Agencies Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT125
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The Executive Engineer, Development Division No.2of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the DDA') invited tenders for the work titled 'construction of 504 Mig houses in Block -R (Uttari) at Pitam Pura including internal development (balance work)'. The petitioner/objector had tendered for the said work at 91.9% above the estimated cost i.e. for Rs 1,48,91,920.60. The tender of the petitioner/ objector was accepted by the Delhi Development Authority and the contract was awarded to the petitioner/objector by the Delhi Development Authority vide letter No. 54(718)/DD-11/DDA/3412 dated the 6th October, 1982. The date of the start of the work was 16.10.82 and the work was to be completed within a period of 12 months.(2) An agreement No. 36/EE/DD.II/DDA/82-83 was executed between the petitioner/objector and the respondent Delhi Development Authority containing an arbitration clause (clause 25 of the agreement).(3) During the currency of the wo...
Delhi Outdoor Advertisers Association Vs. Municipal Corporation of Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)256; 63(1996)DLT4
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) By this application the petitioners seek restoration of status quo ante as on 27.3.1996 by directing the respondent-MCD to permit display of advertisement hoardings on the Municipal land. This application has been opposed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioners have no right to display advertisement hoardings on the Municipal land without obtaining licences under the Dmc Act. (2) Brief facts leading to filing of this application are that the petitioners have filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 1288/96 in this Court challenging certain amendments proposed to be incorporated in the existing bye-laws to regulate the trade of advertisement hoardings. Along with the writ petition the petitioners also filed an application (CM 2445/96) for interim relief. After hearing the parties, following order was passed by this Court on 27.3.1996: 'CW 1288/96 Notice to the respondent to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Learned Counsel for the respondent acc...
Delhi Security Printers Vs. Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT156; (1997)ILLJ1Del; (1996)114PLR5
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) The plaintiff, named above, has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a partnership firm, duly registered with the Registrar of Firms Shri Anuj Khurana is one of the partners of the plaintiff firm who is fully conversant with the facts of the case and competent to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, as per the averment made in the plaint, carries on the business of manufacture and trading of paper, stationery, printing, general order suppliers, loose leaf binders and allied stationery which is mainly used in banks for maintenance of accounts and records, printing of lottery tickets and bus tickets at Premises H-56, Udyog Nagar Industrial Area, Opposite Peerangarhi, Delhi and 31-B, Prahlad Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 1.1It is alleged that defendant No. 2 is an employee of the plaintiff. The plaintiff posted defendant No...
Unicure Pharmaceuticals Vs. Pamir International Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)221; II(1996)BC104; 63(1996)DLT110
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The plaintiff, named above, has filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that the plaintiff is a duly registered partnership firm inter-alia engaged in the business of manufacture of pharmaceuticals and that Shri Bharat Shah who is one of the registered partners of the plaintiff firm is fully conversant with the facts of the case and has signed and verified the plaint and instituted the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff firm. 1.1It is alleged that one Himalaya Limited of Afzal Market,3rd Floor, Post Box No. 1262, Kabul (Afganistan) placed an order on the plaintiff for the supply of TAB.PARACETAMOL- 500 Mg. vide letter dated 19th December, 1992 of a value of Us $ 59000. It is alleged that the defendant is the agent in the transaction as the plaintiff was to send the goods in question from Baroda to Delhi by road transport and thereafter by air through the defendant to the abov...
B.P. Marda Vs. Hira Lall Son (Exports) (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)44; II(1996)BC77; 63(1996)DLT25; 1996(37)DRJ665
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) By this order, I would be disposing of the application (IA 4430/93) moved by the defendant under Section 10 read with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of further proceedings in Suit No.146/81 titled Sh.B.P.Marda And Another v. M/s.Hira Lal & Sons pending before the Additional District Judge or in the alternative for its transfer to this Court, for being tried together with the present Suit 512/93, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, herein M/s.Hira Lal & Sons Exports Private Limited.(2) It would be pertinent to notice the facts giving rise to the present application :- (I)The plaintiff instituted Suit No.146/81 against M/s.Hira Lal & Sons, for recovery of sum of Rs.70,000.00 claimed to have been given as a hand loan to the said firm M/s.Hira Lal & Sons. The suit is titled Sh.B.P. Marda & Another v. M/s.Hira Lal & Sons. The pleadings have been completed, evidence has been recorded and the plaintiff claims to have even argued the matt...
Naresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Davender Kumar Mittal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: [2000]99CompCas509(Delhi); 62(1996)DLT595; 1996(37)DRJ587
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This petition has been filed under Ss-433(a) (e) & (f) read with S.439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the petitioner- company. Prior to filing of this petition, the petitioner has filed petition under Rs. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act before the Company Law Board. Certain ex parte interim orders were passed m that petition by the Company Law Board. In para 21 of the petition the petitioner has stated that petitioner no.1 was of the view that winding up would be prejudicial to the company and unfair to the interest of petitioner No.1 and, thereforee, petition before the Company Law Board, as aforesaid, was filed but the present petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that petitioner no.1 is holding more than 99 per cent shares and petitioner is no longer interested in the running of hotel and, thereforee, he has no interest in prosecuting Petition No-16/95 pending before Company Law Board, New Delhi.(2) The main contention of counsel ap...
C.L. JaIn Woollen Mills Vs. Anand Bordia, Collector of Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)294; 64(1996)DLT188; 1996(39)DRJ386; 1996RLR325
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This petition has been filed under Section 10 and Ii read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. According to the petitioner, this is a clear case of deliberate disobedience of the order of this court dated 9.9.1994. By the order dated 9.9.1994, this court directed that goods in question should be released to the petitioner without payment of any detention or demurrage charges. Since the goods were not released to the petitioner as directed in the judgment, the petitioner filed C.M.8345/94 in C.W.P.no-1604/91.(2) On 28.11.94, this court directed the respondents to comply with the judgment within a fortnight. Even thereafter, the goods have not been released. The petitioner did not implead respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition. Respondent no.4 is the Shipping Corporation of India and respondent no.5 is the Container Corporation of India. (3) Mr. L.N. Aggarwal, Regional Manager of the Shipping Corporation of India has filed the counter-affidavit. It is s...
Mukand Ltd. Vs. Tyazhprom Expon
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)369; 1996(25)ARBLR615(Delhi); 1996(37)DRJ533
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) Due to the alleged existence of a negative covenant in the agreement stated to have been arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No.l, the plaintiff, by this suit, wants to restrain defendant No.1 from in any manner directly or indirectly pursuing or making any other agreements with defendant No.2 or with any other party with respect to the contract for Sinter Plant-3 (Package SP3-2), raw material, storage and handling system at Bhilai Steel Plant of defendant No.2. Alternatively, the plaintiff has claimed a decree for Rs.5 crores against defendant No.1 along With the pendente lite interest. Along with the suit, an application for injunction was filed for restraining defendant No.1 from directly or indirectly pursuing or making any other agreements with defendant No.2 or with any other person with respect to the aforesaid contract and further directing the said defendant to exclusively deal and cooperate with the plaintiff for the performance of the said con...
State Vs. Charulata Joshi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT90; 1996(37)DRJ445; 1996RLR265
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) One Babloo Srivastav is in judicial custody in a case under section 302 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On October 20, India Today, a newsmagazine, moved an application for permission to interview him and to take his photographs. The learned trial judge allowed the said application by passing the following order: 'FILE taken up today on the application on behalf of India Today c/o Living Media India Ltd., for interview and photographs of Babloo Srivastava. Heard. Permission is granted. He/She is allowed to interview and take photographs of 0m Parkash Srivastava @ Babloo Srivastava today at 6.00 P.M. or on Wednesday/Thursday at 11.00 a.m. Orders are given Dasti. Mrs.Charu Lata Joshi and Shri Sarad Sexena will interview and take photographs as per application.'(2) The State, finding the order not acceptable, has preferred this petition.(3) MR.S.K.AGGARWAL who has put in appearance on behalf of the State, has assailed the legality of the order on two ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »