Delhi Court August 1997 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.
National Building Construction Corpn. Ltd. (Nbcc) Vs. Ircon Internatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ399
ORDERD.K. Jain, J. 1. It is indeed unfortunate that despite the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr v. Collector of Central Excise, : 1992(61)ELT3(SC) , expressing the hope that disputes between government departments and public sector undertakings of the Union of India maybe resolved at the government level itself, the Committee (of Secretaries) on Disputes has expressed its helplessness to resolve the disputes and the two public sector undertakings are fighting like two private litigants.2. By this petition under Section 9 of The Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner seeks ad interim ex parte injunction against the respondents, restraining them, or their agents and servants, from invoking and/or encashing the bank guarantees amounting to Rs. 6.09 crores, the details whereof have been given in Annexures F & G (collectively) to the petition.3. I have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. ...
K.C. Chhibber Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT169
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The petitioner Shri K.C. Chhibber, in his capacity as sole proprietor of M/s.K.C. Chhibber & Company, has filed the present petition with the prayer that the vacancy caused due to the death of the Arbitrator Shri O.P. Mittal be supplied and a new Arbitrator be appointed in his place. (2) The relevant history of the case, leading to the filing of the present petition, may briefly be stated thus : The petitioner was entrusted with the work of construction of 408 Mig Houses at Pitampura (Dakshini), Pocket A at the estimated cost of Rs. 82,31,808.00 by the Executive Engineer, Development Division-VI, jhandewalan. New Delhi vide letter dated 7.12.80 and an Agreement bearing No. 146/EE/DD-VI/80- 81-0000 was executed between the parties in relation thereto. The above said Agreement contained an arbitration clause (Clause 25) which contemplated reference of all disputes between the parties to the sole arbitration of the person to be appointed by the Engineer Member of t...
Satish Kumar Gupta Vs. Fine Grapes Orchand (P.) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)586; 68(1997)DLT381
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The Director of defendant No.1, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000.00 from the plaintiff between 6th February, 1988 and 18th February, 1988. It is averred that a sum of Rs. 3,80,000.00 was given to the defendants by the plaintiff by means of three pay orders, drawn on United Bank of India, Timarpur Branch and the remaining sum of Rs. 20,000/ - was given by means of a cheque dated the 18th February, 1988 also drawn on United Bank of India, Timarpur Branch, in favor of defendant No.1. It is stated that defendant No.2 in his capacity as Managing Director of defendant No.1 had personally negotiated the aforesaid loan and had guaranteed the repayment of the principal amount Along with interest to the plaintiff. It is further averred that the defendants had issued six cheques, each for Rs.5,000.00 drawn on Central Bank of India, Palam-Gurgaon Road Branch, Delhi towards payment of interest. It is stated that out of the six cheques given by the defendants, cheque No. 00...
Kartar Singh Vs. Sube Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT815; 1997(43)DRJ302
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) PETITIONER-DEFENDANT has challenged the order passed on 16.2.1995 by Shri S.K. Tandon, Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No.754/93 by which the plaintiff-respondent was permitted to produce documents during the course of his evidence. (2) PETITIONER'S counsel was heard on 8.8.1997. None appeared for the respondent. (3) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT on 13.1.1992 filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant-petitioner. Needless to add that receipts mark A and mark B were permitted to be produced on 16.2.1995, during the statement of the plaintiff. The same were neither produced by the plaintiff along with the plaint, nor the were relied upon. The documents were permitted to be produced when the plaintiff was deposing in support of his case as Public Witness 1. That part of the statement at which the documents were permitted to be produced reads: 'THEREAFTER,Panchayat of village Kanjhawla intervening the matter and a compromise was arrived between the parties in 1989...
Parmanand Jha Vs. Sanatan Dharam Sabha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)683; 68(1997)DLT383; 1997(42)DRJ579
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.1997, passed by the Senior Civil Judge in MCA.197/90, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.5.1990, passed by Shri H.S. Sharma, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2) Petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction wherein he moved an application under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2, Cpc, for restraining the respondent Sanatan Dharam Sabha from dispossessing him without the due process of law. Plaintiff claims to be a tenant in possessing of a room at the Radha Krishna Mandir, Shahid Capt.Gaur Marg, East of Kailash, New Delhi, on a monthly rental of Rs. 300.00 , including water and electricity charges. He claims to have been using common a latrine and bathroom.(3) The case of the petitioner is that he has been functioning as the head priest of the temple and had also been employed ...
Kapil Bhatia and ors. Vs. Delhi Express Travels Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)563; 68(1997)DLT344; (1998)118PLR63
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) This Order will dispose of an application, filed on behalf of defendants, under Order Xxxix, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'). The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application, lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, named above, praying that a decree for perpetual injunction be passed and the defendants be restrained by an injunction from breaching the agreement dated the 30th September, 1991 and removing the plaintiffs from the Board of defendant No. 1 until they have obtained necessary no objection certificate/released from the Banks/Airlines at which point of time the plaintiff would submit simultaneous resignation. It has also been prayed that the defendants be restrained from surrendering or parting with the possession of any of the four tenancy premises of the Company or transferring or encumbering the six real estate...
international Computers Consultants Vs. Home Computers Services (P) Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)662; 68(1997)DLT407; (1997)117PLR10
J.B. Goel, J.(1) This Regular First Appeal is directed against order, judgment and decree dated 18th September, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff on the basis of a cheque, tried under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The application for leave to defend filed by the appellant-defendant has been disallowed, leave refused and the suit has been decreed. (2) Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 27,840.00 on the basis of a cheque in the sum of Rs. 27.000.00 issued by the appellant in its favour. The suit was tried under summary procedure of Order 37 of the Code, summons of suit and for judgment were accordingly served on the defendant and in due course the appellant-defendant filed an application under Order 37, Rule 3(5) of the Code for leave to appear and defend the said suit on various grounds as pleaded therein. The learned T...
P. and S. (India) Corporation and anr. Vs. Premier Tools and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)619; 68(1997)DLT420
J.B. Goel, J. (1) By this Order is No. 5579/96 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short Code) for ad-interim injunction is being disposed of. (2) This application has been filed in a suit. Briefly the facts are that late Shri V.N. Sarna as sole proprietor of M/s. P & S (India) Corporation was the lessee of the premises bearing No. 59, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi under the Directorate of Industries (now Commissioner of Industries). He had entered into an agreement dated 1.10.1975 with Shri K.C. Bajaj, defendant as sole proprietor of the concern M/s. Premier Tools, defendant No.1, for manufacturing purpose, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. (3) The said Shri Sarna died on 22.3.1986 leaving behind his widow (plaintiff No. 2), besides a son and daughter. Plaintiff No. 2 claiming right, title and interest in the said concern M/S.P&S; (India) Corpn. as well as in the said factory premises...
Delhi Northern Railway Accounts Employees Co-operative Housing Society ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT153; 1997(42)DRJ492
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This petition was filed on 19th July, 1992 alleging violation of the order passed by the Division Bench on 12th May, 1992 in Cm 3436/ 92 in Cw 1751/92. The order was passed ex parte. Petitioner was required to file photographs. Parties were directed to maintain status quo. Mr. U.L. Walwani was appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the site. It is stated that respondent No. 3 made deliberate violation of the order of status quo inasmuch as construction was raised thereafter by respondent No. 3. (2) We have gone through the affidavit and reply filed by respondent No. 3 stating therein that no construction activity was carried out after the order of the Court was shown on site by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. When the Local Commissioner visited the spot respondent No. 3 was in the process of fixing a wooden door by two hinges, which was also completed in the presence of the Local Commissioner and thereafter no construction activity of any kind wh...
Sushil Ansal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)103; 1998(1)Crimes370; 68(1997)DLT704; 1997(43)DRJ530
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) By this bail application under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code ., the petitioner prays for bail in F.I.R. No. 432 of 1997, P.S. Hauz Khas, New Delhi for the offences under Sections 304/436/427/337/338/285/287, Indian Penal Code, which relates to an incident of fire which broke on 13.6.1997 at about 5 p.m. in Uphaar Cinema building, Green Park, New Delhi. In this incident about 59 persons, who were in the theatre viewing film 'Border', lost their precious lives and about 103 person suffered injuries. (2) It is submitted by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a Director of M/s. Green Park Theatres Associated Private Limited, which Company owns Uphaar Cinema, which has since been changed to M/s. Ansal Theatres and Clubotels Private Limited; that the petitioner resigned as the Director in 1988; that another Director, who retired in March, 1995, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court; that the license for running...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »