Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 17 of about 321 results (0.021 seconds)In Re: Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling; South West Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)309; 81(1999)DLT155; 1999(51)DRJ142
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1.The petition under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act of 1956 for according sanction of the scheme of arrangement/amalgamation has been filed in this Court. I propose to decide company petition Nos. 154 to 157 The scheme of arrangement/amalgamation is between Hindustan Coca-Cola Bottling North West Private Limited (HCCNW), (Transferor Company No. 1); Bharat Coca-Cola Bottling South East Private Limited (BCCSE), (Transferor Company No. 2); and Bharat Coca-Cola Bottling North East Private Limited (BCCNE), (Transferor Company No. 3) and Hindustan Coca-Cola Bottling South West Private Limited (HCCSW) (Transferee Company). 2. It is incorporated in the petition that the petitioner company is presently engaged in the operations relating to the preparation, packaging, sale and distribution of non-alcoholic beverages. The main objects of the petitioner company have been set out in the Memorandum and Article of Association. The transferor companies 1 to 3 are als...
Tag this Judgment!Twinkle Exports Vs. Tartans Infomark Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)333; [2000]100CompCas820(Delhi); 81(1999)DLT105; 1999(50)DRJ802; (1999)123PLR14
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1.The petitioner filed a petition under Section 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the respondent. The petitioner vide its letter dated 11.4.1997 has offered certain quotations for costume jewellery items to the respondent company Along with its terms and conditions. The respondent company placed an order dated 15.4.1997 for the supply of various items of costume jewellery, which was duly accepted by the petitioner. According to the letter dated 15.4.1997, some specified jewellery items were to be supplied to the petitioner within 90 days, i.e., on or before 19.7.1997. The respondent was to be paid a commission of US$ 58,000. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was paid the commission amount. It is also mentioned in the petition that the petitioner sought an extension of time for supplying the goods vide letter dated 4.7.1997 and the respondent company had agreed to extend the time up to 6.8.1997 and informed the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Sudesh Kumar B. Dhawan Vs. J.S. Sood and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)388; 82(1999)DLT460; 1999(51)DRJ673
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition being aggrieved by the order dated '17th April, 1947 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in suit No. 485/93 giving him conditional leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 under order 37 CPC.2. The respondent No.1 filed the aforesaid suit under order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 1,95,000/-. It is alleged in the plaint that an agreement was entered into between defendants 1 and 9 pursuant to which an amount of Rs. Two lacs for the production of picture 'JAAN HATHELI PE' was paid to be produced under the partnership of defendant No. 2. It is further alleged that as partner of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 9 executed bills of exchange (Hundies) and the said hundies were duly endorsed by defendant No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff. The aforesaid hundies when presented for acceptance to defendant No. 9, who accepted the same by endorsement made on the hundies. The said hundies were, however, dishonou...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Bala Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)357; 81(1999)DLT361; 1999(51)DRJ1
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1.The question for consideration before the Full Bench is: 2. What should be the cut off date for purposes of acquiring qualifications for eligibility for purposes of employment to a particular post As a corollary another question which arises for consideration is as to whether the court should go into the question of reasonableness or appropriateness of a particular cut off date fixed by the authorities conducting recruitment to the service. 3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were seeking employment to the post of Assistant Teachers and Nursery Teachers in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Staff Selection Commission (for short SSC) was entrusted with the task of making the recruitment. Accordingly an advertisement was issued by the SSC in September 1992. The last date for receipt of application forms from candidates was 12th October 1992. The written examination was to be held on 7th February 1993. The advertisement prescribed the age limit as 18-30...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Darshan Lal Gaba and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)539; 81(1999)DLT447
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiff, Oriental Bank of Commerce, has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 2,22,289.31 together with pendente lite and further interest from the date of the filing of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount at the rate of 14.5 % per annum, inter alia, for the sale of hypothecated Tata bus model LP 121 OE/52, chasis No. 344-050-I-61340 bearing registration No. DEP 5782. Defendant No. 1 was the principal borrower and Defendant No. 2 is the guarantor. The Defendants had filed Written Statements wherein they had denied their liability towards the Plaintiff Bank on various grounds. 2. The following issues were framed on 21.1.1991. '1. Whether the plaint is signed, verified and the suit instituted by a duly authorised person ? 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant No. 2 ? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? 4. Whether the suit is bad for misguide of the parties? 5. Whether the plaintiff bank got signed blank printed ...
Tag this Judgment!Sewa International Fasions Vs. Suman Kathpalia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)532; AIR2000Delhi69; 82(1999)DLT104; 1999(51)DRJ591; (1999)123PLR65
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1.This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.1.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No.104/1998. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the respondents as plaintiffs on 6.3.1988 seeking a decree of ejectment and for payment of damages/masne profits against the petitioner. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the rent and the maintenance charges of the suit premises were increased from time to time and that finally with effect from October, 1997, aggregate monthly rent of the said premises became Rs. 3,684/- made up of Rs. 3,146/- and Rs. 538/- being paid by the defendant towards the maintenance charges in respect of the said premises. 3. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit on various grounds including the ground that the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act contending, inter alia, that the rent paid to the respondents/plaintiffs was inclus...
Tag this Judgment!Nilender Prakash Punj Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)371; 85(2000)DLT342
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 1991, praying for a decree of permanent injunction & declaration. 2. The matter was proceeded exparte against the defendant on 14th August, 1996. Thereafter the petitioner has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. 3. The prayer on behalf of the plaintiff in the present suit as follows : 'a Decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant, their employees, officials, officers, agents, etc. from taking any demolition and/or sealing action against the suit property being property No. 5224, Plot No.6, `O' Block, G.B. Road, Delhi-110006; and a decree of Declaration be also passed declaring that no part of the suit premises is unauthorised.' 4. The plaintiff has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ravi Kumar Nigam, Attorney of the plaintiff. The averments made in the plaint have been supported by the said affidavit. The plaintiff has averred i...
Tag this Judgment!Walter Bushnell Limited Vs. Mr. VipIn Aggarwal and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)579; 81(1999)DLT576
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1.This is a suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining infringement of Trade Mark, passing off, damages, delivery etc. 2. It has been averred in the Plaint that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical since 1978 and one of these products is the antibiotic sold under the name of 'AMCLOX' and that this trade name is registered in its favor since 21.11.1978. It is further averred that in order to distinguish its AMLOX capsules, the Plaintiff had selected a blue and white colour combination for its had selected a blue and white colour combination for its capsules since 1981. This colour combination has become distinctive of the Plaintiff's medicinal preparations, particularly in relation to composition of Ampicillin and Cloxacillin. The Plaintiff was aggrieved that the Defendants were marketing pharmaceutical preparations which were also antibiotic under the Trade Name AMCLOX which were also capsules having compo...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar (Constable) and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)431; 2000(52)DRJ551
ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have been challenging the order dated 14.12.1995 dismissing them from service under Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 and attaching them in CRPFBN/HQ located at Delhi with consequential relief of pay and allowances due to them. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were posted in CRPF Company at Mukakchung, Nagaland; that the said Company was commanded by Deputy Comdt. N.R. Yadav, which was under command of 8 Bn. C.R.P.F with Headquarter at Jorhat (Assam); that the Commanding Officer of 8 Bn C.R.P.F. was Comdt., CCD P.L. Siwan; that on 5.2.1994, Deputy Comdt,. N.R. Yadav gave orders for move of a Convey of three vehicles with 19 C.R.P.F. personnel for collection of ration and repair of wireless equipments in Assam; that the Convey commanded by sub inspector R.K. Singh moved to Jorhat on 5.2.1994 and reached the headquarters of 8 Bn CRPF for collection of stores and repa...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Bairwa Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)435; 2000(52)DRJ473
ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been challenging the resort to sealed cover procedure inasmuch as according to the petitioner since there was no initiation of departmental proceedings on the date of Departmental Promotion Committee (for the short D.P.C) meeting, the sealed cover could not have been placed before the said Committee. 2. The petitioner joined the Border Security Force in 1998; that was posted as Sub Inspector in 100 Battalion then deployed on the Cooch Bihar border of West Bengal; that on 26.9.90, petitioner was traveling by train on duty from New Cooch Bihar to Gwalior; that he was carrying in his brief case, a compass, property of the Government; that the brief case of the petitioner was stolen from his compartment; that the report to the local police did not yield any result; that the said compass could not be recovered; that after two years of incident, some time in 1992, Court of Inquiry/F...
Tag this Judgment!