Delhi Court October 2001 Judgments

Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT182

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 and their agents, representatives or members from holding any demonstration and for directions to the defendant No. 3 to act in accordance with law.2. The facts in brief are as under:-3. The plaintiff is a bank incorporated in England with limited liability by Royal Charter 1853 having its Indian corporate office at New Excelsior Building, 3rd & 4th floor, A.K. Naik Marg, Mumbai and its branch office at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The plaintiff received a letter in the evening of 17.11.2000 from the defendant No. 1 union wherein defendant No. 1 union has threatened a massive demonstration before the plaintiff bank office situated at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Perusal of the said letter indicates that the said letter was issued at the behest of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 also happens to be the President of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the proprietor/par...

V.A. Tech Esheer Wyss Flovel Ltd. Vs. Nippon Power Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ502

J.D. Kpoor, J.1. From the pleadings of the parties following preliminary issue has emerged for determination:'Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit?'2. This is a suit for perpetual injunction for retraining defendant No. 2 from seeking payment from defendant No. 3 under the bank guarantee dated 8th October, 1999 and also for restraining defendant No. 3 from making any payment to defendant No. 2 under the said bank guarantee.3. Relevant facts, in short, are as under:The plaintiff entered into a contract dated 26th March, 1999 to sell and supply certain Electro-Mechanical equipments to the defendant No.1 and thereafter commission the same in the Angoor hydroelectric project to be constructed by defendant No. 1 for defendant No. 2. As per the contract, the defendant No. 1 agreed to give a mobilisation advance of Rs. 65 lacs to the plaintiff which was as per letter of indent to be given into two Installments of Rs. 40 lacs and 25 lacs. The amounts were to...

Lakha Ram Sharma Vs. Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 97(2002)DLT342

A.K. Sikri, J.1. An interesting question relating to territorial jurisdiction of this court has been posed in this case. The petitioner filed the application under Section 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act(for short 'Act') for rectification of the registered trade mark No. 507445 as of 23th March, 1989 in class 9 of the IV Schedule of the Act. The trade mark KUNDAN/KUNDAN CAB is the subject matter of the aforesaid registration which is registered in the name of the respondent No. 1. It is in respect of electrical accessories and fittings including electrical switches, main switches, fuse units, wires and cables and electrical irons. The petitioner claims that it has also been using the trade mark KUNDAN/KUNDAN CAB/KUNDAN CABLES INDIA in respect of these very goods since 1980 and when the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 1 was also using the same trade mark, the petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction in the court of District Judge, Delhi. In the sai...

Lancer Publishers Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed against order dated 18.7.2001 passed by learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Delhi in O.A. No. 756/95 Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Lancer Publishers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr..2. By the impugned order learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below has rejected an application of the appellants for restoration of their application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, read with Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6.7.2001. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, this appeal has been filed.3. Notice in this appeal was issued to the respondent Bank for 24.9.2001. Dasti notice was given to the appellant for service on the respondent Bank and the appellants were directed to file affidavit of service. In compliance, the appellants filed affidavit of one Capt.Bharat Verma which states that the copy of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was taken to the concerned branch ...

Kishore JaIn Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002CriLJ1154; 94(2001)DLT558; 2002(61)DRJ164

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition u/s. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the order dated 26th November, 1993 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, framing charge against the petitioner under Section 448 IPC, in the case FIR No. 13/91 P.S. Anand Parbat, Delhi. The question which arises for consideration is : whether the corporation was or not in possession of the premises, after the same were duly sealed under Section 345-A of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (here-in-after DMC Act), for unauthorised construction? 2. The facts in brief are : On 11th December, 1990 the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, after considering reports regarding unauthorised construction, at premises NO. 25/8-A , Gali No.7, Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises'), in exercise of the powers vested in him u/Ss. 345A-A and 491 of DMC Act, and the Rules made there under, directed the Zonal Engineer to forthw...

Union of India Vs. Laxmi Chemical and Industires Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ357

1. Shiv Prakash was appointed as the sole arbitrator and he submitted the award dated 30th April, 1990. In pursuance of the notices having been issued objections have been filed by Union of India under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. It has been asserted that the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings in rejecting the claim of Union of India for Rs.12,94,095/- on account of general damages suffered by Union of India due to breach of contract committed by M/s Laxmi Chemical & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter described as the respondent). Furthermore it is claimed that the arbitrator misconducted himself in disallowing the claim for the reason that market rate prevailing at Mattupalyam (Distt. Coimbatore) cannot legally form the basis for claiming general damages and had gone wrong in calculating that the claim for general damages would be difference between rate and the market rates which prevailed on the date of the breah. Furthermore it is claimed ...

Jagjeewan Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT1

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Main grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that notwithstanding the information about commission of cognizable offences, no action has been taken by the concerned police officials.2. The course to be adopted, if the position is as stated by the petitioner, is not filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') prescribes the procedure to investigate into the cognizable offences defined under the Code. In respect of cognizable offence, Chapter XII of the Code prescribes the procedure: information to the police and their powers to investigate the cognizable offence. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 envisages that:'Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; an...

Sanjeev SarIn and anr. Vs. Rita Wadhwa and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT889; 2002(61)DRJ254

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), petitioners-applicants are seeking review of the order dated 20th October, 2000.2. Facts in brief are: the respondent No. 1 is real sister of the petitioners. After the death of their mother, petitioners filed an application under Sections 8, 11, 15(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) praying for appointment of a retired judge of this court as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute regarding division of the estate left behind by their mother. The petition was based on a jointly signed letter by the petitioners and the respondent addressed to S/Shri Surender Kumar of Jullundhar and Arun Kumar of Amritsar, requesting them to act as arbitrators for division of all movable and immovable assets, left behind by their mother in three equal proportions and settlement of allied matters. Neither the 'original arbitration ...

Babu Ram and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT708

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.11.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl.A. No. 40/99 and reducing the sentence awarded to petitioner No. 1 from 9 months' RI to six months' RI while maintaining the fine imposed on the petitioners by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') while maintaining the fine as awarded on appellants Nos. 1 and 2.2. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the sample of the Chenna was lifted on 28.10.1996 while the complaint was filed on 26.3.1997 and the report from the Central Food Laboratory was received on 8.5.1997. Consequently, the sample that was lifted lost its values and was not capable of being analysed. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that this question has been adverted to by the Courts below and found, as a matter of fact, that the sample had not dete...

S.M. Mehta and Co. Vs. National Industries Dev. Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT139

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. There is an error in the order dated 27th August, 1999 in respect of the word 'Interim' appearing in the order preceding to the word 'Award'. There is no interim award. As such the word 'interim' appearing in the order in hereby deleted.2. Vide order dated 27th August, 1999 the suit in respect of claims 1,2,3,4 and 8 awarded by the Arbitrator was decreed. The instant objections are only in respect of claims 5, 6 and 7.3. Petitioner was awarded the work of construction of Navodaya Vidyalaya, Parbhani, Dist. Basmatnagar (Maharashtra). In the said order the petitioner was required to construct the following buildings:1. Workshop- 2 Units.2. Dining hall- 4 Units.3. Kitchen hall- 2 Units.4. Multipurpose hall- 1 Unit.5. Temporary structures forbath and latrine- 1 Unit.4. The contract/project awarded to the petitioner was for Rs. 28,23,997.86.5. Claim No.5 is towards the damages for no refund of cash security deposit beyond the first one lakh against bank guarantee. The obje...