Delhi Court November 2001 Judgments
Oriental Construction Co. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT531
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. This is a petition filed by M/s. Oriental Construction Company (hereinafter described as the petitioner) under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. The facts alleged are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents 1 and 2 for construction of Guru Teg Bahadur Medical College and Hospital Project, Shahdara under the sub-head External Sewerage. Certain disputes had arisen between the parties regarding the finality of the account and the matter was moved for arbitration under Clause 25 of the agreement. It was referred to respondent No. 3 as the sole arbitrator and the said arbitrator had pronounced the award. It is prayed that the award should be made a rule of the court besides future interest as claimed at the rate of 14% p.a. 3. In pursuance of the notice having been issued the Union of India has preferred the objections against the award so pronounced. On different claims that have been raised the objections have ...
Tag this Judgment!N.K JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Del)120
S.K. Agarwal, J.By this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.PC) read with article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 27-10-1998, passed by the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dismissing his application for discharge and for quashing of the proceedings arising out of Criminal Complaint No. 11194 under section 277 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' read with sections 193 and 196 of the IPC.2. Facts in brief are : that the Assistant Commissioner filed a complaint under above noted sections against the petitioner, alleging therein that on 8-2-1991 search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was carried out at the premises of the petitioner and the valuables comprising of following items were seizedRs.(a)Bullion/Gold ornaments78,61,000(b)Cash42,19,100(c)Unexplained jewellery10,00,000(d)Unexplained investment29,19,00...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhan Pande Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT568
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule 2. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus to be issued to DDA to allot a category-II flat. Pursuant to the Petitioner's registration under the Sixth Self financing Scheme interim directions were also sought for reservation of Category-II flat. It may be noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing CW No.4436/98. The said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one, since petitioner wanted to incorporate certain additional grounds.4. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is a short one. Petitioner, resident of Calcutta, submits that he was not aware of the publication of the notice inviting applications for allocation of the flats as per the advertisements taken out in the newspapers.5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that such notices were published only in the Delhi Edition of the national newspapers. H...
Tag this Judgment!Harvinder Singh Vs. Binder Kaur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT670; I(2002)DMC343; 2002(61)DRJ331
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed alleging that petitioner No. 1 was married to respondent No. 1 on 21st November 1993 and as they could not adjust with each other due to temperamental differences they started living separately from 20th December 1994. Respondent No. 1 lodged FIR No.1 760/95 under Sections 498A/406 IPC on 15th December 1995 against the petitioners and criminal proceeding based thereon is pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. First motion under Section 13-B(i) of Hindu Marriage Act was disposed of by the order dated 23rd March 1996. In second motion under Section 13-B(ii) of the Act joint statement of parties was recorded on 27th May 1997 and marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent by the order dated 31st May 1997 by an Additional District Judge. Respondent No. 1 had received her istridhan. She ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT229; 2002(61)DRJ234
K.S.Gupta, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-accused seeks quashment of FIR No. 266/98 under Section 448/380/34 IPC as also criminal proceedings emanating there from pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate.2. Copy of said FIR No. 266/98 lodged by respondent No. 1 is placed at pages 37 and 38 on the file. It is, interalia, alleged therein that the complaint Along with his brother had been running cloth business in Shop Nos. 351-52, Bazar Delhi Gate, New Delhi; Hari Kishan Dass is that landlord/owner of the shop which the accused claims to have purchased but he has not made available any document of title to the complainant; when the complaint on 7th May 1998 around 9 AM went to the roof over the shop for keeping waste cardboards, he found that dandas, cardboards, bamboos stored inside the tin shed as also tin shed had been removed; on enquiry it was disclosed by Lalit Kumar Satija that said articles after removal from roof, were taken away in a rickshaw by...
Tag this Judgment!Balganad Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT45; 2003(1)SLJ71(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner haschallenged the impugned order of conviction andsentence passed against him on 12th August, 1996whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.The petitioner has also challenged the legality ofthe order dated 7th January, 1998 whereby thestatutory petition filed by the petitioner againsthis conviction and sentence by the Summary SecurityForce Court was rejected. 2. The petitioner was charged and theofficiating Commandant vide order dated 9th August,1996 prepared a charge sheet against the petitionerfor trial of the petitioner under Sections 19(b)and 19(a) of the BSF Act. The charge framedagainst the petitioner pertained to hisover-staying leave and unauthorised absence. the petitioner was tried by the Summary Security ForceCourt and after conclusion of the trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 12thAugust, 1996 by dismissing him from service. Beingaggrieved by the said order, the petitionerpreferred a stat...
Tag this Judgment!Telemecanique and Controls (i) Limited Vs. Schneider Electric Industri ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT865
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The souring of relationship between joint venture partner's has given rise to the present dispute where the respondent is aggrieved by the alleged infringement of its patents by the appellant. A suit was thus filed by the respondent herein against the appellant for mandatory injunction from manufacturing and advertising as its own and selling the products of respondent for which respondent has registered patents and design, in India or any where in the world for the product range of electric contractors and accessories known as the D2 range. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 27.11.2000 of the learned Single Judge allowing interim application of the respondent is No. 8522/99 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the order dated 27.11.2000 dismissing is No. 6504/2000 filed by the appellant after the judgment had been reserved by the learned Single Judge on the injunction application. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Vihar Welfare Society (i-block) Vs. Delhi Development Authority ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT555; 2002(61)DRJ777
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. Petitioner, Ashok Vihar Welfare Society (I-Block), has filed the present writ petition, seeking a mandamus to respondents to review their decision to allot 0.6 acres of land in I-Block, Phase-I Ashok Vihar, Delhi for Nursery School. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.Venkatraman, in support of the writ petition has made the following submissions:- Firstly, there are already three Schools existing in the colony, including Model Nursery School, Springdales Senior Secondary School and another Secondary School. Secondly, encroachments and Jhuggi clusters had come up on the vacant plot, which were removed with great difficulty by the efforts of the respondents. Petitioner/Society has fixed iron gates for ingress and egress to the Colony on account of Security considerations and for protection of its residents. The apprehension is that if a Nursery School is made functional at th...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Potash Ltd. Vs. Potash Research Institute
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT712; 2002(61)DRJ526
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. On the application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by the defendants, following preliminary issue was framed:-1) Whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action and if so its effect? OPD. 2. The relevant facts to decide the aforesaid issue in right perspective need to be recapitulated in brief.3. The plaintiff is a Join Sector Company under the Administrative Control of Department of Fertilisers, Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilisers. The plaintiff states that over 90% of the equity of the plaintiff company is held by Government funded State co-operative Federations and Public Sector Companies. The plaintiff in furtherance of its objective of doing research in the field of agriculture and fertilisers decided to float a Society for the said purpose. Accordingly defendant No. 1 society was formed and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The primary objective of the defendant No. 1 as per memorandum of association and rules and regulations ha...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kaushalya Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT925
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The absence of direct legal descendants of late Smt. Sham Devi Kapoor has resulted in contentious litigation between the heirs of her husband on one side and the beneficiary of her alleged Will on the other side.2. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 4.4.1979 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Probate Petition No. 13/1972 filed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Anand, the appellant in respect of the Will of late Smt. Sham Devi Kapoor, alleged to have been executed on 26.2.1972 and registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi on 28.3.1972. The petition was contested by the legal heirs of Shri J.R. Kapoor, husband of late Smt. Sham Devi Kapoor, who would be the beneficiary of the estate of Smt. Sham Devi Kapoor in the absence of any Will. Shri J.R. Kapoor married twice. The first wife of Mr. J.R. Kapoor was Smt. Puran Devi and the second wife was Smt. Sham Devi Shri J.R. Kapoor had three children-one son and two daughters. The son Shri Chaman Lal also ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »