Delhi Court September 2001 Judgments

M/S M.K. Enterprises Vs. M/S Creative Knit Crafts and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ818

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award dated 29.5.1996 for Rs. 6,25,983.75 as rule of the court. 2. By way of I.A. 12410/96, respondents have challenged the validity of the award by raising the following objections:- i) That the objector is not a member of Delhi Hindustan Mercantile Association nor did it ever agree for arbitration of the dispute to the Delhi Mercantile Association and as such entire reference initiated by the arbitrator is null and void and is liable to be set aside. ii) That there is no legal, valid arbitration clause between the parties and the arbitrator had become functus-officio after expiry of stipulated period of four months as the reference was made on 22.11.1995 and the award was made on 29.5.1996. iii) That the Arbitrator committed grave misconduct in proceeding ex-parte as no notice was ever served upon the respondents on 8.5.1996. Even otherwise it was incumbent upon the arbitrator ...

M/S A. A. Associates Vs. Prem Goel and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi142

ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. M/s A A Associates, plaintiff is a registered partnership. It is carrying on business of film distribution, exhibition and exploitation of cinematographic films in the territory of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. It has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.5 lakhs on account of damages besides seeking a permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants 2 to 4 from in any manner telecasting the film (Majboor) on Doordarshan, ZEE TV, Satellite TV, Cable TV, Pay TV and other TVs. and defendant no.1 should further be directed to restrain from making any payments of the telecasting charges to defendants 2 to 4.2. The facts alleged are that the plaintiff had acquired the sole and exclusive rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the picture Majboor. An agreement in this regard was arrived at on 20th March, 1987. The rights were available to the plaintiff uptil 9th July, 2007. Defendant no.2 (M/s Suchitra Films Pvt. Ltd.) is a film ...

The National thermal Power Corp. Vs. R.S. Avtar Singh and Co. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ211

ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The short question which craves for an answer is as to whether the present application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) could be filed in this court or not.2. This question arises in view of the facts to be delineated hereinafter. An application had been filed in this court and on 28th May, 1998 in OMP 25/97 this court held that no case was made out for appointment of the arbitrator. When the matter went to the Supreme Court with the consent of the parties, Justice S C Agarwal had been appointed as the arbitrator. The operative part of the judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard reads:-'During the course of hearing of this appeal the parties on both sides have agreed that in the place of the two arbitrators one be nominated by each of the parties, it would be sufficient if the reference is made to a single arbitrator. To this extent parties by consent have modified the original terms of the agreement ...

Badley Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT380

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner has field this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus the Delhi Development Authority, Development Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner for taking action against respondents 4 to 7 for alleged encroachments. Petitioner seeks a mandamus to respondents 1 to and 3 to get evicted respondents 4 to 7 from a piece of land, which is claimed to be a part of khasra No.384, situated at Village Khanpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The said portion is stated to be in the illegal occupation of respondents 4 to 7.3. Case of the petitioner in short is that a total area of 7 bighas and 7 bids was of land in khasra No.384 was acquired and ti was handed over to DDA. However, DDA has failed to remove the encroachments. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a result of the encroachments, the respondents have blocked a passage/rasta, which is the subject matter of challenge in...

Jk Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pratibha Cement (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT580

V.S. Aggarwal,J.1. J.K. Corporation Limited, hereinafter described as the plaintiff, has filed the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant (Pratibha Cement (P) Ltd), its proprietor or partner, its principal officers. servants or distributors from using the trade mark VSK Lakshmi cement together with three petalled lotus device or any other trade mark or device which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark Lakshmi cement and in this process not to infringe the plaintiff's trade mark registration no. 464272. It also prays to restrain the defendant or its partners, officers or servants from reproducing any of the artistic feature of the plaintiff's trade dress in any material form amounting to an infringement of plaintiff's copyright. Thirdly, permanent injunction is prayed to direct the defendant not to advertise, manufacture, sell or offer for sale the cement under the trade mark VSK Lakshmi cement together with three petalled lotus...

Bhagwan Das Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT857; 2001(60)DRJ405

ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No. 616/2000, under Section 21/65/85 of NDPS Act, P.S. Hazrat-Nizamudding. 2. Petitioner was arrested on the allegations of having been found in possession of 5 grams of Heroin. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a cloth merchant; he is not involved in any case and no public witness was associated either at the time of arrest of the petitioner or even thereafter. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has referred to search memo wherein Rs. 9,000/- was recovered from the petitioner. Investigation is complete and challan has been filed. Learned APP for State is unable to contest these facts or to show any past involvement of the petitioner. 4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfa...

Jayant Amritanand Shukla Vs. Mala Shukla

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)172; 2002(62)DRJ663

S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard.2. This court tried its level best to bring about an amicable settlement, but unfortunately, failed.3. There is no dispute about the fact that the first motion was moved and the parties made a statement before the court but the respondent/wife is not willing to continue and she has withdrawn her consent. Some negotiations did take place but ultimately failed.4. The matter appears to be covered by the judgment of Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, : [1991]1SCR274 . In the light of this judgment, either of the parties to the petition under Section 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, could unilaterally withdraw his/her consent at any time till passing of the decree and the court would not get any jurisdiction to pass the adverse decree against the wishes of either the husband or the wife.5. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that there are certain observations of the Supreme Court in Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri, : [1997]2SCR875 doubting the ra...

Ramavtar Aggarwal Vs. Corporation Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by one of the defendants in O. A. No.121/99 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur against order dated 17.7.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of that Tribunal.2. The impugned order has been passed on an application dated 20.2.2001 moved by the appellant, a copy of which has today been filed by the appellant. By that application the appellant requested the Tribunal below to direct the respondent Bank to pay Rs. 1,56,373 and to dismiss the Original Application filed by the respondent Bank and for award of heavy cost of Rs. 50.000/-. The grounds for making the aforesaid prayers had been stated by the appellant in that application which inter alia are that after the appellant compromised the claim under the respondent Bank's application he came to know about the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for recovery of dues relating to Non-performing Assets of public sector Banks; that at the time when the compromise was entered in...

M/S Sawhney Export House Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(139)ELT276(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. The petitioner who has discharged his lawyer now appears in person and sought an injection against the encashment of bank guarantee given by the petitioner in order to avail of his quota entitlement under First Come First Service Scheme (FCFS). Rather than deal with the interim application, I am dealing with the writ petition in view of the orders of this Court dated 9th of October, 1996.2. In the said Order of 9th October, 1996, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:'In other similar writ petitions which came up before another division bench the factual position was similar. The Bench took notice of the differing reason given by the parties ate various stages and dismissed the writ petitions. The Court observed as follows in that batch:-'We have been taken through the various orders passed by the authorities below. The said orders reveal that the petitioners had taken different grounds and advanced different reasons for their inability to utilise the ful...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. T.C. Dhingra and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi129; 94(2001)DLT689

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1 Rule.The petitioner MCD has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 3.12.1997, by which appeal was allowed against assessments orders dated 21.1.1994 and 8.11.1995. The assessments determining the rateable value of property bearing No.G-3, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, were set aside and case remanded to Assessing Authorities.2 By the assessment order dated 21.1.1994, the rateable value of the property was determined at Rs.99,500/- with effect from 20.3.1989, and vide assessment order dated 8.11.1995, it was determined at Rs.56,100/- with effect from 1.4.1994. The learned ADJ remanded the cases back for reassessment to the Assessing Officer with a direction to give the assessed a reasonable opportunity of hearing.3 Before coming to the ground on which the impugned judgment dated 3.12.1997, is challenged, it may be noticed that the respondent had applied for rectification to the petitioner MCD and the MCD vide an...