Delhi Court September 2001 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.
Pritpal Singh Bhatia Vs. Yogeshwar Nath and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)323; 2002(64)DRJ344
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This petition is under Section 8(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner wants appointed of an arbitrator in the matter of rendition of accounts by the respondents, partners of M/s Consistent Clothing.2. M/s Consistent Clothing was a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the 'firm') of which petitioner and the two respondents were partners. The petitioner was inducted as partner on 6th January, 1993 and the partnership firm was reconstituted vide partnership deed of even date. This firm was trading in all kinds of textile manufacture and dealers in ready-made garments and importers and exporters. The share of the petitioner in profits and loserswas 50 per cent and that of the respondents it was 25 per cent, each in the profits and losses of the firm. It is not necessary to state in detail the disputes which arose between the parties. Suffice is to state that the petitioner has leveled allegations against the respondents acting in a...
inderjeet and anr. Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT462; 2002(61)DRJ794
R.C. Jain, J. 1. These appeals arise from the judgment dated 31.8.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, and as the common questions of fact and law are involved in all these appeals, it is proposed to dispose of these appeals by means of this common order. 2. In short, relevant facts leading to the appeal are that the appellants herein had filed suits for perpetual injunction against the defendant/respondent Agriculture Produce and Market Committee (in short 'APMC') restraining them from dismantling and uprooting the railing put in front of their shops, with a view to construct wall blocking front doors of the said shops. In the suits, the appellants had averred that their ancestors were original residents of village Bharola and their houses and shops fall on the public way and they have a right of access to the highway which they have been enjoying for several years past but the respondents were denying their rights. The suits were defended by the respondent APM...
M/S U.K. Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. M/S Surlux Medi Equip Ltd. and Anrs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT453; 2001(60)DRJ472
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. IAs 4956-57/97 are applications under Order 37 rule 2 sub-rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for decreeing the suit.2. This is a suit filed under the summary procedure or Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 70,17,125/-.3. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendants by way of substituted service through publication in the newspaper 'National Herald' and ordinary summons as well as registered summons were also received with the report that the premises were found locked.4. As per provisions of Order 5 rule 15 CPC which provides that where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service maybe made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. It is also mentio...
Rajnigandha Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S Chand Const ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT636; 2001(60)DRJ293
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The short controversy that calls for determination is whether the interim order/award of the arbitrator ruling on its jurisdiction to determine the dispute, raised by one of the parties is liable to be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') or not. The controversial clause which has given rise to the interim order/award of the arbitrator and the instant petition is Clause 44 of the agreement. It reads as under:- '44. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES All disputes and differences of any kind whatever arising out of in connection with the contract or carrying out of the work (whether during the progress of the work or after their completion and whether before or after the determination, abandonment or breach of the contract shall be referred to and settled by the employer, who shall state his decision in writing. Such decisions may be in form of a final certificate or otherwise. The decision of the e...
Shri Chander Kishore Gaur Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ736
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondent/MCD from demolishing the petitioner's property in whole or part thereof bearing No.B-13/9, Krishan Nagar, Village Ghondli, Village Shahdaa Delhi-110051.3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.S. Gambhir submits before me that the property had been purchased by the petitioner in 1974 and thereafter construction was raised. He candidly submits that there is no sanctioned plan for the property. Counsel of the petitioner submits that in 1984, ground floor portion was leased for the purposes of a kerosene oil depot. He submits that on 28.7.1987, the MCD had sealed portion of 14 ft. X 14 ft. on the ground floor.4. Petitioner claims to have deposited on 23.1.2000 Rs. 150000/- as compounding fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the...
PlastIndia Foundation Vs. Ajeet Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT235
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This application is filed by the plaintiff invoking the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 as well as Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ad-interim injunction is prayed for during the pendency of the main suit field by the plaintiff. Main suit is for permanent injunction, restraining passing off, rendition of accounts or profit, deliver up, etc. 2. The plaintiff, PLASTINDIA FOUNDATION, is a registered trust under the Bombay Trust act, 1950 having registration No. F-12156. The plaintiff trust was organized and formed in the year 1987, as an apex body of associations of all the leading organisations and institutes concerned, directly or indirectly with the manufacture, sale and or promotion of plastics, their related materials and products in India. The membership of the plaintiff organisation consists of: i) Founder Members, who are associations, organisations or institutions which are interested, directly or indirectly, in serving the wider objectives an...
Smt. Krishna Devi and ors. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1123; AIR2002Delhi113
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of late Sh. Rambhaj. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are her children. Plaintiff No. 5 is the mother of Sh. Rambhaj. These plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 10 lacs impleading Haryana State Electricity Board as defendant No. 1 and M/s. Rajdhani Sales as defendant No. 2. The amount is claimed by way of damages on account of loss of life of Sh. Rambhaj who was an employee of defendant No. 1 and died in an accident which occurred in the premises of defendant No. 2. The facts as mentioned in the plaint may not be stated in brief.2. Defendant No. 1 which is established by Government of Haryana to generate and supply electricity in the State of Haryana. One of its electricity generation plant is at Panipat. Defendant No. 2 is doing the business of manufacturing of various types of gases including H-2 gas which is required in the thermal plant. The case set out in the plaint is that defendant No. 1 had deputed Sh. Rambhaj to Delhi on ...
Mr. Sudhir Bhatia and ors. Vs. M/S Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT639
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. 'LAXMAN REKHA' my theologically is the boundary which should never have been crossed. The present dispute arises from the grievance of the respondent against the appellants for having transgressed the boundary by using LAXMAN REKHA trademark for their product over which the respondents claim exclusive rights.2. The respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction, infringement of copyright, passing off and delivery up etc. in respect of the trademark LAXMAN REKHA. It was stated in the plaint that in the year 1988 the predecessor-in-title of the respondent originally conceived and adopted trade marks KRAZY LINES and LAXMAN REKHA in respect of insecticides and pesticides preparation and, thereafter, commercial artists were engaged for developing the distinctive label consisting of these two brand names in a special and particular manner. It was further alleged in the plaint that there had been continuous and uninterrupted use of these two trademarks in respect of...
Laxmi Bai @ Lachhmi Bai Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT881
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The appeals preferred by claimants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Union of India has filed the appeals for reduction in the amount of compensation. In the appeals filed by the Union of India, cross-objection have also been filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement. The claimants pray that they be allowed compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per bigha whereas Union of India has prayed that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court be reduced and be directed to be paid @ Rs. 18,000/- per bigha.2. The land which is subject matter of the appeals was situated at village Tehkhand and was notified for being acquired for public purpose namely, Planned Development of Delhi under Section 4 of the Act through Notification issued on 23.1.1965 for public purpose namely, Planned Development of Delhi. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 dated 13.1.1...
Csir Scientific Workers Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ286
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. This petition has been filed as a public interest petition seeking appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India including a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking restoration of the publication and copyright of 'The Wealth of India'/Bharat Ki Sampada' to the National Institute of Science Communication and for release of the copy of enquiry report of Mr. D K Sangal for the public and consequent disciplinary action against the respondents. The petitioners have raised the issue of restoration of publication and copyright of encyclopedia on mineral and biological resources of the country called the Wealth of India/Bharat Ki Sampada, the publication of which is alleged to have been stopped on account of illegal and mala fide transfer of information, database and copyright from the Government organisation called NISCCM to a new private society created by respondent No. 3. The petition has been listed on various occasions and aff...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »