Delhi Court January 2002 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.
Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran (Huf) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)261; 95(2002)DLT508; 2002(61)DRJ457; 2002RLR149
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner primarilychallenges the provisions of Sections 4, 6, 9 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 beingviolative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioneralso seeks a direction to the first respondent to rationalise the provisions of DelhiRent Control Act so that the petitioner is assured of receiving reasonable rent for hisproperties let out to the tenants. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a building bearing No. 40-42, Janpath, New Delhi. It is claimed that the said building was completed in the year 1938 at a cost of Rs. 2,50,362.50 and the same was let out to various tenants about 40-50 year ack. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the rent is pegged at a very low level which is highly unjust, unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner claims that his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21of the Constitution have been abridged by ...
Celador Productions Ltd. Vs. Gaurav Mehrotra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT543; 2003(26)PTC140(Del)
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. M/s Celador Productions Ltd., plaintiff has filed the present suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, his servants, representatives or distributors from running any web site using the name crorepatikaun.com or KAUN BANEGA CROREPATI as their second level domain name or using the name in any manner whatsoever, to offer on line game based onthe format of the programme and its distinctive features similar to that of the plaintiff or using any other mark including a domain name which is deceptively similar to the names 'who wants to be a Millionaires'. It also seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, its licenses distributors etc. from advertising directly or indirectly or running any web site containing pictures/screen shots with or without circular logo having distinctive lay out and colour arrangement of Amitabh Bachan as the host of the plaintiffs game KAUN BANEGA CROREPATI or containing any on line game having similar format ofthe...
K.C. Chakraborty Vs. Indian Trade Promotion Organisation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)409; 96(2002)DLT744
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner, who is employed with Indian Trade Promotion Organisation, is aggrieved by his non-regularisation to the post of Deputy General Manager to which post the petitioner was initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis.2. On 14.10.1996 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager on an ad-hoc basis. It is stated in the petition that a clear vacancy arose for the post on superannuation of one of the officers on 3.11.97 but the petitioner was not regularised. Thereafter another vacancy arose and in view of two clear vacancies a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 12.5.98. Instead of the petitioner being regularised the DPC did not confirm the petitioner to the post of Deputy General Manager confirm the petitioner to the post of the Deputy General Manager and persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. 3. The petitioner who has appeared in person contended that the bye-laws of the Trade Development Authority provide tha...
Kidar Nath Sharma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)601
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The petitioner, Kidar Nath Sharma, is a contractor. He has filed the present petition under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act praying for the award of the arbitration to be made a rule of the court and for a decree to be passed in terms of the award. In pursuance of the notices have been issued the respondent Union of India has filed the objections assailing the award on various grounds. The objections have been filed under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Needless to state that the same are being contested. 2. On 5th March, 1998 on behalf of the Union of India it had been pointed that without prejudice to his rights and contentions an order for payment of amount and interest be passed and the Union of India be allowed to deposit the amount allowed by the arbitrator along with the interest with the registry of the court. On 19th March, 1999 on behalf of the objector/respondent it was stated that the amount has since been deposite...
Brahma Chellaney Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)465; 2002(63)DRJ792
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The first question to be decide is whether Respondent No. 2 the Centre for Policy Research ('CPR' hereafter) is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It needs to be stated that the UOI, as also the Indian Council of Social Service Research ('ICSSR' hereafter), has supported the Petitioner in his submission that a writ can issue in this matter. A plethora of precedents have been cited by Mr. Kapil Sibal, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and by Mr. R.K..P. Shankerdass, Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2. If each of them is to be individually discussed these judgments would become needlessly and avoidably prolix; especially since a Restatement of the law, with special relevance to the facts of this case, is readily available in the decision in U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors., . It would be most fruitful to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in extensio, since an answer ...
G.S. Kushwaha Vs. Industrial Aids and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)715; 2002(2)ARBLR71(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT175
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Certain disputes had arisen between the parties. Mr. Justice P.N. Khanna (Retd.) of this court was appointed as the arbitrator. He made and published his award dated 19th February, 1990 and filed the same in this court. As per the this award, the arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. to the petitioner. The arbitrator also held that the respondents 2-6, who were partners of the respondent No. 1, were to pay all liabilities and were allowed to retain and recover all assets of the partnership firm. The petitioner was also one of the partners and in fact Managing partner of the respondent No. 1 firm. On receipt of the award, notice thereof was issued to the parties for filing the objections, if any, within the statutory period. The respondents 3 to 5 filed objections to this award under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 vide is No. 100029/90. It is not necessary to go into these objections as the case...
Rsg Share and Stock Brokers Ltd. Vs. Anju Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)603; 96(2002)DLT749; 2002(64)DRJ345; 2002(2)RAJ595
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Because of certain disputes, which had arisen between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, the same were arbitrated upon. The petitioner is a company which is a member of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.(NSE)/respondent No. 3 and is bound by its rules and bye-laws which, inter alia, provided for arbitration in case of such disputes. The respondent No. 1 is the real sister of Mr. Rajiv Gupta, Managing Director of the petitioner company. The respondent No. 1 raised theclaims against the petitioner company by filing its claim with NSE. Following claims were made: a) Rs. 12,13,493.45/- paisa plus interest from8th February, 2000. b) Rs. 4,10,000/- plus 25 per cent interestfrom 17th September, 1999.c) Delivery of 100 shares of Zee Telefilms.d) Delivery of 50 shares of SBIe) Delivery of 3500 shares of ICICI anddividend thereof.2. The respondent No. 3 appointed Mr. Justice .R. Handa(Retd.) as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon these disputes. The arbitrator has gi...
Additional Director General Cum Ig (Prisons) Vs. Union of India and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)454; 2002CriLJ2127; 96(2002)DLT653; 2002(62)DRJ163
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. The Additional Director General-cum-I.G. prisons)by communication dated 26th may, 2001 brought to the notice of this court some of the grievances of the prisoners lodged in Central Jail Tihar and stating that many of them do not get information about the filing number of their appeals/petitions from the Registry of this court despite repeated reminders. It is alleged that Prafful Kumar S/o Lalji Bhai sent his appeal in the case FIR No. 121/96 under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act A.S. Shakar Pur against judgment and order dated 21st March, 1998 passed by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi through Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar on 23rd September, 1998 but he could not get information about the result of same despite reminders. He has prayed for suitable directions. Taking into consideration the nature of issues raised, the communication was ordered to be registered as Writ Petition for redressal of the grievance of prisoners lodged in Tihar Jail....
Rishi Raj Vs. International Films Distributors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)82; 97(2002)DLT28; 2002(24)PTC541(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This order would dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure ( I.A. No. 7236/2001) seeking for injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendant, its employees, agents and representatives from in any manner interfering in the negative rights, sole and exclusive commercial and non-commercial Video rights in all formats, including CVD, DVD, satellite and television rights (both terrestrial and extra terrestrial), cable T.V. rights, pay T.V. rights and the available theartical rights for all India and overseas territories i.e. the entire world including India, in picture 'KOHINOOR', till the disposal of the suit. This order would also dispose of the application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I.A. 8262/2001) seeking for return of the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented in the court having proper jurisdiction. 2. The plaintiff...
The Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Nirpal Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ARBLR148(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT316
D.K. Jain, J.1. By this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the petitioner seeks a direction for filing of the hire purchase agreement dated 8 April 1991, containing the arbitration clause and for reference of the disputes, which are stated to have arisen between the parties, to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjeet Gulati, Advocate. 2. Background facts, giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are: that the petitioner is engaged in the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles. In April 1991, respondent No. 1 as hirer and respondent No. 2 as the guarantor, approached the petitioner for hiring of a Tata diesel truck model 1991. Accepting the proposal, the petitioner and the respondents entered into a hire purchase agreement on 8 April 1991 whereby respondent No. 1 agreed to pay 35 Installments of hire money (20 hire Installments of Rs. 10,300/- each and 15 hire Installments of Rs. 10,200/- each) falling due on the 7th day of each month, beginning from 7 Jun...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »