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.
Tanwar Marketing Services Vs. Zenith Rubber Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)900; AIR2002Delhi430
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1.Three separate suits have been filed bearing Nos. 886/98, 863/98 and 864/98. Though they are being tried separately but for purposes of the present order as the question involved is by and large identical thereforee only for convenient sake one common order is being passed.2. In Suit No. 886/98 M/s Tanwar Marketing Services, plaintiff, has claimed recovery of Rs. 94,21,816/- with interest at the rate of 20% p.a. A Civil suit has been filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been pleaded that in early 1995 the defendant (Zenith Rollers Ltd) for setting up of its manufacturing unit, imported a second hand machinery through the plaintiff. Under documents signed/executed the defendant was to pay the value of the same within 180 days through their banker UCO Bank, Kirti Nagar Nazafgarh, New Delhi. Under the documents the defendant obliged to remit value of the same. On 19th October, 1995 defendant remitted part payment in a sum of USD 44,000 leaving a s...
Sunil Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)346; 2002CriLJ1690; 96(2002)DLT293; I(2002)DMC415; 2002(62)DRJ52
Khan, J.1. All these writ petitions are seeking quashing of FIR No. 740/2000 registered at P.S. Patel Nagar against petitioners on the complaint of R-4 under Sections 498-Aand 406 IPC.2. The controversy arises out of a matrimonial discord between one of the petitioners, Sunil Aggarwal (husband) and R-4 an Advocate wife. Other petitioner are related or linked to the husband and are named in the FIR. Petitioner in writ petition No. 1214/2000 Shanata Sunder Aggarwal is his mother and in writ petition No. 1295/2000 Shalini his sister. The other two petitions have been filed, one by Sarits, his alleged second wife (Crl. W.P. 1294/2000) and the other (Crl. W.P. 1284/2000) byher father B.S. Puri. All these petitions are identical on all fours and challenge the FIR on same grounds and are,therefore, disposed by this common judgment.3. Petitioner, Sunil Aggarwal and R-4 were married on 1.5.1983 and a son was born to them out of the wedlock. They fell out later, separated and launched litigation...
Fuerst Day Lawson Vs. Jindal Exports Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)815; 2002(1)ARBLR565(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT714
O.P. Dwivedi 1. This order shall govern the disposal of EA No.; 251/20001 under Section 151 CPC filed by the Decree Holder seeking revival/restoration of execution petition. 2. The Decree Holder M/s. Fuerst Day Lawson has launched these execution proceedings for enforcement of foreign award dated 13th August, 1996. This Court had vide order dated 4th August, 1998 issued warrant of attachment in respect of the properties described in the schedule annexed to the petition as Annexure-F. Later on, vide order dated 9th September, 1998 at the request of counsel for the Judgment Debtor, order for issuance of warrant of attachment was withdrawn because respondent agreed to deposit some bonds/certificates in the Court as security for due satisfaction of the decree/award as and when it is enforced. Thereafter this Court passed a detailed order dated 19th February, 1999 on EA No. 347/1998 filed by the judgment debtor/respondent and held that since the arbitration proceedings had commenced before ...
BipIn Kumar JaIn Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)161; 96(2002)DLT456; 2002(82)ECC525
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Petitioner Bipin Kumar Jain assails the order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and revention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as amended (for short 'the Act').2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is a holder of Indian passport. On 20.11.2000, he arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Hongkong by Air India flight No. AI-321. He collected the baggages and walked through the green channel. On suspicion, at the exist gate of Arrival Hall, he was intercepted by the Customs officer and was inquired if he was carrying any gold or any other dutiable article. The answer given by the petitioner is statedto be in negative. Not satisfied with the reply, the officer called two independent witnesses and in their presence, search was to be conducted. The petitioner did not require the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer. He was taken to the Preventive room in the Arrival Hall. The search of...
Rajesh Bansal Vs. Ansal Housing Construction Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)478; AIR2002Delhi214; 96(2002)DLT668; 2002(63)DRJ787
O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. The plaintiff, above named, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,90,000/- Along with interest pendentelite and future thereon at the rate of 24% per annum against the defendant. It is alleged that defendant a well known construction company, published brochure in October, 1996 showing the lay out of 'Shopping-cum-office complex' by name 'TRADE SQUARE:. Plaintiff accordingly applied for a officer-cum-shop space in the proposed complex. During the period from November, 96 to January, 2000 plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 10,70,168/- with defendant company although he was required to deposit only a sum of Rs. 9,47,340/-. In November, 2000 plaintiff visited the site where the proposed complex was to come up and noticed that after competing one-end-corner of the complex, construction activities come to a stand still. Then in December, 2000 plaintiff sent a notice of demand asking refund of amounts deposited by him with interest. Under the terms and conditions, plaintiff i...
Arun Kapur Vs. Vikram Kapur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002IAD(Delhi)742; 96(2002)DLT757; 2002(61)DRJ495; [2003]44SCL47(Delhi)
R.C. Jain, J. 1. These two appeals purportedly under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) purportedly because that is the precise question which this Court is called upon to answer, have been filed by the above named appellant against the orders/directions/findings/observations dated 19.8.2001 and 10.9.2000 made by the sole arbitrator Mr. Justice A.M. Ahmadi (former Chief Justice of India) in pending arbitral proceedings in relation to certain disputes which have arisen between the parties. As an objection has been raised about the very maintainability of these appeals before this Court at the very outset, the counsel for the parties have been heard at length on this question and thereforee this order is confined to the question of maintainability of the appeal under the said provision of law. 2. Before coming to the real controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to the background leading to the orders/findings of t...
Seiko Cables of India Vs. Hattori Seiko Company Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)551; 96(2002)DLT886; 2002(62)DRJ640; 2002(24)PTC558(Del)
R.C. Jain, J. 1. This appeal under Section 109(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed against the order of the Assistant Registrar to Trade Marks, New Delhi dated 11th December, 1995. The relevant portion of which reads as under :- 'Proceedings having been taken under Section 21 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 by the above named Opponents to oppose the registration of the trade mark applied for by the above named Applicants and by reason of operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 the abovenoted application is deemed to have been abandoned. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to the said order are that on 11th August, 1988 the appellant a partnership firm filed an application bearing No. 495853 in Clause 9 in respect of Electric wires and cables for the registration of trade mark 'SEIKO' word per se under the Act. The said application was accepted and advertised...
Contenental Construction Ltd. Vs. Balfour Beaty Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)112; 2002(2)ARBLR34(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT39
O.P. Dwivedi 1. This petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Continental Construction Limited for referring disputes to the arbitration. The parties entered into two agreements referred to as 'the Joint Venture Agreements' dated 8.1.87 for the purpose of jointly preparing and submitting a tender for the construction of Ahmedabad-Vadodara Expressway project in Gujarat State and for the widening to 4-lanes (including strengthening of existing pavement) of National Highway - I in Haryana State. The said joint venture signed contract agreements Nos. II, III and IV dated 23.3.87 for the works in the State of Haryana. Besides, joint venture also signed contract agreement Nos. V, VI and VII dated 25.3.87 and Nos. VIII, IX, X dated 24.3.87 for the works in the state of Gujarat. Under the joint venture agreements the defendant had to provide experts in express ways and also had to provide on a temporary basis specialised road construct...
Rigoss Exports International (P) Ltd. Vs. Tartan Infomark Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi285; 2002(1)ARBLR594(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT614
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of OMP No. 335/99 titled Rigoss Exports International (P) Limited v. Tartan Infomark Limited and Ors. filed by the petitioner and IA. No. 12075/99 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the ad interim ex parte order dated 25.11.99 filed by the respondent No. 1.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to this petition are that petitioner is engaged in the business of ready-made garments of different specifications whereas respondent No. 1 Tartan Infomark Limited are agents of various garment importers at Singapore and other countries. Mr. Luv Bhardwaj, Director of respondent No. 1 company, represented to the petitioner that they would be able to procure Letter of Credit from various foreign buyers and would be able to arrange the export of ready made garments by the petitioner to such foreign buyers and for this purpose, respondent No. 1 would be charging commission on each deal. On this representation of respondent No. 1, the petiti...
A. Chowdhury Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT818; 2002(62)DRJ381
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the selection list, as declared by the respondent on 20.1.2002 in respect of the course of 'Executive Masters in International Business' at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.3. Petitioner, who happens to be a Squadron leader in the Indian Force, is aggrieved by what he terms as the arbitrary manner of interview and selection. The grievance of the petitioner emanates from the fact that the respondent for this course, have selected only those candidates, who displayed and showed prior knowledge and experience in InternationalBusiness.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the selection was not in conformity with and as per the prospectus. The eligibility criteria for seeking admission to the course did not specify any such prior knowledge or experience in International Business relations. The eligibility criteria as given ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »