Delhi Court December 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.
Godavri Shilpkala Ltd. Vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC46
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has come forward with this appeal against the order dated 14.8.2002, declining the request of the appellant to permit cross-examination of the witnesses for the Bank. This application has been dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Delhi on the ground that the application for permission to cross-examination of witnesses does not disclose any reason for doing so. The copy of the application filed before the DRT is also at page 102 of the paper book. A perusal of this application shows that this application is bereft of details as to why the witnesses are required for cross-examination. Therefore, this application has been rightly dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer. However, learned Counsel for the appellant points out that even at the time of advancing arguments on this application, it was pointed out, and she had undertaken to furnish the details as to why the witnesses are to be cross-examined, and thoug...
Dinesh JaIn Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC5
1. 1. After arguing the appeal for some time, the learned Counsel for the appellant wants to withdraw this appeal with liberty to move a fresh application before the concerned DRT for the purpose of seeking permission to cross-examine the witnesses by giving details of the names of the witnesses who have to be cross-examined, the points on which the witnesses have to be cross-examined, and the necessity for cross-examining them also. In view of the fact that the learned Presiding Officer has also passed the impugned order declining the request of the appellant for permission to cross-examine the witnesses, stating it is vague, I am of the opinion, in the interest of justice, the appellant can be given an opportunity to move a fresh application before the DRT as prayed for by him. Accordingly, the request for withdrawing the appeal with liberty to move fresh application giving all the details has to be and is accepted. This appeal is disposed of with these observations and with liberty...
Shri Saif-ul-islam Company, L.P. Vs. Shri Roshan Lal Arora and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT692; 2003(67)DRJ30
C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5th December, 1995 for sale of godown at ground floor in property No. T-222, measuring 9'x29', out of 68 sq. yds. situated at Ahata Kedara, Delhi with defendant No. 1.3. It is stated that till the filing of the suit the occupation of the aforesaid godown was with defendant No. 1 who was running his own business of fireworks, charcoal etc. Thereafter possession was transferred to defendant No. 2 Mohd. Naeem. The plaintiff alleges that by 15th November, 1996 he had not known as to what is the real status of Mohd. Naeem, defendant No. 2 in acquiring possession of godown. It is alleged that the defendants filed their written statements and took common defense that the suit property was transferred on 10th September, 1996 to defendant No. 2 through usual registered and unregistered docu...
Economic Transport Carrier Vs. Economic Transport Carrier (South)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ574; 2003(26)PTC197(Del)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. A strange situation has arisen in these proceedings as the suit has been filed by one of the partners of the plaintiff-firm against the defendant-firm which is its namesake and has one common partner, namely, Sh. Madan Lal Aggarwal. It is alleged that the defendant-firm has used trade name of the plaintiff-firm by way of passing off in order to derive unjust advantage from the goodwill of name of the plaintiff-firm. Sh. Madan Lal Aggarwal has been arrayed as defendant No. 2 on the premise that he is partner in defendant firm.2. The instant application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC has been moved by defendant No. 2, Sh. Madan Lal Aggarwal in his capacity as the partner of the plaintiff firm for withdrawal of the suit along with another partner, namely, Smt. Leela Devi Aggarwal.3. I am afraid the application is not maintainable as the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC confer the power on the plaintiff alone to withdraw the suit. Any party arrayed as defendant even if he ha...
New Bank of India Vs. Racmann Auto (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ147
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 5,24,734.01/- with costs and interest @ 18% per annum.2. Initially the present suit was filed by New Bank of India. Thereafter the said Bank was transferred to and vested in Punjab National Bank under Amalgamation & Transfer of Undertaking Scheme w.e.f. 4th September, 1993.3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the defendant No. 1 which is a private limited company has had dealings with the plaintiff Bank as a Principal debtor. Defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 had been its Managing Director and/or directors and they became guarantors for the discharge of the liabilities of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 6 is a private limited company to whom the defendant No. 1 wrongly transferred by lease or otherwise their machinery etc. hypothecated to the plaintiff bank without its permission or consent.4. The defendant No. 1 had been availing various credit facilities from the plaintiff ba...
Bhaskar Wires Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT870
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of this petition, the applicant seeks appointment of an independent Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of disputes and differences between the parties.2. Pursuant to tender notice issued by respondent No. 1, the petitioner submitted its offer to respondent No. 2 for supply of 3000 M.T. of HTS wire of 3X3 mm strand (herein after called as Goods) as per specification IS:6006/1983. By letter dated 30.12.1997, the respondent No. 2 made a counter offer to the petitioner for supply of 3000 MT of HTS wire as per specification IS-1785 (Part I) 1983 and IS-6006 (1983) as per their terms and conditions. The petitioner accepted the offer vide letter dated 2.1.1998. Formal contract was sent to the petitioner by letter dated 18.2.1998 for making supplies in terms thereof. The contract contained an arbitration clause which provides for reference of disputes or differences to the sole arbitration of a Gazetted ...
Orient Express (P) Ltd. Vs. Ndmc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(69)DRJ42
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioners are the occupants of premises No. 17, Janpath, New Delhi and are the registered consumers of electricity supplied by respondent through K.No. 60817. The petitioners applied for additional load on 22.3.2001 to increase it from 12.38 KW to 50.50 KW.2. The petitioners sent reminders to the respondents and ultimately received a letter dated 31.5.2001 requesting the petitioner to submit certain documents which are stated to have been submitted. However, instead of increasing the load of the petitioner the respondents started levying misuse charges @ 100 per cent in the electricity bills on the ground of use of excess load by the petitioner. The petitioner thus filed the respondent writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to sanction the necessary additional load an for stoppage of levy misuse charges.3. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the load already sanctioned to the petitioner was so sanctioned in accordance with the norms for such san...
Shri Krishna Papers Mills and Inds. Ltd. Vs. Natvar Parikh Inds. Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT664; 2003(67)DRJ11
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. In a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC being IA. No. 10963/02 seeking a restraint order against defendant No. 1 and/or its agents, servants etc. from in any manner holding back any of the documents demanded by the plaintiff in its letter dated 14.11.2002 relatable to 5th and 6th consignments arriving in containers at ICD Jaipur, has been made.2. The plaintiff, Shri Krishna Papers Mills & Industries Limited, in the process of setting up an industrial plant of paper mills at RICCO Industrial Area, Village Keshwana, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan for manufacturing papers, entered into a MOU dated 1.7.2000 with M/s. Industrial Exchange Corporation, 5108, Arrowhead Road, Hanover, Virginia, USA, for supply of secondhand paper making machinery at the cost of US$ 4,71,000. The plaintiff engaged defendant No. 1, Natwar Parikh Industrial Limited, as its 'carrier' for the shipment of containers containing the pa...
Economic Transport Carrier Vs. Economic Transport Carrier (North)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ359; 2003(26)PTC195(Del)
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application moved by one of the defendants, namely, Smt. Leela Devi Aggarwal. Admittedly the plaintiff firm is a registered firm comprising of three partners, namely, Sh. Madan Lal Aggarwal, Smt. Leela Devi Aggarwal and Sh. Suresh Kumar Aggarwal. Defendants passed off the name of the plaintiff's firm. The very composition of these two firms shows that they are different independent entitles. The instant application for withdrawal is moved by majority of the partners of the plaintiff firm, namely, Smt. Leela Devi Aggarwal and Sh. Madan Lal Aggarwal.2. Now question arises whether the majority of the partners have the right to withdraw the suit filed by one of the partners of the firm without any permission or authority of the original partnership firm.3. Admittedly the suit was filed by one of the partners of the plaintiff against the firm of which none of the partners of the plaintiff is a partner in the defendant firm. This is astonishing that the partners ...
In Re: Lg Electronics System India Limited;
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas48(Delhi); [2003]42SCL554(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. These petitions have been filed under Sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, praying for sanction to be accorded to the Scheme of Amalgamation of LG Electronics System India Limited (Transferor Company) with LG Electronics India Private Limited (Transferee Company).2. The Registered Offices of the Transferor and the Transferee Companies are situated at New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.3. The Scheme of Amalgamation is to amalgamate two subsidiaries of the parent company, namely, M/s L.G. Electronics Inc., a company registered in South Korea. The objects and salient features of the Scheme and the circumstances necessitating the amalgamation of the companies have been explained in the petitions. I find no reason to disagree with the expectations of the Petitioner Companies.4. The Balance Sheets of both the Transferor and the Transferee Companies have been placed on record together with Resolutions of their respective Board of Directo...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »