Delhi Court February 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.
Naveen Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)707; 2002(62)DRJ252
Mukundakam Sharma, J.: 1. The parties hereto entered into an agreement for development of an unauthorised colony in Trans-Yamuna area and laying down water line in School Block, Shakar Pur Complex, Delhi. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner started the work and while executing the aforesaid work, certain disputes arose between the parties, which in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement were referred for adjudication through the process of arbitration by appointing an Arbitrator. In terms of the arbitration clause, namely, Clause-25 of the agreement, the Engineer Member, DDA appointed the sole Arbitrator, who entered into the reference and after allowing the parties to adduce evidence and hearing the parties made and published his award on 25.8.1995. Upon filing of the said award in this court, an objection is filed by the respondent/DDA seeking for setting aside the said award on various grounds as enumerated in the said objection. The petitioner, on the othe...
Conveyor Belt Manufacturers Association Vs. Govt. of India Through Sec ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)696; 2002(2)ARBLR214(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT865
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 7th January, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CM No.152/2002 in CW No.7077/2001.2. The averment of the Appellant in the writ petition (which is still pending admission) is that Respondent Nos.3 to 5 invited a Request for Quotation (RFQ for short) on 6th January, 2001 in respect of their requirement for conveyor belts. This RFQ pertained to the period 2001-2002 and provided for a 'purchase preference' to Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) allegedly to the detriment of the members of the Appellant. The RFQ did not provide for a 'price preference' (as it allegedly should have) for small scale industries such as the members of the Appellant. In other words, it is alleged that the members of the Appellant were losers on both counts, that is, they were not given any 'price preference' while their competitors/PSUs got a 'purchase preference'.3. In the pending writ petition, the Appellant moved the aforesaid...
Shri Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)797
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal had challenged Order dated 10th October, 1978 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant. In the writ petition the appellant had prayed for quashing of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) as well as for quashing the award dated 27th July, 1973 made under Section 11 of the Act. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground that section 48 of the Act provided the only way by which the Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any land. 2. The aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal was ultimately allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23rd March, 1992 whereby and whereunder notifications dated 13th November, 1959 and 1st January, 1969 in respect of the Suit land were quashed and so also the award dated 27th July, 1973. The Div...
Anant Raj Agencies Properties Vs. State Bank of Patiala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)733
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. By means of this suit, the plaintiff is seeking to recover a sum of Rs.15,37,857.18p against the defendant-State Bank of Patiala. The circumstances which led the plaintiff to file this suit against the defendant, as can be gathered from the plaint, are as under: That the plaintiff is owner/landlord of premises No.C-31, C-32, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The plaintiff had let out the second floor of C-31 and C-32 Connaught Place New Delhi having a total covered area of 2740 sq.ft. to the defendant initially for a period of five years w.e.f. 1.9.1980 with one renewal option for five years at 10% increase in the rent. S.No.3026/91: That similarly, the plaintiff also let out the first floor of C-32, Connaught Place, New Delhi having an area of 1950 sq.ft to the defendant w.e.f. 8.4.1981 for five years with one renewal option at 10% enhancement. That at the time of letting the second floor of C-31 and C-32, as described above, the defendant vide letter dated 29.9.1980, had ...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and anr. Vs. Shrimati Sharda Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT716; 2002(63)DRJ505
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the petitioners afore-mentioned purporting to be in terms of Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short the 'Act') referring two questions for opinion of this Court, which are in the following terms:'(1) Whether General Power of Attorney and the receipt in question can be clubbed and stamp duty under Article 48(f) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 can be charged for a consideration of Rs. 19,000/- received by the principal of General Power of Attorney from a person other than the attorney.(2) Will it make any difference if such General Power of Attorney and receipt indicates that the consideration mentioned in a separate receipt flows directly from the attorney.'2. The facts relevant for answering the afore-mentioned reference are as under:The respondent Smt. Sharda Devi executed a General Power of Attorney in favor of Smt. Prem Wati, in terms whereof, the latter was appointed as a General Attorney for performing ce...
Horlicks Limited and ors. Vs. Bimal Khamrai and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC241(Del)
D.K. Jain, J.1. The plaintiff-companies have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and copy right, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts etc., inter alia, praying for : a decree restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and representatives from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale,advertising, directly or indirectly, dealing in chocolates, sweets, confectionery or other related goods under the trade mark 'Horlioks' or under any other trade mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark 'Horlicks'; from producing, printing or publishing any label or packaging which is a colourable limitation or substantial reproduction of plaintiffs' 'Horlicks' packaging; delivery up of all the goods, dies, blocks, wrappers etc. bearing the impugned mark and labels ; rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendants on account of misrepresentation of their goods under the impugned marks and for damages on ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›