Delhi Court November 2003 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.
Bpl Communications Ltd. Vs. Punj Lloyd Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)8; 2004(1)ARBLR46(Delhi); [2005]125CompCas41(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT198; 2004(1)RAJ256
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. Genesis of this controversy lies in application is No.12085/02 filed by the defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act). The plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendant with the averment that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of establishing communication network in India through its subsidiary. The defendants No.1 & 2 were the share holders of defendant No.3. Other share holders of defendant No.3 are mentioned in Annexure-A to the plaint. They are represented by defendant No.2 by virtue of power of attorney executed by them in favor of defendant No.3. Those share holders had agreed to sell and transfer their share to the plaintiff. The present suit is filed against them also. Defendants No.1 & 2 and the share holders mentioned in Annexure-A together held 3,33,75,280 equity shares of defendant no.3 which is 97.8% of the total equity paid up share capital. The defendants and other share holders mentio...
Subhash Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTLJ205(Del); 2004(72)DRJ195
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The present petition pertains to the LPG distributorship for Dayalpur which was granted to the respondent No.5 on 13.10.2001 when the Letter of Intent was issued in his favor. The petitioner was also an aspirant for the said LPG distributorship. The petitioner as well as respondent No.5 and some 55 others responded to an advertisement which was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation in newspapers on 21.8.2000 inviting applications for, inter alia, LPG distributorship in various areas in Delhi including Dayalpur.3. The petitioner as well as respondent No.5 responded to the same. The petitioner's case is two-fold. First of all the petitioner submits that he was a graduate having obtained the degree of B.Com. (pass) whereas the respondent No.5 was only a metriculate. The second contention of the petitioner is that in any event, the petitioner ought to have been given preference over ...
Ramit Enterprises Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)117; 2004(1)CTLJ202(Del); 108(2003)DLT79
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioner had a petrol dealership of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and was running the same at Rohini, Delhi. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 25.07.2003, wherein various allegations were set out against the petitioner's running of the said dealership which included alleged contraventions of the various clauses of the dealership agreement dated 21.03.1996. In particular, it appears from the show cause notice that the petitioner had committed alleged breaches and violations of clauses 9, 36, 44 and 55K of the said agreement. The petitioner sent a reply to the said show cause notice within time. After considering the reply, the respondent terminated the dealership invoking clause 55K of the dealership agreement on 06.08.2003. The dealership was terminated with immediate effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that three month's notice ought to have been given before the dealership could be terminated, particularly ...
Shri Ashok Kumar Monga Vs. Uco Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)493; 108(2003)DLT169; 2003(71)DRJ576; 2004(3)SLJ387(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Review Petition is directed towards the Order dated May 11, 2001 and has been filed on 12th December, 2001, after approaching the Division Bench in LPA No.281/2001 which was dismissed as withdrawn on October 10, 2001. 2. A view once taken is not reviewable unless some mistake or error has been committed which is plainly and palpably apparent on the face of the record. An error can appropriately and properly be set aside by the Appellate Court, if, in the latter's wisdom, the exposition of law or treatment of facts is incorrect. 3. The observations in (Raja) Indrajit Pratap Bahadur Sahi vs. Amar Singh and Ors AIR 1923 PC 128, which have stood the test of eighty long years, apply in full force. It was observed that where an appeal has been preferred a review is out of question. In Dev Krishna and Anr. v. Dhani Ram Saligram, : AIR1959MP217 , a Division Bench of that Court had observed that a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrongly and a review against such a de...
National Horticulture Board Vs. Flora Continental Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)81; II(2004)BC356; 108(2003)DLT228
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. is Nos.10893/01 and 3019/022. The defendants No. 1 to 5 are seeking leave to defend the civil suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1, 37, 48, 509 under Order 37 CPC.3. The plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Act formed by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, inter alia, for the purpose of promoting, developing and supporting horticulture activities by rendering financial assistance to various institutions engaged in horticulture activities including processing of fruits and vegetables and floriculture. The defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. On 1.3.1995 it had applied to the plaintiff for financial assistance by way of soft loan to finance setting up its 100% export oriented project on floriculture, fruits and vegetables. The plaintiff conveyed its acceptance to the request by letter dated 30.11.1995 and agreed to advance a term loan of Rs. 1 crore to finance the defendant's No. 1 project. T...
Mr. Lambert Kroger and ors. Vs. Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)328; 2004CriLJ992; 108(2003)DLT150; 2004(72)DRJ103; 2003(3)JCC1852
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. It is an unfortunate case. Petitioners who are German National came to this country to do business but instead landed themselves in jail for having flouted the Indian Law against 'Money Circulation Scheme' and Prize Chits' forattracting innocent people into pumping money with them in a Scheme floated by them showing greed of a Canadian Golden Coin known as 'Maple Leaf'2. Short question involved for determination in this petition is whether terms of the agreement for contract of sale fall within the mischief of 'Money Circulation Scheme' as contemplated by Section 2(c) of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 or falls within the ambit of 'Price Chit' as envisaged in clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act. 3. According to the petitioner, he was engaged in the business of sale and distribution of Canadian Gold Coins which are referred as 'Maple Leaves'. This agreement was thrown open to the persons who were desirous of entering into agreement for s...
Lic of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 108(2003)DLT191; 2004(72)DRJ168; 2004(3)SLJ389(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1.This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Government Labour Court, passed in LCA No.180/88 dated 8th May 1989 by which interest along with costs of proceedings and telephone charges in all totalling Rs.1,81,857.86 paise was directed to be paid to the workman, who is the respondent No.3-herein.2.The proceedings arose from an award dated 10.2.1984 by which the CGIT directed the reinstatement of respondent No.3 with the petitioner in the following terms:'In the result the punishment imposed on the workman of dismissal from service is set aside, on the charge framed against him by the management being held not proved. Mr.Verma will be entitled to all the back wages and shall be reinstated in service by the LIC of India. He shall also have other benefits due to him on the basis that he continued to be in service of the LIC of India and his services were never terminated. The L.I.C. Shall pay him as cost Rs.1000/- of this reference and shall refund all charges...
Uco Bank Vs. Presiding Officer, Cen. Govt. Indust. Tri.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 108(2003)DLT750; 2004(2)SLJ363(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal J.1. In this case, rule has already been issued on 27th November, 1991. 2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing. 3. This writ petition challenges the order dated 5th September 1990 passed by CGIT by which it was held that the burden of proof of proving the legality of the inquiry lay on the petitioner/management. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that he be permitted to amend the pleadings so as to take the plea that in case the inquiry is found vitiated he will lead evidence to support the findings in the inquiry before the CGIT. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this amendment may be allowed subject to the payment of costs. 6.The Order of 5th September, 1990 putting the burden of proof on the petitioner management is not in accordance with the law laid down in UCO Bank's case (supra) and is accordingly set aside. Accordingly the plea of amendment of pleadings is allowed. ...
Saurabh Prakash Vs. Samir Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT817; 2004(73)DRJ63
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Vide Order dated 29.10.2003, the prayer made by the defendant that the undersigned should consider recusing himself from the case, was declined for reasons to follow. Now I proceed to give reasons.2. Defendant, appearing in person on 23.10.2003, submitted that the undersigned should consider recusing himself from the case. He stated that he has gathered an impression that the Court is of the view that the defendant was wasting the time of the Court and his submissions were being treated with contempt and disdain. He felt that the plaintiff and others present in Court were mocking at him. Defendant submitted that the Order sheets disclose a certain bias inasmuch as when the defendant wanted an adjournment for inspection of the file, the Order sheets give an impression that the defendant had been given enough time to inspect the file. The Court has also appointed an amices curiae on the question whether the allegations of the defendant in filing an application for a...
Nirmal Rani Sibbal and ors. Vs. S. Amarjit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ1370; 109(2004)DLT161; 2004(73)DRJ744
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the tribunal after holding that the vehicle in question having been transferred by the original owner, in whose name the policy of insurance was issued by the insurance company, the insurance company could not be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants, directed the same to be recovered from the owner.2. The tribunal while passing the impugned judgment has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Roy 1972 ACJ 314 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs . Veena : 43(1991)DLT372 wherein it was held that where a vehicle had been transferred the insurance company would be absolved from its liability to pay compensation arising from an accident caused after the transfer of the vehicle unless of course the insurance policy has also been transferred in the name of the transferee. The Delhi High Court besides the aforesaid ju...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »