Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 10 of about 280 results (0.021 seconds)New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 127(2006)DLT78
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.02.20042. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The respondent Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts (hereinafter referred to as IGNCA ) is a premier National Institution engaged in the pursuit of knowledge of Arts and Culture lauched in 1985 in the memory of late Smt. Indira Gandhi; it was formally established as an Autonomous Trust in March 1987. It has several activities, such as, research, publication, training, documentation, dissemination and networking and has grown as the largest repository of information pertaining to the Arts in India. Its object is to preserve and promote Indian arts, humanities and cultural heritage as per the Constitutional mandate and to analyze and to disseminate data and information thereof to scholars, academics, students, institutions, policy-makers in the Central and State Governments.4. Respondent was earlier gran...
Tag this Judgment!Caprihans India Limited Vs. R.T. Packaging Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ393(Del); 127(2006)DLT451; 2006(86)DRJ474
ORDER and clause 13 of these terms and conditions is what has been reproduced earlier and which forms the subject matter of the present application. The learned counsel for the applicant states that both Delhi and Faridabad would normally have had jurisdiction to entertain this suit. However, because of the specific ouster contained in the said clause 13, only the courts at Faridabad would have jurisdiction to entertain this suit. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem: : [1989]2SCR1a . He also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court which has been reported in the form of short notes in 17 (1980) DLT 531 entitled as Mohanwi Corporation (P) Ltd v. D.N. Sinha and Anr. to show that the objection as regards the place of suing should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity. He also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal and A...
Tag this Judgment!D.D. Gears Ltd. Vs. Secretary (Labour) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT166; 2006(87)DRJ66; [2006(110)FLR42]
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.02.2004 of this Court by which he has dismissed the Writ Petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts of the case are not being repeated, except where necessary, as the same are already set out in the impugned judgment.4. This Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner/appellant praying for an appropriate writ, order direction quashing the impugned reference order dated 10.02.2000 under Section 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the impugned order dated 10.02.2000 prohibiting the continuance of a lockout passed by the Secretary (Labour) under Section 10(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act .5. The petitioner has alleged that it was having an era of industrial peace and harmony till 1997. However, it is alleged that since 1997 the respondent no.4/Union and some of the misguided employees indulged in illega...
Tag this Judgment!Progressive Constructions Ltd. Vs. National Highways Authority of Indi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: IV(2006)BC409; 2005(2)CTLJ364(Del); 128(2006)DLT714; 2006(86)DRJ90
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is said to be a leading construction company with vast experience in the field of civil construction comprising of roads and highways, bridges, tunnels, etc. It is aggrieved by the award of two contracts in favor of Respondent No. 2, that is, package C-II/BR-8 being 'Rehabilitation and upgradation to 4/6 Lane Divided Carriageway Configuration from Km 69.80 to Km 37.75 of Darbhanga 'Muzaffarpur Section of NH-57 in the State of Bihar under Phase-II Programme of North 'South and East West Corridor Project' and package C-II/BR-9 being 'Rehabilitation and upgradation to 4/6 Lane Divided Carriageway Configuration from Km 37.75 to Km 000 of Darbhanga 'Muzaffarpur Section of NH-57 in the State of Bihar under Phase-II Programme of North 'South and East West Corridor Project'. These two contracts are hereinafter referred to as BR-8 and BR-9. According to the Petitioner, it was the lowest tenderer in respect of both packages and yet the contract has been given ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Through Its Secretary Vs. Trilok Singh Saw ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ163
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 5th August, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 158 of 1999. By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition filed by the Respondent was allowed and it was directed that the unearned increase deposited by the Respondent be refunded to him with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment.2. The facts of the case are in a rather narrow compass and the controversy is now settled by a decision of the Supreme Court.3. Briefly, one Kailash Chand Jain was the owner of Plot No. D-924, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. He executed a Will dated 18th June, 1981 bequeathing the plot to the Respondent.4. It appears that Kailash Chand Jain submitted building plans for constructing a residential house on the plot. The plans were sanctioned by the competent authority but before construction could commence, Kailash Chand Jain passed away on 2nd December, 1981. The plot in question consequ...
Tag this Judgment!The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs. Tripat Choudhur ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(2006)BC574; 2006(86)DRJ756
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,74,45,324.49 from the defendant along with pendent lite and future interest @ 19% per annum. The plaintiff has also claimed costs of the suit.2. The defendant has been proceeded with ex parte by virtue of the order dated 25.08.2004 Thereafter, the plaintiff has led its ex parte evidence by filing an affidavit by way of evidence of one Mr Suhas Bendre s/o late Shri Vinayak Bendre as the constituted attorney of the plaintiff. Exhibits PW1/1 to PW1/3 have also been exhibited. All these documents were filed along with the affidavit by way of evidence.3. Essentially, the case of the plaintiff against the defendant is that the defendant tampered with the accounts of the plaintiff's customers and as a result of which these accounts were defalcated by the defendant. The plaintiff had to make good the amounts which were taken away by the defendant from the plaintiff's customers' accounts and it is on the basis of this loss a...
Tag this Judgment!Hans Enterprises Vs. the Airports Authority of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ380(Del); 126(2006)DLT287; 2006(86)DRJ623
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for quashing the Notice inviting Tender dated 30.08.2001, Annexure P1 to the Writ Petition, and also directing the respondent The Airport Authority of India, to keep the criteria eligibility for the said contract in question reasonable.2.Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.3.The petitioner has challenged the Notice inviting Tender issued by Respondent No. 1 on 30.08.2001 on the ground that the criteria therein will result in monopoly of one person who is already doing his contract with the respondent because no other contractor will have such eligibility in the said tender.4.It is alleged ion the Writ Petition that the criteria of eligibility for participating in the tender is so high that nobody can quote the rates mentioned therein. It is alleged that Sh. Bikram Singh, who is running the contract of respondent No. 1 can alone quote the minimum reserve price and will thus succeed in getting the contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Bulk Trading S.A. Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR38(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The present petition has been filed, inter alias for enforcement of the foreign award dated 10.11.2003 passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr Samuel A. Houbold Asq. at London, U.K. in ICC case No. 11881/MS. It is also prayed that the order dated 31.5.2005 passed by Ms Shailender Kaur, Additional District Judge, Delhi in Ex. No. 19/2004 be set aside and that the proceedings pending before the Court of the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, Tamilnadu be stayed.2. At the outset it must be made clear that the prayers with regard to setting aside the said order of 31.5.2005 and staying of the proceedings before the District Court at Tiruchirapalli cannot be allowed. The former, because this is not an appeal from the said order dated 31.5.005 and, the latter, because the District Court at Tiruchirapalli does not fall within the jurisdiction of this High Court. Thus this petition is to be considered purely from the standpoint of whether the foreign award can be enforced by thi...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Employees Union and ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ560; (2006)IILLJ1138Del
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1.This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.4.2003. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2.The facts in detail have been stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.3. The appellant had filed a writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.5.2000 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India declining to make a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the circular dated 7.1.1993.4. The petitioner appellant is a union of bank employees. It is alleged in para 3 of the writ petition that the bank had employed a number of persons from time to time. A circular dated 7.11.1986 was issued by the bank regarding fixation of pay of ex-servicemen. However, subsequently by a circular dated 7.1.1993, the bank proposed t...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Padma Kaul and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT530; 2006(86)DRJ148
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the legal heirs of the erstwhile allottee of a plot of land in Kashmiri Cooperative House Building Society numbered as Plot No. 7, Block A, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi. The petitioners have challenged the demand raised by the respondent/DDA for payment of unearned increase of Rs. 41,06,904/- and Rs. 33,26,592/- as interest thereon for the period 29th September, 1993 till March, 1998.2. The brief facts of the case as averred by the petitioners through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate are as follows:-(a) The petitioner had sold a plot in question to M/s Matangee Consultants Pvt. Ltd. This transaction has led to the cancellation of the lease of the petitioners by the respondent.(b) On 23rd June, 1995, a circular was issued by the respondent stating that where a lessee/sub-lessee has applied for sale permission and the DDA had conveyed the unearned increase but the same had not been paid, the conversion could be allowed by treating the ...
Tag this Judgment!