Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 3 of about 292 results (0.024 seconds)Bharat Forge Ltd. Vs. Onil Gulati
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi369; IV(2005)BC201; 121(2005)DLT357; 2005(83)DRJ140
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, IA.3107/03, moved by the defendant under Order xxxvII Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 CPC, for grant of leave to contest, is being decided.2. Plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of Rs. 26,29,858/- (Rs.twenty six lacs twenty nine thousand eight hundred fifty eight only) from the defendant under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure as a summary suit. Plaintiff is a manufacturer of steel forgings and finished machine products. Plaintiff claims to have supplied to the defendant Crank shafts. The suit amount represents the balance outstanding price of the goods supplied amounting to Rs. 20,72,722, together with interest thereon at 18% per annum w.e.f. 29th September, 2002 to 11th April, 2002 i.e., the date of institution of the suit. Plaintiff also claims pendente lite and future interest at 18% per annum on the suit amount.3. Plaintiff avers that it had raised bills/invoices amounting to Rs. 23,80,588/- (Rs.twenty three lacs eighty tho...
Tag this Judgment!Angad Paul and ors. Vs. M.D. Jindal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]130CompCas381(Delhi); 122(2005)DLT44; 2005(83)DRJ353
Manju Goel, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeks quashment of order dated 4.11.2004 by which Shri V.K. Khanna, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House has summoned the petitioners in CR No. 43/2004 under Section 409/468/471/477/477A/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Before coming to the grounds on which the relief is sought, it will be appropriate to narrate in brief the complaint.2. The complainant Shr. M.D. Jindal is a shareholder, Chairman and Director of Caparo Maruti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CML) which is a public limited company which was promoted by the complainant sometime in 1994. The accused No. 7 Caparo India Ltd. (U.K.) is a part of Caparo Group of Companies of U.K. in which the accused No. 1 Shri Angad Paul, (petitioner No. 1 herein) has substantial shareholdings. He is also the director of CML. Accused No. 2 who is petitioner No. 2 is the Chairman of Caparo Group of Companies and is father of accused No. 1. Accused Nos. 3 (petitioner No. 3), accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Disha (a Society Registered Under the Societies Act) Through Its Secre ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT394; 2005(83)DRJ133
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner `Disha' is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It claims to be engaged in promoting art and finding out new talent. It supports creative artists and works towards generating resources for artists. Petitioner society being deeply interested in development of art and culture, filed the present petition against Union of India thorough its Secretary, Department of Culture, respondent No. 1 herein and the National Gallery of Modern Art imp leaded as respondent No. 2. 2. Petitioner prays for quashing of entire purchase of art work done by the Advisory Committee of Bombay Art Gallery of respondent No. 2 for the year 2000-2001. Additionally, a mandamus is sought directing the respondents to follow the prescribed procedure for purchase of work through the Art Purchase Committee. The basis grievance in the writ petition is that the instead of purchase being done by the Art Purchase Committee, purchases have been made the Advisory Committee ...
Tag this Judgment!G.D. `sealer Llc and ors. Vs. Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(31)PTC174(Del)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in these two applications for ad interim injunction. The same were, thereforee, heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order.2. Plaintiff No. 1 in both these suits is a US based company while plaintiff No. 2 is a leading global pharmaceutical enterprise. Both the plaintiffs boast of a long history of distinguished track record as research oriented pharmaceutical enterprises. Plaintiff No. 3 in the two suits is a Indian Company originally incorporated under the name `Sealer (India) Ltd. subsequently changed to RPG Life sciences Limited. This company is a multi-product, multi-location and well-diversified company authorised to use LOMOTIL trademark and trade dress in India.3. The defendants in the two suits are Indian companies. While defendant in CS(OS) 1004/2003 was for some time a distributor of the plaintiff's products including the medicine LOMOTIL, the defendant in CS(OS) 1630/2002 is engaged in manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!National Radio and Electronic Co. Ltd. Vs. Motion Pictures Association
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT629
Gita Mittal, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26th May, 2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 876/1998 entitled Motion Pictures Association v. Nelko Radio & Electronics Co. Ltd. There is no dispute to the factual matrix between the parties. The appellant (defendant in the suit) was inducted as a tenant in the suit property bearing No. 27, Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi. The tenanted premises measured about 2800 sq. ft. The tenancy commenced in the year 1961 and rent was increased from time-to-time as per the demand of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord. The last agreed rent between the parties was Rs. 3,513=84 paise per month. The respondent terminated the tenancy of the appellant vide notice dated 25th September, 1998. The appellant tenant sent a reply to the same dated 30th October, 1998 disputing the contents of the notice. In these circumstances, the respondent brought a suit for possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Singh and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT151; 2005(83)DRJ219
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against an order passed by the Financial Commissioner under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, as applicable in Delhi (hereafter called 'the Act'). By that order, the Financial Commissioner set aside that extension of date for consolidation of scheme (in village Pooth Khurd, Delhi) from 23.2.1998 to 31.8.1998 as irregular, and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer, to proceed further on the basis of a resolution dated 23.2.1998. This was pursuant to a revision petition filed by Angrej Singh and others, challenging the Consolidation Proceedings of Village Pooth Khurd, Delhi; the said revision petitioners are parties to these proceedings, and are referred to as 'the contesting respondents'.2. A notification under Section 14(1) of the Act, for consolidation proceedings was issued on 5.9.1988. A Consolidation Officer w...
Tag this Judgment!Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT612
A.K. Sikri, J.1. M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act (for short the 'Act') on July 5, 1951 under the name and style of Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. This name was changed to present name with effect from December 18, 2000 vide certificate of incorporation consequent to change of name No. NCR-CN-1982. The registered office of the company is in Delhi. The present authorised share capital of the company is Rs. 35 crores. Its existing issued and paid-up share capital is Rs. 32,91,31,880/-. The company proposes to reduce its share capital to the extent of Rs. 6,63,35,760/- constituting about 20.15% of its issued and paid-up share capital and its reserves to the extent of about Rs. 159,20,58,240/-. This petition is filed by the petitioner company under Sections 101-105 of the Companies Act (in short the 'Act') inter alia, seeking reduction of this share capital.2. It is stated in the petition that in February, 2003 the equity shares of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Surkhi Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT12
Manju Goel, J.1. This petition under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of proceedings against the petitioner in the case titled Shri Mahendra, IO, DRI v. Karim Yusuf and Ors. pending in the court of ACMM, New Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The petitioner, Surkhi Lal, is one of the five accused in the case. Accused Karim Yusuf @ Sunil is absconding whereas accused Durga Dass Sharma is dead. The accused now facing trial are Ravinder Bali, Satya Narain Aggarwal and the present petitioner. In the morning of 19.4.1996 at around 10.30, accused No. 2, Ravinder Bali, was found driving a scooter with accused No. 1, Karim Yusuf, sitting on the pillion holding two canvas bags. The scooter was intercepted and on search 250 gold biscuits of foreign markings valuing Rs. 62.5 lakhs approximately were recovered and seized under the Customs Act, 1962 and Gold Control Act, 1968 on the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Govind Lal Soni Vs. Texmaco Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 124(2005)DLT346
Manju Goel, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 18.8.2004 by which an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused to summon a hand-writing expert and to recall PW-1 & PW-2 for cross-examination has been rejected. On 29.1.1998, the complaint under Sections 447/406/408 IPC read with Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner, Govind Lal Soni. As per the complaint, the complainant company is the proprietor of textiles mill known as M/s. Birla Textiles Mills Limited, Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-11007 and has various housing colonies at Old Birla Lines, New Birla Lines, etc. and the accused, who joined as an employee of M/s. Birla Textiles Mills on 7.6.1988 was allotted residential accommodation No. 85-A, Shivaji Lines, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-11007, on account of his employment by an allotment letter dated 1.8.1988 and could retain the accommodation only during his employment with M/s. Birla Textiles ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K.K. Arora Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ149
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By these orders I propose to finally dispose of the writ petition, since pleadings have been completed and parties have been heard at length.2. In order to avoid prolixity the interim orders passed on 28.4.2005 are reproduced since the question is whether these should be recalled, modified or confirmed:'The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Order of Suspension of the Petitioner. The charge against the Petitioner is that on 3rd April, 2004, the day on which he was on leave (Saturday), he had attempted to remove several files/documents of the Council. The Petitioner has not admitted the Charge.In State of Orissa (Through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept.) v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty : (1995)ILLJ568SC , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken pains to opine that it is not automatic that a delinquent should be suspended pending an enquiry. The following extract encapsulates the law :'....It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the discipli...
Tag this Judgment!