Delhi Court April 2006 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.
Gajraj Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ811
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The above noticed 30 appeals have been preferred by the claimants/owners of the acquired land against the common judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 30th November, 2004 wherein the Court held that the claimants were not entitled to any enhancement in compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector vide its award No. 22/97-98 and answered the references preferred to that Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) accordingly.2. Though we propose to dispose of all the appeals by this common judgment but we would be referring to the facts of the case in Gajraj Singh (LA (Appl.) 91/2005). The appellants claim to be owners of land measuring about 170 bighas and 2 bids was situated in khasra Nos. 43/13 (4-16), 42/14(1-14), 16 (4-8), 17 (5- 6), 23 (2-14, 24 (4-16), 25 (4-16), 66/2 (94-16), 9 (4-16), 12 (4-16), 19 (4- 16), 22 (4-16), 70/2 (5-4) as Bhumidar in possession of land in whi...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sh. Parbhati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 133(2006)DLT333; 2006(90)DRJ172
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Since the appellant has made good the deficiency in Court fee and the ad valorem court fee has been placed on the file, all the applications bearing CMs No. 2064/2006, 2067/2006 and 2080/2006 filed by the appellants under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') have become infructuous and are accordingly disposed of.2. CMs No. 2064/2006, 2067/2006 and 2080/2006 stand accordingly disposed of.3. By this order I would also dispose of the above three applications bearing CM No. 2065/2006, CM No. 2068/2006 and CM No. 2081/2006 filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the present appeals on merits. The facts giving rise to the present appeals fall in a very narrow compass. The appropriate Government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 10.11.1986 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 5.3.1987 inte...
Punj Lloyd Insulations Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi256; 2006(1)CTLJ209(Del)
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Punj Lloyd Insulations Limited is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 filed a suit for injunction praying for grant of a decree for permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 2, restraining him from encashing the bank guarantee dated 8.11.99 which was valid up to 30th September, 2001. Separate injunction is prayed for against the bank/defendant No. 1 for making any payment under the said bank guarantee to defendant No. 2. In the plaint it was stated by the plaintiff that they had entered into an agreement for supply and application job of thermal insulation to the equipment and pipe work for the Paradeep Phosphate Fertilizer of the defendant No. 2. On 6.11.99 the work was awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was required to furnish bank guarantee towards mobilisation advance and performance of the contract to the extent of 10% and 5% respectively of the agreed value of contract which was Rs. 2.50 crores. The pl...
Hbhl-vks (J.V.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR331(Delhi); 2006(90)DRJ181
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. This order will dispose of the above three cases as common question of law falls for consideration in all these cases based on somewhat similar facts. For the purposes of convenience, it will be sufficient to make the reference only to the facts giving rise to the filing of Arb.P.217/2005 (HBHL-VKS (J.V.) v. The General Manager and another).2. The petitioner which is a registered partnership concern through its registered partner Sh. B.K.Bassi has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for a direction to the respondents to file the original arbitration agreement in court and for appointment of an independent sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes/claims detailed in para 7(xxiii) of the petition. The petitioner is carrying on the business of Engineers and Contractors. The respondents invited the tender for the work under the name and style 'Construction of single line Br. No. 9 at Km 7.512 ove...
Hari Gokal Jewellers Vs. Satish Kapur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ837
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. M/s Hari Gokal Jewellers, a partnership concern filed a suit for accounts against Mr. Satish Kapur while stating that the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 18 lakhs. The plaintiffs were paying the requisite court fee and in the event of decree being exceeding the amount mentioned in the plaint, the plaintiff undertook to pay the additional amount as directed by the Court. The suit was filed on the premise that the defendant was carrying on somewhat similar business under the name and style of Satish Kapur and Co. The defendant used to supply raw gold and the parties were having dealings for the last 5 to 6 years. The defendant was selling the raw gold to the plaintiff and he was buying jewelery from it. The payments were being made by cheques issued from time to time by the plaintiff against the bills raised by the defendant. On one occasion, the defendant was paid a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- as a loan and as a measure of accommod...
Smt. Omwati Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ324
ORDERResultants upon the decision of issue No. 2 in favor of the respondents and against the petitioner; it is held that petitioner is not entitled for enhancement of compensation. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Reference is, accordingly, answered in favor of the respondents and against the petitioner.5. According to the appellants the learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the direct and comparable instances of sale which were produced by the appellants as Ex.A1 to A4 and they have also contended that the findings of the Reference Court that the sale instances were that of small pieces of lands is factually incorrect in as much as the sale instances proved by the appellants on record related to nearly 1-3 bighas of land which by no stretch of imagination can be considered or compared to sale of small plots. The court should have relied upon these sale instances as comparable and admissible evidence and granted the compensation at those rates. It is also argued on ...
The Executive Engineer and ors. Vs. Machinery Parts Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT629; 2006(90)DRJ379
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2001 passed by the learned Trial Court vide which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,49,805/- with proportionate costs against the defendants. The plaintiff, Sh. Mridul Khemka, Proprietor of M/s. Machinery Parts Corporation filed the suit on the basis that they were dealing with earth moving machinery, diesel engines, diesel generators and also took repairing and reconditioning of the said equipments, the Executive Engineer of HUDA, Division-III, Faridabad (defendant No. 1) under the administrative control of defendant No. 2 keeps various such equipments under their control and responsibility, and that the defendant No. 1, for repairing of the bulldozer make DEML model No. D-50-A 15 which was defective, sought the assistance of the plaintiff which included putting up of parts as may be necessary to make the said bulldozer work-worthy. The estimate was submitted vi...
Shri Vinod Babbar Vs. Baby Swati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 135(2006)DLT258; I(2007)DMC73
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. Vide the impugned judgment and decree, the trial court had granted the following reliefs:-RELIEF15. In view of the finding on issue No. 1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendant shall pay or deposit arrears of maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 6/2/03 till today, on or before 3/6/04 failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to claim interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the amount of arrears. The defendant shall also keep on paying or depositing, month by month on or before the 7th of succeeding month, the maintenance amount @ Rs. 5000/- per month failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to claim interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the amount not paid by the defendant, as ordered here. Since the petition has been filed Section 33 C.P.C., t...
Kartar Kaur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT813; 2006(90)DRJ176
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. All the above appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the learned Reference Court in LAC No. 14/2001, Dayal Singh v. Union of India and common contentions have been raised before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants on somewhat similar facts. Resultantly, we would dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment. 2. The challenge to the order of the Reference Court is primarily based upon the contention that the Reference court has failed to consider the evidence on record and has not awarded adequate compensation to the claimants which they were entitled to on the basis of the record. 3. This contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants is without merit and in fact and as it appears to us, the present case is a case of 'no evidence' led by the appellants and would hardly call for any intervention by this Court in the order impugned. We may refer to the necessary facts to the case. 4. The government issued a notifica...
Jas Rath Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT700
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 7th September, 2005 remitted the above appeals to this Court with the following directions :-Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and accordingly the same are set aside. The matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. The High Court shall proceed to determine the market value of the acquired land upon taking into consideration the materials on record and all other relevant factors necessary for determining the market value of the lands in question.2. The appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions. However, we would request the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of the appeals as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order and receipt of records. No costs.?3. We feel that it will be appropriate for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »