Delhi Court May 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.
Fedders North American Vs. Show Line and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(32)PTC573(Del)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Plaintiff is a Corporation incorporated in the United States of America. It claims to carry on an old established business of manufacturing and/or trading in a wide range of air-conditioners, split air-conditioners, de-humidifiers, air-conditioning machinery, etc. It says that its products are manufactured and sold under the trademark Fedders, which is extremely popular in the United States of America and also in other countries of the world.2. On 21st May, 1956 the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff, Fedders-Quigan Corporation entered into an agreement with Lloyd Electric and Engineering Company (LEECO) described as a co-partnership consisting of Pandit Kanhaiya Lal Punj and Suraj Prakash.3. In terms of the agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to grant to LEECO the sole and exclusive right and license for a period of five years from 30th June, 1956 to assemble, manufacture and sell room air-conditioners manufactured by or incorporating parts manufactured or s...
Gurbaksh Singh Vs. the G.M., Western Railway and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT598; 2006(90)DRJ317; 2007(1)SLJ440(Delhi)
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. By way of present writ petition Mr. Gurbaksh Singh, the petitioner has challenged and prayed for setting aside of orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21st July, 1997. In the writ petition the following prayers have been made:(i)Issue appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari and set -aside the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27th May, 2003 by which the R.A. No. 150/2002 was dismissed and other preceding the said order. (ii)Pass appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and call upon the respondents to produce the record and thereafter quash the order of removal of the petitioner dated 21st July, 1997 with all consequential relief. (iii)Pass any other order or orders by this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper.2. The petitioner was working as Electric Fitter Grade-I at Delhi junction. By order dated 18th July, 1988 he was transferred to Achhnera, Uttar Pradesh. This order of transfer was made subject matter...
Smt. Santosh Sehgal Vs. Shri Murari Lal Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi210; 130(2006)DLT643; II(2006)DMC179; (2006)144PLR12
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The question that we need to answer in this appeal has been referred to us by brother Sodhi, J who on 04.08.2004 when the matter came for hearing before him passed the following order: Vide order dated 6th May 2004, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur has expressed his dissent against the judgment in Bani v. Prakash Singh which appears to have been followed by a judgment of this Court in Satish Kumar v. Meena : 2002(1)ALD296 . In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate that this matter is referred to a Larger Bench. List this matter before the Larger Bench. 2. We have seen the order dated 06.05.2004 of brother Lokur, J and we find no crystallized dissent in the said order that there is no prestigedescent against the judgment in Bani's case (Supra). Faced with this situation, we have two options before us, either to answer the reference ourselves or to remand the case back to the learned Single Judge for decision of the appeal in accordance with law. We prefe...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Daisy Trading Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT471; 2006(89)DRJ24
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA.No.3574/2005 (under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940) 1. The respondent was awarded contract for supply of tents and the petitioner carried out the risk purchase at the cost of the respondent and recovered the amount by adjusting the same against amount due to the respondent from other contracts. This gave rise to dispute between the parties and in view of the existence of the arbitration clause between the parties, the matter was referred to the Sole Arbitrator Shri Ram Bahadur. Shri Ram Bahadur rendered an ex parte award which was set aside by this Court by an Order dated 18.10.2001, remitting the matter for reconsideration. Thereafter Shri Brijendra Singh Meena, Additional Legal Adviser of the Government of India was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals. Shri Meena entered upon a reference and made and published the award dated 28.12.2004 upholding right of the petitioner to recover the amount of ...
Chunni Lal @ Pappu Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3055; 130(2006)DLT735; 2006(90)DRJ339
Manmohan Sarin, J 1. Appellant Chunni Lal @ Pappu in this appeal assails the judgment and order of sentence dated 28.10.1992, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicting and sentencing him under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one year.2. There was some delay in filing of the appeal, which was condoned. The appeal was admitted to hearing vide orders dated 19.8.1993. Appellant prayed for suspension of sentence on account of his disturbed mental state for which, he was being treated. The Court after considering the report from the Senior Resident, Psychiatry Department of G.B. Pant Hospital, suspended the sentence of the appellant on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the like amount. Appellant was directed to be released in the custody of his mother. 3. Notices were issued to the appellant and to his counsel for listing the appeal for hearin...
Shri Kaptan and ors. Vs. Shri Ram Chander
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT579
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Admit.The following substantial question of law is formulated for determination:1. Whether the First Appellate Court ought to have allowed the application for condensation of delay in filing the appeal by not adopting a strict standard of proof 2. The appeal arises out of an order dated 24th December, 1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant's appeal against judgment and decree dated 31st August, 1998 passed by the Court of Civil Judge dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The appeal was filed on 16th November, 1998 and according to the appellant there was delay of 5 days after excluding the time consumed in procuring the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.3. The First Appellate Court has however noted that actually there was delay of 12 days and not of 5 days as pleaded by the appellant.4. The reason for delay in filing the appeal as stated in the application wa...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Narinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT244; [2006(111)FLR659]; 2007(3)SLJ501(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition by the Union of India challenges the order dated 29- 10-2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') in OA No. 45/2004 regarding the claim of the respondent who was the applicant in the tribunal for merger of Rs. 140/- in the basic pay for the fixation as well as for the grant of retiral benefits. It is not in dispute that the respondent was granted special pay of Rs. 140/- and since by an order dated 2-5-01 the special pay had been withdrawn w.e.f. 30-3-01 and had not been made a part of the basic pay, while fixing it for the purpose of retiral benefits the respondent approached the CAT. By the impugned judgment dated 29- 10-04 the tribunal held that similar benefits as claimed by the respondent were granted to one S.S. Yadav by the order dated 22-11-03 and he was granted benefit of the specia...
State Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2805; 131(2006)DLT156; 2006(90)DRJ348
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. In these batch of State appeals, respondents/accused have either been acquitted by the trial court or the State is seeking enhancement of sentence. It has not been possible to complete service of the respondents/accused in these appeals. The question arising for consideration is whether with respondent/accused remaining unserved, the appeals can be heard by following the procedure of declaring them proclaimed offenders and appointing an amices Curiae to represent their interest. The second class of case is where the respondents/accused were served at the stage of leave to appeal or after grant of leave but are not appearing thereafter. The procedure to be adopted in the latter class of cases is to be considered. 2. Before we consider the legal position in relation to the questions raised, it would be appropriate to set out the factual matrix in each of these appeals: (i) Crl. A. No. 597/99 State v. Ram Gopal Respondent Ram Gopal, son of Ram Parkash, Village and PO ...
Smt. Gyano Devi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4168; 133(2006)DLT353; II(2006)DMC705; 2006(89)DRJ445
J.M. Malik, J.1. This order shall decide the above said two appeals which arise from the same judgment.2. The trial court handed down a verdict of guilty and sentenced appellant Gyano Devi to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. in default simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Appellant Surender, son of Gyano Devi was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C., in default simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. In this appeal, the appellants have called into question the judgment passed by the trial court. The case swirls around two sets of dying declarations, one exonerating the appellants and second implicating them.3. The genesis and sequence of th...
industrial Development Bank of India Limted Vs. Company Law Board and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)5CompLJ444(Del); 2006(90)DRJ197
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this writ petition the Order dated 5.8.2005, passed by the Company Law Board (CLB), Principal Bench, New Delhi has been assailed. The CLB had inter alias observed that prima facie Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is a bona fide allottee of impugned shares for valuable consideration, and thereforee, the right of IOC should not be fettered in any manner. It had also taken note of the fact that even after the allotment of shares to IOC, the four petitioners before it, namely the CHATTERJEE GROUP, [who are Respondents 2-5 in these proceedings], would continue to hold a majority of about 53 per cent shares in the Company, namely, Haldia Petrochemicals Limited (HALDIA for brevity). The CLB thereafter proceeded to direct HALDIA to defer allotment of any further shares, which obviously included shares of the value of Rs. 134 crores to the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI). It directed the maintenance of status quo of shareholding as of that date.2. On 5.8.2005 the...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »