Delhi Court May 2007 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.
international Frozen Food Corp. Vs. the United India Assurance Co. Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ176
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By and under the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.06.05.2. Relevant facts necessary to be noted to appreciate the issue raised in the petition are that the petitioner owned a truck bearing No. HR-29B-1244. It was desirous of insuring the said truck and for said purpose approached respondent No. 1 who is in the business of insurance. On 7.4.2000, a cheque was issued by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 towards premium payable for obtaining a policy of insurance for the truck. Receiving the premium tendered by and under a cheque, a cover note bearing No. 063406 was issued by the respondent No. 1 pertaining to truck bearing No. HR-29B-1244. The period for which the truck was to remain insured was mentioned as 7.4.2000 to 6.4.2001. 3. For unexplainable reasons, the insurance company kept the cheque paid towards premium with it and only on 24.4.2000 presented the said cheque for encashment. The banker of the petitioner on whom the chequ...
Karan Singh Tanwar Vs. the Estate Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ414
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The appeal and the writ petition herein involve similar facts and issues and, thereforee, we propose to dispose of the appeal and writ petition by this common judgment and order.2. The appeal (LPA No. 676/2004) is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9th July, 2004 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Estate Officer dated 30th August, 2002 and also the order of the Appellate Authority dated 17th April, 2004 passed against the appellant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the land measuring 4 bighas and 16 bids was situated in Village Naraina, Ring Road, New Delhi. Land situated in the said village measuring about 43 bighas 8 bids was was acquired on 11.2.1976 under notification dated 24.10.1961. 3. Contending that the appellant is the tenant and in occupati...
Smt. Raka Singhal Vs. Pushpa Builders Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi222; 2007(96)DRJ753
Hima Kohli, J.1. The appellant, plaintiff in the suit entered into an Agreement dated 24th December, 1991 with the respondent (defendant in the suit) for purchase of Flat No. B-02 on the second floor comprising super area of 935.70 sq.ft. in premises bearing No. 13, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, known as Pushpa Deep Apartments, for a total consideration of Rs. 5,50,000/-. After making all the payments, possession of the flat was handed over to the appellant on 8th June, 1993. Aggrieved by the fact that despite making full payment, the respondent did not complete the works in the flat and it failed to execute the sale deed in favor of the appellant, as also by the fact that the respondent raised an inflated bill of Rs. 4,54,840/- towards maintenance charges on the appellant, the appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,35,593/- and for specific performance and injunction. In its written statement, the respondent stated that the appellant had entered into a license agreement with the ...
Karikalan Vs. Birla Yamaha Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC282
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings the petitioner seeks quashing of a criminal complaint initiated by the respondent for alleged commission of offences under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter 'the Act').2. The complainant alleged that in the course of commercial transactions a cheque for Rs. 2.5 lakh was issued by the first accused. On 31.3.2002 it was presented and returned on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Subsequently, it was presented to the drawee bank which apparently returned, citing insufficiency of funds-on 1.10.2002. On these grounds, the complaint was filed before the Court.3. A quashing order under Section 482 has been sought primarily on two grounds, namely, that the cheque lost its character as a negotiable instrument since it was presented to the drawer bank on 1.10.2002 i.e. after the period of its validity. The second contention raised is that the present petitioner has no connection with the instrument as he was not the draw...
Servants of People Society and ors. Vs. Smt. Sudesh Oberoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ739
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present appeal, filed by the appellants, defendants No. 1 to 4 in the suit, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th November, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereunder respondents No. 1 and 2, plaintiffs in the suit were declared to be entitled to the benefits of the 5th Pay Commission for the posts held by them as Assistant Teachers, with effect from 1st January, 1996. The appellants were also directed to pay to both respondents No. 1 and 2, a sum of Rs. 1,71,000/- each (comprising of Rs. 1,50,000/- as principal amount Along with interest accrued thereon @ 9% p.a. till the filing of the suit) and pendente lite interest and future interest with proportionate costs.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as follows:- Appellant No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said school'), is a school run by the appellant No. 1, a registered society. The said school is a Senior Secondary School, in which there are two sections, one is the...
Rasheed Masood Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3900
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present revision petition is preferred by the Petitioner for setting aside the order on charge under Section 120-B/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act passed by the Special Judge by an order dated 27.01.2007.2. The brief facts necessary to decide this present petition are that the State of Tripura does not have any medical college of its own. Consequently some MBBS and BDS seats are allocated every year from Central Pool by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India in various Medical Colleges of the country. These seats are made available to the State of Tripura for allotment of eligible students from the state on the basis of merit. The Government of Tripura constituted the Tripura Board of Joint Entrance Examination (hereafter referred to as 'TBJEE') in the year 1988 for the selection of candidates through joint entrance examination held every year. The candidates were nominated on the basis ...
Hotel Kanishka Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ659
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. All these appeals were argued before us by the counsel appearing for the parties. During the course of hearing it appeared to us and agreed to by the counsel appearing for the parties that the issues and the facts involved in these appeals are similar. That being so, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment and order.2. Hotel Jaipur Ashok, Ashok Airport Restaurants, Hotel Samrat and Hotel Kanishka are India Tourism Development Corporation's Hotels. In view of disinvestment policy of the Government of India, all these hotels were disinvested and private parties have taken over the management and control of the said hotels.3. The issue that arises for consideration is regarding realisation of the dues relating to the provident fund, which is sought to be recovered by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi from the appellants herein. It was sought to be submitted before us that the aforesaid appellants are not branches and u...
Jitender Kumar Jauhar Vs. Anupama Jauhar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC247
S. Muralidhar, J.1. These two matrimonial appeals are directed against the judgment dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi ('ADJ') in H.M.A. No 712-A/04/96. By the impugned judgment the learned ADJ partly allowed the said petition for divorce filed by Shri Jitender Kumar Jauhar (the respondent in Mat. Appeal No. 6 of 2005 and the appellant in Mat Appeal No 8 of 2005) and held that the marriage between the parties which took place on 12.5.1963 should be dissolved on the ground of desertion.2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, Smt. Anupama Jauhar has filed Mat. Appeal No. 6 of 2005. To the extent that the impugned judgment holds that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty, Shri Jitender Kumar Jauhar has filed the first mentioned appeal being Mat. Appeal No. 8 of 2005.3. In addition to filing her appeal, Smt. Anupama Jauhar filed an application being CM No. 3681 of 2005 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 ('Act') seek...
Mr. NavIn Khilnani Vs. Mashreq Bank Psc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 146(2008)DLT134; 2007(98)DRJ656
ORDERED THAT:There be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of US $49, 178.50 plus interest of US $ 17.00 ANF court costs. A total of US $49,895.50 plus 243.75.13. Execution application in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, was filed by the respondent on the strength of the said decree. The appellant filed objections taking the same plea as taken here namely the decree was not on merits and, thereforee, not executable in India. This application was dismissed by the Civil Judge along with other application of the appellant taking certain other objections with which we are not concerned in the instant case. The appellant filed civil revision which was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court though concluded that the decree was not 'on merits of the case' but dismissed the revision on the ground that the second application was barred by the principles of constructive resjudicata as this objection was not taken in the first application. The appellant preferred SLP. T...
Delhi Jal Board Vs. Esskay Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR314(Delhi)
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The petitioner, Delhi Jal Board has preferred the instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') challenging the award dated 14th October, 2001 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Shri K. D. Bali, Additional Secretary (Retd.), Ministry of Urban Development.2. The respondent was awarded the work of construction of underground reservoir at Deer Park vide work order dated 28.12.1995 at a total cost of Rs. 1,39,93,995/-. As per the work order, work was to commence from 29.1.1996 and was to be completed by 28.4.1997 i.e. within a period of 15 months. The respondent apparently took various steps to gear itself up to start the work. However, there was one stumbling block. The permission for felling trees on the site was not made available. While this uncertainty was looming large, a formal contract dated 8.5.1996 was executed by the parties. Even thereafter, the requisite permission was not received and eventually on 29-1-200...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »