Delhi Court September 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.
Sh. Sushil Modi Vs. Sh. Mohan Guruswamy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ541
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Respondent herein has filed a complaint against the petitioner herein under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from the petitioner, four other persons are arraigned as accused persons. The provisions under which the complaint is filed would clearly suggest that the respondent is aggrieved at certain remarks of the petitioner, which, according to the respondent are defamatory in nature and thereforee, the respondent wants the accused persons to be tried under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC. The learned MM, after recording the pre-summoning evidence, took cognizance of the complaint and issued notice to the accused persons.2. The petitioner was the Leader of Opposition in Bihar Assembly when he had made the alleged offending remarks. He feels that this position affords him the requisite protection under the law and no prosecution can be launched against him without obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C. t...
Mohd. Rafi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR413(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 have been filed on behalf of the respondent (Union of India) in respect of the award dated 09.07.1985.The main objection taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent (Union of India) is that the learned arbitrator has allowed the claim of the petitioner for higher expenditure incurred by the petitioner/claimant for procuring earth through private sources and transporting by animal transport prior to 24.02.1981 on the ground that the temporary land for borrow areas was not provided by the respondent prior to 24.02.1981. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted, with reference to Clause 2A of the contract between the parties, that no claim whatsoever for not giving the full site on award of the work or for giving the site gradually in parts would be tenable. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent because the said Clause 2A of the agreement ...
Vishwa Nath Agrawal and ors. Vs. Mrs. Satyawati Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR167(Delhi); 2007(98)DRJ633
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside of the arbitral award dated 19.8.2000 of the sole Arbitrator Sh Sandeep Tandon in the matter of Karamyogi Group. The petition is also accompanied with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for exclusion of time spent in pursuing the earlier OMP No. 267/2000 wherein the petitioners were respondents No. 3, 16, 11, 19 & 20 respectively.2. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Advocate who appeared on behalf of the petitioners and have also perused the paper book of the present petition.3. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to this petition is as follows;4. Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties arising out of business of Karamyogi Group of Companies and the same were referred to the sole Arbitration of Mr. Sandeep Tandon. The learned Arbitrator after hearing the parties passed his award on 19.8.2000. ...
Murari Lal and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Airports Authority of India and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ683
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31st May, 2007 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein. Since the question which arise for our consideration in both these appeals is similar, we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment and order, taking LPA No. 1069/2007 as the lead case. 2. Lands of the appellants in village Nangal Dairy came to be acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector by issuing notification dated 23rd January, 1965 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued by the Competent Authority on 26th December, 1968. After the aforesaid notices were issued, land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Land Acquisition Collector and award came to be passed on 7th September, 1972 wherein compensation for various parcels of lands acquired has been determined by the Collector. Incidentally,...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Shyama Malhotra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ367
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Union of India-the appellant has filed the present Appeal against the judgment dated 20th February, 2007 allowing the writ petition filed by Smt.Shyama Malhotra the respondent No. 1 and her son, Mr. Jaswant Malhotra the respondent No. 2. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to reimburse medical expenditure incurred on treatment of respondent No. 1.2. It is an admitted case of the parties that the respondent No. 1 who is about 80 years old, was admitted for treatment in Batra Hospital (Nephrology Department), an Institute approved under the Central Government Health Scheme (hereinafter referred to as CGHS, for short), in a critical condition and emergent circumstances in May, 2005. A large portion of her intestine had turned gangreous and was operated upon. She remained in hospital for nearly three months and expenditure of more than Rs. 14 lakhs was incurred. Out of the above amount, Rs. 10,06,666/- was refunded by CGHS to the re...
Shri Parmod Bagga and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ792
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The applicant in this case is Smt. Madhu Bagga who has prayed for modifications/corrections of judgment dated 18.11.2006 passed in Criminal M.C. No. 2581/2004 Apart from stating that certain errors have crept in the said judgment, the main reason for seeking review is that she was a necessary party and without impleading her as a party, the petitioners/non-applicants (hereinafter called 'the accused persons') had moved the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of an order of charge passed against the said petitioners. The circumstances under which the applicant has moved this application need to be stated in the first instance.2. The applicant Smt. Madhu Bagga had filed a complaint against her husband and other relations under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. The charge sheet was framed against the accused persons. These accused persons included the applicant's husband, his two brothers and sisters. They filed revision petition against the o...
Vikas Sharma and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ317
A.K. Sikri, J.1. All these petitions involve the same question of law, which is to be decided in identical factual background.2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are working as nursing orderlies for a number of years. They were, however, appointed on ad hoc basis in the hospitals under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and are continuing in that capacity since then. They want a declaration of their status of regular employees on the plea that they underwent the proper selection process before they were appointed. The Tribunal vide the impugned orders passed in different applications filed by the petitioners under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, have not found favor with their plea. The applications were, however, disposed off with the directions that whenever the next advertisement is issued for making selection on regular basis, these petitioners shall be considered for the post of nursing orderlies in accordance with law. These orders are...
Rajendra Coop. G.H. Socy. Ltd. Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ336
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:(A) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to specify a plot which is going to be allotted to the petitioner under the scheme on the basis of letter dated 18th December, 1995, and they may further be directed to give 3 months extension of time for calling general body meeting of the members of the society as prayed.(B) Restrain the respondent by an appropriate writ or orders from cancelling the proposed allotment already made by the DDA in their favor vide letter dated 18.12.95.3. During the course of the proceedings in this Court, considerable reliance has been placed on orders passed in favor of Kunj Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society, which led to the filing of an affidavit by the Vice-Chairman of the DDA. The sum and substance ...
Sawhney Brothers Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ679
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. These appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 6th August, 2004 whereby three writ petitions filed by the appellants herein were dismissed. Issue under consideration in the writ petitions was eligibility of the petitioners for the benefit of Central Interest Subsidy Scheme (Revised) for November 1984 Riot Affected Borrowers (for short 'the Scheme').2. The appellants herein, who are sister concerns, have been carrying on business of export of garments since 1969. For the purpose of their business they had borrowed funds from two different banks namely, Bank of Rajasthan and Indian Bank. The appellants claim that they had suffered during the anti-Sikh riots which took place in the year 1984. It is stated that on the evening of 30th October, 1984 miscreants entered the factories of appellants and looted and burnt the same. With financial support from the said banks by way of special over draft limits against e...
Express Towers P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mohan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ687
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The appellants, Express Towers Pvt. Ltd. and its Director- Mr. R.C. Goel, have filed the present Appeal against the Order dated 22nd August, 2006 dismissing their application under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) for passing a decree of specific performance on the basis of admissions made by Mr.Mohan Singh and Smt. Jit Kaur, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein.2. The appellants had entered into an 'agreement to sell' dated 21st May, 1987 with the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for purchase of property no. B-7/118, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi for sale consideration of Rs.23.50 lakhs. Rs.1 lakh was paid in advance to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 out of the total sale consideration and the balance sum of Rs.22.50 lakhs remained payable. The said amount was payable by bank drafts at the time of execution of the sale deed and possession was to be given to the appellants after full paym...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »