Delhi Court November 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 5 of about 102 results (0.020 seconds)Bipson Surgical Private Limited Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(2)CTLJ500(Del)
Manmohan, J.1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to either consider the Petitioner's tender or in the alternative to quash the entire tender process.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the Respondent No. 2 floated a tender for surgical consumables through Central Procurement Agency being Tender Enquiry No. 2/DHC/CPA/2008 by publishing an advertisement in the newspaper 'The Hindustan Times' on 7th July, 2008. It is pertinent to mention that in the tender documents it was specifically stipulated that information had to be provided in a CD and non-submission of the same would render the bid liable for cancellation. The relevant portion of the tender is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :2. Details of surgical items quoted in envelope CPA-2 as per enclosed Performa placed at Annexure-B.a) Information above (as per annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchand Sobhraj Kimatrai Vs. L.S. Monga and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 157(2009)DLT374
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28th April 2007 passed by the learned trial court whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC filed by respondent No. 1 seeking amendment of the plaint and adding relief of specific performance and possession was allowed. The contention of the petitioner is that the similar application made under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiff was earlier dismissed by the predecessor of learned Civil Judge and the learned Civil Judge wrongly allowed the second application made for the same purpose and that the second application for the same purpose was not permissible under law.2. The plaintiff filed a suit before the trial court for declaration and permanent injunction. In the suit, the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant No. 1 sold him a flat bearing No. H-38, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110023 allotted to him by the DDA (defendant No. 2). The transaction of sale and purchase was arrived at between the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Shashi Aggarwal Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT765
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner is a visually handicapped person. She has done her M.A. in Political Science and is stated to have also qualified NET in December, 2005. She had applied for her consideration for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Political Science) in Maitreyi College under University of Delhi pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondents 2 and 3 on 4.4.2007. However, the advertisement dated 4.4.2007 stood superseded by another advertisement issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 5.6.2007 and this subsequent advertisement was issued pursuant to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 4.4.2007 in WP(C) No. 16258/2006 directing all the colleges affiliated with University of Delhi to fill up 3% vacancies reserved for physically handicapped persons. In the first advertisement issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Political Science), applications were invited from o...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Kumar and anr. Vs. A.S. Chugh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT424
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The defendant after filing the written statement to the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property, submitted before the court that the suit was not maintainable. This court vide order dated 23rd May,2007, even before the framing of issues, listed the matter for arguments on the question of maintainability of the suit. The senior counsels for the plaintiff as well as the defendant have been heard on the aspect of maintainability.2. The defendant has challenged the maintainability of the suit for the reason of the plaintiffs having earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from selling, encumbering or parting with the possession of the property agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs to any other person. It is stated in para 1 of the preliminary objections in the written statement of the defendant that the said suit was filed by the plaintiffs before the court of the Civil Judge, Delhi and along with...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Prakash Vs. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR327]
Siddharth Mridul, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the award dated 20th May, 2005 passed by the Labour Court-VII, Delhi, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner without granting him any relief. 2. Briefly, the facts are that:(a) the petitioner claimed to be employed by the respondent as a Driver somewhere in the year 1995. The petitioner further claimed that he was not given any appointment letter by his employer; that he worked continuously with the respondent for four years till 15th December, 1998 when his services were terminated by the management without issuing any reason and without paying him retrenchment compensation or notice pay as required under law. He claimed that his termination was violative of the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that, therefore, he raised a dispute by sending a demand notice to the respondent through his counsel and also his trade union. The petitioner claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT164; LC2009(1)76
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Appeal has been filed against the Order of the learned Single Judge by which he has directed that the Plaint be returned to the Plaintiff for presentation before the proper Court. The Plaintiff is a Society registered under Section 33 read with Rules 13 and 14 of the Copyright Rules, 1958. It is also a company limited by guarantee registered under the Companies Act, 1950. On a perusal of the Plaint, it is evident that its Registered Office is at 208, Golden Chambers, New Andheri Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai; it also has an Office at B-317, Som Dutt Chamber-I, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the Defendants/Respondents has not disputed the locus standi of the Plaintiff for filing the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, damages etc.2. The precise legal status of Defendant No. 2, M/s. Cineline Cinemas, is not known, as pleaded in the Plaint itself. It is debatable whether Defendant No. 1, the Chief General Mana...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Batra Vs. S. Anoop Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT431
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present suit is instituted by the plaintiff for possession, partition and rendition of accounts against his brother, defendant No. 1 and his sister, defendant No. 2. Pleadings were completed in the suit and the matter was listed on 19.8.2008, for framing of issues. It was further ordered that the plaintiff shall be present in the Court for recording his statement under Order X Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). On 19.8.2008, the statement of the plaintiff was duly recorded and four issues were framed. Issue No. 2 was framed as below:2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be disposed of under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in view of the admissions made by the plaintiff as recorded under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC? (OPP)2. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 30.9.2008 at the request of the plaintiff, to enable him to arrive at a negotiated settlement with the defendants. On 30.9.2008, further time was sought on behalf of the plaintiff for exploring the possib...
Tag this Judgment!Model Press Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saied
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT403
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Parties in RFA No. 576/2007 were granted liberty to file written submissions within a week when arguments were concluded. More than a week has gone by. No written submissions have been filed.2. The plaintiffs of the two suits, out of which the present appeals have arisen, are the landlords and have suffered a rejection of the plaint as the finding returned by the learned Trial Judge is that even as per the case pleaded in the plaint Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for ejectment of the tenant of the respective suits.3. The tenant of RFA No. 576/2007 is enjoying the tenanted premises since 1.11.1972 and is paying a rent of Rs. 1,285/- per month.4. The tenant of the subject premises relatable to RFA No. 11-13/2006 is occupying the tenanted premises since around the year 1932 and is paying a monthly rent of Rs. 89.60.5. The two landlords tried their luck by seeking ejectment of the respective tenant alleging that a Division Bench of this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.P. Jewellers
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN50(Delhi)
1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 04.01.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 314/Del/2004 pertaining to the block period 01.04.1996 to 08.08.2002.2. The revenue had filed the appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,08,597/- made on account of gross profit on suppressed sales, which in turn, arose out of the unexplained shortage of stock found on the date of the search. We note that the Tribunal has examined the factual position in detail and has confirmed the deletion made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).3. The Tribunal noted that the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the discrepancy in the weight of the gold and diamond jewellery ought to have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. This was because the weight of the jewellery items was taken by the d...
Tag this Judgment!Alpha Agencies Vs. Inalsa Appliances Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2009]90SCL136(Delhi)
Gita Mittal, J.1. This petition was filed by M/s.Alpha Agencies, a partnership concern against M/s. Inalsa Appliances Ltd. on the ground that respondent company had failed to clear its bills of Rs. 27 lacs. The petitioner was also claiming interest on this amount.2. After issuance of notice to show cause, the respondent appeared in the matter. However, proceedings herein were interdicted by the respondent by making a reference under the Sick Industries (Special Provision) Act before the BIFR.3. During this time, it appears that another petition under Section 43 being Co.P. No. 128/2004 entitled D.R.Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Inalsa Appliances Ltd. came to be filed. Vide an order dated 11th April, 2008, this petition was admitted and an order appointing the provisional liquidator was passed. Thereafter a final winding up order was passed on 21st October, 2005.4. In as much as the present petitioner had prayed for an order of winding up of the same company, it is evident that two orders for w...
Tag this Judgment!