Delhi Court February 2008 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.
Baij Nath Aggarwal Dharamarth Trust Society Regd. and anr. Vs. Lt. Gov ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT122
ORDERSLP(C) No. ...CC 11030/2007 : The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.SLP(C) No. 21346-21347 of 2007 : The special leave petitions are dismissed on merits.(A.D. Sharma) (Phoolan Wati Arora)Court Master Court Master8. The present writ petition has now been filed by the petitioner once again challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings.9. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Parekh strenuously argued that since the validity of the acquisition proceedings had not been examined by this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation, it was legally open to the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition and have the legality of the proceedings tested. He submitted that an action for acquisition of land in exercise of powers of eminent domain could not be said to have been given up without examining the legality of such action for otherwise it would amount to approving any legal usurpation of the property owned by an individual. He fur...
Ashok Kumar Khanna Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT172
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Prelude to this litigation is the judgment of this Court dated 19.5.1992 rendered by a Division Bench in CWP No. 2670/1987 entitled J.N. Verma v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Anr. In fact, the entire case of the petitioner rests on the shoulders of that judgment inasmuch as the grievance of the petitioner is that directions contained in that judgment are not followed in letter and spirit and had that been done the petitioner also would have been its beneficiary.2. The petitioner herein is an employee of this Court. He, at the relevant time, was holding the substantive post of Assistant on permanent basis. Next promotion is to the post of Private Secretary/Court Master/Superintendent as these are the equivalent posts in terms of Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment of Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972. In the year 1985, the Delhi High Court decided to fill up the posts of Superintendent/Court Master and Circular dated 27.9.1985 was issued in...
Sharda Devi Gill (Decd.) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Rakesh Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT33; 2008(101)DRJ502
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a suit for possession, mandatory injunction, damages and mesne profits in respect of use and occupation of the premises bearing No. K-1, Lajpat Nagar-II, New-Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises'). The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the suit of the Appellants by order dated 18.12.2000. The facts giving rise to the filing of suit may be summarized as under:2. The husband of Smt. Sharda Devi Gill expired on 30.04.80. After the death of her husband, the Smt. Sharda Devi Gill continued to live alone in the suit premises till 1986. She was attended to by Sh. Digvijay Singh, PW-3, a childhood friend of her youngest son. In March 1986, Smt. Sharda Devi Gill was introduced to Sh. Rakesh Jain, the Defendant-Respondent by Sh. Digvijay Singh, PW-3. On the assurance of Sh. Digvijay Singh PW-3, Smt. Sharda Devi Gill agreed to permit the Defendant-Respondent to stay in a portion of the suit premises as a permissive occu...
Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd. Vs. Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT56
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiff with a prayer that this Court should pass a mandatory injunction against the Defendants directing Defendants to execute lease deed in respect of 1,10,000 sq. feet of area in 'South Point', DLF City, Phase V, situated in Sector 53 Village Wazirabad, Gurgaon, Haryana as per draft dated 8th May, 2007 sent by Defendant No. 2 and to take all consequential steps for allowing the Plaintiff to perform the Plaintiff's rights and obligations under the Lease Deed and the MoU/agreement dated 12th May, 2004.2. WS has been filed by Defendants No. 2 and 3 raising objection about the maintainability of the suit within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in view of Section 16 of CPC. I have heard the Counsel on the question of jurisdiction.3. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue are that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant No. 2 had agreed to grant a Lease to the Plaintiff in respect of a area of about 1...
United Engineers (Malaysia) Essar Projects Ltd. Vs. National Highways ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: III(2008)BC312; 2008(1)CTLJ209(Del); 148(2008)DLT737
T.S. Thakur, J.1. Encashment of bank guarantees run into rough waters when amounts payable under the same are sizeable and the contractual relationship between the parties embittered by disputes. More often than not the party who has provided the bank guarantees takes a chance to stall the encashment by seeking judicial intervention undeterred by the fact that such intervention is limited to certain exceptional situations not always easy to establish. The present appeals arise out of a similar failed attempt on the part of the contractor appellant to prevent encashment of the bank guarantees furnished by it. A Single Judge of this Court has by a well reasoned order repelled the contentions of the appellant that the encashment of the guarantees was likely to cause irretrievable damage to the appellant or that the appellant had made out a case on the ground of special equities in its favor to protect it against encashment. The appellant assails that order to canvass over again the very s...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anand and Associates
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR490(Delhi); 151(2008)DLT18; 2008(101)DRJ649
T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 18/4/07 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court whereby OMP No. 144/05 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. Disputes relating to a certain work contract executed between the appellant DDA and the respondent contractor were referred for adjudication to Mr. Avadh Behari Rohtagi a former Judge of this Court. Before the arbitrator, the respondent contractor made as many as ten claims inclusive of interest and cost of arbitration while the appellant made a counter claim for payment of a sum of Rs. 40,781/- which was given up in terms of a statement made on behalf of the appellant before the arbitrator on 08/9/02. The arbitrator eventually came to the conclusion that the appellant DDA had committed defaults in the discharge of its obligations under the agreement thereby rendering the termination of the contract illegal. On that finding, the Learned Arbitrat...
Dr. Rajbir Solanki and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT363; 2008(101)DRJ577
T.S. Thakur, J.1. Ten years after the issue of a preliminary notification and a declaration under Section 6 and eight years after the taking over of the possession and making of the award, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the acquisition proceedings in relation to a parcel of land measuring 3 bigha and 16 bids was in Khasra No. 21/24/1 and 1 bigha in Khasra No. 22/4/2 of Village Baprola within NCT of Delhi. A communication dated 7th April, 2003 rejecting the petitioner's request for de-notification of the land in terms of Section 48 of the Act has also been assailed with a prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the de-notification Committee to reconsider the application and to de-notify the land in question. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings is on the face of it barred by unexplained delay and laches, but before we elaborate on that aspect, we need to set out a few facts relevant to the present controversy.2. The petitioners claim to be joint owners of the land...
ibp Co. Limited Vs. Nand Kishore Bajpai and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 147(2008)DLT764
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. By this common judgment we propose to dispose of all these writ petitions which are referred to us by the learned Single Judge by order dated 10th July, 2007 and also the Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the order dated 16th January, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petitions of similar nature.2. The writ petitioners and the respondents in the appeals are either owners of land taken on lease by the oil companies for running petroleum retail outlets, Maintenance and Handling Contractors (for short 'MandH Contractors') or ad hoc dealers who were awarded the contract for running the said outlets under supervision of the oil companies. When the oil companies sought to allot/assign the retail outlets in terms of their policy, the land owners and in some cases MandH Contractors and adhoc dealers filed writ petitions. WP(C) No. 358/2007 titled Nand Kishore Bajpai and Ors. v. IBP Co. Limited was disposed of by the learned Single Judge...
Numero Uno International Ltd. Vs. Prasar Bharti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR446(Delhi); 150(2008)DLT688; 2008(101)DRJ479
T.S. Thakur, J.1. Based entirely on the admissions of the appellant company, Justice S.C. Aggarwal, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India has, acting as sole arbitrator, passed an interim award directing the appellant herein to pay to the respondent Prasar Bharti the admitted amount of Rs. 7.69 crores outstanding against the former. Aggrieved by the said interim award, the appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before a Single Judge of this Court who has dismissed the same by his order dated 20th August, 2007. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the arbitrator had given cogent reasons for making an interim award in favor of the respondent. He repelled the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC were not applicable and declared that the arbitrator was competent to make an interim award on the admissions of the parties contained either in the pleadings or in the co...
Eureka Forbes Ltd. and anr. Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 149(2008)DLT155; 2008(36)PTC210(Del)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. A learned Single Judge sitting on the original side of this Court had declined to reject the plaint in a suit for infringement of a patent and dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present appeal assails the correctness of that order.2. The legal position as to the approach that the Courts have to adopt while dealing with applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is well settled by a series of judicial pronouncements including those by the Supreme Court. Before we refer to some of those decisions, we may extract Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for ready reference. It reads:11. Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;(c) where the relief clai...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »