Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mecano Export Import S.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR147(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Appellant, Union of India in this appeal assails the order dated 08.02.2006 passed by the Single Judge in OMP No. 381/2003, dismissing the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant herein in the objection petition had challenged the arbitral award dated 27.06.2003. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition held that the award passed by the arbitral tribunal was on consensual terms and the same could not, therefore, be challenged.2. Before considering the grounds raised in the present appeal, facts may be noted briefly:(i) A contract was executed on 29.08.1996, between the parties for supply of 10,000 Nos. 22.9T BG BOX 'N' wheel sets. The contract specified detailed terms including a supply schedule. As per the schedule, within 90 days from the execution of the contract, 1500-2000 units were to be supplied. The balance was to be offered in six monthly instalments. Provisions were made for inspecti...
Tag this Judgment!Azimusshan Haider Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 151(2008)DLT659; 2008(104)DRJ604
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the constitutional validity of Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act and prays for a declaration to the effect that the power granted to the Central Government to impose 'conditions and restrictions' under Section 5(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It also prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the Government of India declining citizenship to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a Pakistani citizen and holds a Pakistani passport. He is presently residing in Kuwait. In May, 1992 he applied to the Indian Embassy in Kuwait for registration as an Indian citizen. That application was forwarded by the Indian Embassy in Kuwait to the Home Ministry (Indian Citizenship Section) at Delhi. The application inter alias stated that the petitioner was born in Motihari town, Distt. East Champaran of the State of Bihar, and h...
Tag this Judgment!Upendra Kumar Singhal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 152(2008)DLT324; 2008(104)DRJ580
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In terms of Office Memorandum No. DGW/CON/193 dated 29th June, 2004 the Central Public Works Department has stipulated payment of earnest money as an essential condition for the issue of tender documents to any contractor intending to submit a tender. Aggrieved, the petitioner who is a contractor by profession has assailed the said stipulation in the present writ petition. 2. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Bhatia placed reliance upon a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ajay Krishna v. Union of India and Ors. : 2005(1)MPHT299 , to contend that the deposit of earnest money as a condition precedent for the purchase of tender documents is wholly unwarranted and unjustified. Earnest money deposit, it is argued, is given at the time of conclusion of the contract and not at the time of purchase of the tender documents which is only a step-in-aid of the finalization of a contract. The deposit is meant to guarantee the fulfillment of the contractual obligation...
Tag this Judgment!Hukum Chand and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 152(2008)DLT565; 2008(105)DRJ271
Siddharth Mridul, J.1. The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6th July, 2006, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, on the preliminary issue that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. The core question involved in the first appeals fall within a very narrow compass and may be framed thus: Whether a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction is barred on the principles of res judicata by an earlier decision of an appellate tribunal constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957(DD Act).2. The factual matrix, crystallized into a chronology of dates and events relevant to determine the above question for the purpose of the present appeals, is as follows:1. The suit land situated in Village Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi was purchased by registered sale deed by late Pandit Leela Ram, predecessor in interest of the appellants. 2. The suit land were acquired by an award No. 1259 on the 31st Janu...
Tag this Judgment!Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ajanta India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT167; LC2008(3)7; 2008(38)PTC83(Del)
Manmohan, J.1. The present case is a reflection of the times that we live in. It is a case of bitter fight between brothers who are willing to go to any length to ensure that the other family faction is not able to sustain itself economically. Needless to say that in this fight, neither has left any holds barred.2. Briefly stated the material facts are that the Appellants have filed the present appeal for setting aside orders dated 8th October, 2007, 19th February, 2008, 2nd May, 2008 and 16th May, 2008 passed by learned Single Judges of this Court in CS (OS) No. 2013/2007.3. In 1971 M/s. Ajanta Transistor Clock Manufacturing Company, a partnership firm, was established by Mr. Odhavjibhai Patel. The firm was owned by Mr. Odhavjibhai, his brothers and their children. This firm got the mark AJANTA registered. This firm has been selling its products in India and abroad.4. The Appellant company, M/s. Ajanta ., was established in the year 1992 in the name of M/s. Ajanta Electronics Incorpor...
Tag this Judgment!Prasidhy Chauhan and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 152(2008)DLT695
Siddharth Mridul, J.1. The present petitions were filed by jhuggi dwellers in occupation of Water Body Ring Road, Naraina and Indira Market, J J Clusters, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi respectively, praying for a writ, order or direction to restrain the official-respondents from dispossessing the petitioners and demolishing their jhuggies and alternatively for relocating the petitioners at the proposed site only after making provision for basic human amenities.2. Counsel for the official-respondents appeared in response to the petitions and submitted that pursuant to a direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court, demolition action had already been undertaken and that arrangements for allotment of alternative sites under a scheme for relocation of the jhuggi dwellers were being made. Pursuant to our direction in this behalf, the respondents filed a status report indicating in detail the amenities and arrangements provided at the relocation sites.3. The Supreme Court of India in S...
Tag this Judgment!Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Electrical Mfg. Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR239(Delhi); 153(2008)DLT440; 2008(106)DRJ1
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.2.2006 whereby while upholding the impugned award dated 5.5.1993, the learned Single Judge dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Sections 30 & 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The validity and legality of the award and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge mainly on the ground that the Arbitrators had misconducted themselves and in the proceedings held before them by not affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant merely on the ground that the appellant failed to deposit the fee of the Arbitrators. Indisputably, the jurisdiction of the courts to examine the correctness of the award is very limited and can be exercised only when the challenge is made on one or more grounds as enumerated in any one of the Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, normally the decision o...
Tag this Judgment!Narender H. Chandwani Vs. M.C.D. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CTLJ369(Del); 2008(106)DRJ419
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the MCD contained in its circular dated 19.05.2008, which reads as under:The Commissioner, MCD vide orders dated 06.05.2008 has removed M/s Sona Consultant & Contractors, Prop. Sh. Narender H Chandwani, R/o H. No. O-55, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-24 from the approved panel of the contractors of MCD on account of none execution of work awarded against work orders No. 453/EE (Br.)-I/TC/CS/06-07 dated 25.01.2007. This is notified & circulated to all concerned for information and necessary action.2. The admitted position is that the petitioner was an enlisted contractor with the respondent-MCD. He is the sole proprietor of his firm M/s Sona Consultants & Contractors. He was also empanelled for execution of work in South and Central zones under the unit rate system for one year vide communication dated 27.06.2007, issued by the MCD. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Balram Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT463
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner seeks full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him while undertaking the treatment at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Escorts Heart Institute') from his employer Department of Tele-communication, Government of India. He had sought this relief by filing OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 23.12.2004. Not satisfied with the said judgment and maintaining hope to recover the expenses incurred by him from his pocket, from the Government, he has challenged the order of the Tribunal and wants that his prayer made in the OA before allowed. This is the second round of litigation which has come to this Court by means of the present writ petition. His OA No. 2175/2002 was earlier dismissed vide judgment dated 8.5.2003. He had filed writ petition challenging that judgment. The said writ petition was dismissed of vide order...
Tag this Judgment!Baljeet Singh Vs. Management of State Farms Management of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ63Del
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant herein is a workman employed with M/s. State Farms Management of India Ltd. and had challenged his termination by raising industrial dispute. He has witnessed luck of his pendulum shifting from one end to another inasmuch as the Labour Court has given the Award in his favour holding termination to be illegal and directing reinstatement into service with back wages. The said Award is upturned by a learned single Judge of this Court in writ petition filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management') vide judgment dated April 28, 2006 and. quashing the Award of the Labour Court. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the said judgment of the learned single Judge. What is in store for him would be unfolded in these pages, as we are proposing to decide this appeal by this judgment.2. The appellant herein was appointed as Apprentice by the Management w.e.f. July 19, 1983. Two years period as an Apprentice came to an end...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »