Delhi Court September 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.
Krishna Adit Agarwal Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 153(2008)DLT669
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (except WP(C) No. 3313/2008 filed by Indian Medical Association and Anr.) primarily seeks to challenge the allocation of all the 100 seats for the wards of army personnel in the respondent No. 2 institute, viz. Army College of Medical Science, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ACMS), which has been set up for offering the MBBS degree course. WP(C) No. 3313/2008 has been filed to restrain the setting up of the Respondent ACMS without the approval of the Central Government under Section 10A of the Medical Council of India Act. It also seeks a mandamus to require the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. the Union of India and the MCI to require the ACMS to first fulfill the qualifying criteria, before it is granted the aforesaid permission. A mandamus is also sought against the Respondent Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University to withdraw the affiliation granted to ACMS unless it comp...
Espn Star Sports Vs. Global Broadcast News Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: LC2008(3)257; 2008(38)PTC477(Del)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This Regular First Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 18th February 2008 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, where in the first part deals with interlocutory relief and second part deals with the non-maintainability of the suit. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the entire suit of the appellant/plaintiff for non-compliance of Section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. After the arguments were heard in this appeal, both the parties including News Broadcasters Association, agreed to attempt to arrive at a broad consensus on the question of 'fair dealing' in light of the existing guidelines framed by Prasar Bharti and accordingly requested this Court to defer the delivery of this judgment. However, even after giving ample opportunity, the parties have failed to arrive at a settlement for consensus on the question of fair dealing, consequently, we are delivering this judgment as requested by the Counsels on 2...
Dsa Engineers Vs. Housing and Urban Development (Hudco)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR347(Delhi)
Manmohan, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act against the judgment dated 21st April, 2004 in OMP No. 367 of 2001 whereby the Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal with regard to Appellant's Claims 2A and 5 has been set aside.2. The relevant facts of this case are that the Appellant was awarded a contract by the Respondent Corporation for external services (plumbing) under agreement dated 10th June, 1992. The agreement was to be effective from 3rd April, 1992 that means from the date of award of the work and was to be completed within 130 days i.e. by 9th August, 1992.It is the Appellant's case that due to various reasons solely attributable to the Respondent like delay in providing drawings, delayed decisions, hindrances at site and delay in payments of bills, the contract was completed only on 12th December, 1995.Since the disputes arose between the parties, the matter wa...
Kaiser Lands Vs. Mrs. Ethel Robinson and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR105(Delhi); 154(2008)DLT223; 2008(106)DRJ526; (2009)153PLR35
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The Plaintiff has instituted the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19th April, 1993 by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff of the Rear Duplex Flat comprising of 50% of the ground floor and 50% of the basement in property No. E-7/14, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Though there are 5 Defendants, the Defendant No. 1 died during the pendency of the suit leaving, besides the Defendants No. 2 to 5, her daughters also as her legal representatives. Neither the other legal representatives of the Defendant No. 1 nor the Defendants No. 2 to 4 have chosen to appear in the suit and have been proceeded ex parte. The Defendant No. 5 on being served, filed Criminal Misc. No. 1759/2000 which was put up before the court first on 23rd May, 2000 and is still pending. The Counsel for the Defendant No. 5 thereafter on 12th September, 2000 stated that an application invoking the arbitration Clause will be filed and the Defendant No. 5 will not be filing the ...
Sh. Surya Kant Gupta and anr. Vs. Richlook Garments Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR137(Delhi)
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short `the Act'). The undisputed facts of the case are that M/s STC Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Company'), acquired a plot at Central Business District near Karkardooma Court and developed a shopping mall known as Cross River Mall. In the aforesaid mall, the company let out a shop bearing No. 8, located on the first floor, to the respondent, in terms of the lease deed dated 5.4.2006, executed between the respondent and the company. The lease deed contains an arbitration clause being clause No. 19, whereunder the parties have agreed that their disputes and differences arising in connection with the lease deed shall be referred to the arbitration of three Arbitrators, one each to be appointed by the parties and third to be appointed by the two arbitrators. For ready referen...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D.K. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: [2009]308ITR230(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated January 18, 2008, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the block period April 1, 1995, to March 18, 2002. The appeal before the Tribunal had also been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 24, 2004. The ground raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal was that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,53,55,000 made on account of entries recorded in two diaries seized from the assessee's premises holding these diaries as dumb documents.2. A search was conducted on March 18, 2002, at the assessee's residential premises as well as the office of the company in which the assessee was a director. Amongst other items, two diaries were seized which were marked as annexures A1 and A2 to the panchnama. These diaries apparently pertain to the calendar year 2001-02 and were found at ...
Satya Pal JaIn Vs. Kailash Wati Goel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT117
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The landlady/widow filed a petition under Section 14D of DRC Act for eviction of the petitioner. Notice of this petition was sent to the respondent through registered covers as well as through ordinary process and UPC. As per the report of the process server, the respondent refused to receive the notice. He was then served through substituted service. Still no leave to defend was filed. So, the learned ARC passed an eviction order in respect of the premises on 8th October, 2002. A copy of the eviction order was also directed to be sent to the tenant. The tenant thereafter moved an application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside this ex parte order alleging therein that he was never served with the summons and summons were not tendered either by post or through process server and he had not refused summons issued by the Court. He learnt about the case only on 4th December, 2002 when he came back from Punjab and found that some...
Sh. B.L. Kantroo Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: 154(2008)DLT56; 2009LC(DEL)762
Manmohan Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (herein after referred to as 'plaintiff') against the order dated 12.2.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff seeking a declaration that the bill for Rs. 34,23,386/- issued by the defendants is false and illegal and also seeking consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant from disconnecting electricity supply to the plaintiff's premises i.e. Charitable Hospital 'Arandhati Hospital' was dismissed.2. The plaintiff filed the suit CS (OS) No. 278/2008 for declaration and permanent injunction before this Hon'ble Court with the following prayer:a) pass a decree of declaration that the bill of Rs. 34,23,386/- raised by the defendant against the plaintiff, is false and malafide, has been deliberately made highly exorbitant, is unjust and not recoverable or due to be paid by the plaintiff and further declaration declaring that the plaintiff is not guilty of th...
Smt. Sadhana Rai and anr. Vs. Smt. Bimla Rai and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT496
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondents No. 1 and 2 herein (Smt. Bimla Rai and Smt. Malvika Rai) are the co-plaintiffs, who have filed Suit No. 1158/2005 in this Court for partition and permanent injunction. The two appellants (Smt. Sadhana Rai and Sh. Vinay Rai) are impleaded as defendants No. 1 and 2 in that suit. The respondents No. 3 and 4 herein (Sh. Kulwant Rai and Sh. Anil Rai) are the defendants No. 3 and 4 in the said suit. The appellants (Smt. Sadhana Rai and Sh. Vinay Rai) think that the suit cannot proceed, as, according to them, the plaint requires outright rejection on as many as six grounds. Therefore, they moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC pleading those grounds and seeking rejection of the plaint. However, the learned Single Judge has opined otherwise. He found no merit in any of the grounds raised on the basis of which it is pleaded by the appellants that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. Consequently, vide orders dated 30. 11. 2007, application...
Pantaloon Retail India Ltd. Vs. Dlf Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-2008
Reported in: 155(2008)DLT642
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaint of the appellant, who filed suit for mandatory injunction etc. against the respondent herein, has been returned vide orders dated 8.2.2008 by the learned Single Judge on the ground that Delhi court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Challenging that order, present appeal is preferred. Only those necessary facts which have bearing on the issue of territorial jurisdiction need a mention. For the sake of clarity, we maintain the nomenclature of the parties as in the suit. That means hereafter the appellant would be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent No. 1 as the defendant.2. The defendant, DLF Limited, has constructed and developed a massive Mall known as 'South Point' (defendant No. 2). It is located at DLF City, Phase V, Sector 53, Village Waziarabad, Gurgaon, Haryana. Spaces in the said Mall are given to various traders on lease. The plaintiff also agreed to take on lease an area measuring 1,10,000 sq. ft. in the said Mall for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »