Delhi Court October 2009 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2009 Page 9 of about 89 results (0.014 seconds)Punjab National Bank Vs. Satinder Kumar Chopra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT535
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant Bank against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.1997 passed by the learned ADJ in a suit registered as Suit No. 697/93 instituted by the appellant against the respondents.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,48,825/- was filed by the appellant/Bank against the respondents/defendants in the year 1990. The respondents filed a written statement. After the pleadings were completed and the documents filed by the parties were yet to be admitted or denied, efforts for arriving at a negotiated settlement were initiated. In the course of the proceedings itself, the respondents paid the amount of Rs. 2,49,000/- to the appellant thus, leaving only the question of payment of interest from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization of the suit amount. It is pertinent to note that the entire amount of Rs. 2,49,000/- was liquidated in four installments between the period ...
Tag this Judgment!N.D.M.C. Vs. Smt. Manju Maini
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT76
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner has assailed an award dated 23rd July, 2007 passed by the sole Arbitrator allowing various claims of the respondent.2. Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent took part in tendering of three parking sites namely INA Market, Pandara Road Market and Sarojini Nagar Market. She being the highest bidder was allotted Pandara Road-Group B parking at monthly license fee of Rs. 1,01,000/-, INA Market-Group A parking at monthly license fee of Rs. 2,01,000/- and behind Delhi Public Library Sarojini Nagar Market-Group B parking site at monthly license fee of Rs. 2,51,000/-. The respondent had made security deposit as per the terms of tender for the three parking sites. After being a successful bidder, the respondent was handed over possession of three parking sites on 20th September, 2004. Soon after the parking sites were handed over, the...
Tag this Judgment!Alfa therm Limited Vs. the Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT543
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Issue No. 3, of the issues framed on 13th February, 2009 and ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue, as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit, is for consideration.2. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for declaration and permanent injunction vis--vis a bank guarantee, issued at the instance of the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 bank in favour of the Government of Assam (Defendant No. 2).3. The defendant No. 2 Government of Assam had on 7th April, 2007 invited bids for supply of equipment installation, commissioning etc. all at Assam. The plaintiff company, stated to be having its registered office at Delhi was one of the bidders. The bank guarantee with respect whereto the suit has been instituted is a bank guarantee for EMD (bid security) issued by the defendant No. 1 bank having its branch at New Delhi and for the benefit of the Defendant No. 2 Government of Assam. The defendants No. 1 bank under the said guarantee b...
Tag this Judgment!Dassault Systems S.A. and anr. Vs. Sphinx Worldbiz Lim.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2009(41)PTC759(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of three applications bearing I.A. No. 15132/2008 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code?) and I.A. No. 6823/2009 and I.A. No. 6824/2009 filed by the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and Order IX Rule 2 of the Code for vacation of the ex parte ad interim order and for dismissal of the suit due to non-filing the process fee and registered A/D covers as per the directions of the court respectively.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain copyright and trademark infringement, delivery up and rendition of accounts etc., inter alia, praying that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant, its principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants and all others acting for and on its behalf from directly or indirectly cracking, copying, reproducin...
Tag this Judgment!Sunayana Malhotra and ors. Vs. Icici Bank
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT602
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. Application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint for the reason of the relief claimed in the suit being barred by Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act) r/w Section 34 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitization Act) is for consideration.2. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. They have pleaded that they along with others had promoted M/s Sudarshan Consolidated Limited since known as M/s Willy Agrotech Limited; that the said company had obtained certain credit limits from the defendant and had executed the loan documents in favour of the defendant bank; that the plaintiffs had also executed personal guarantees in favour of the defendant; that the plaintiffs have sold their shareholding in the company and have resigned from the Board of Directors ...
Tag this Judgment!Prodip Kumar Mondal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT119
A.K. Pathak, J.1. Vide order dated 21st May, 2009, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) dismissed the Original Application No. 1433/2007 of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying therein that the impugned order of the Tribunal be set aside and O.A. be allowed.2. Factual matrix of the case, as emerges from the record, indicate that the Petitioner joined as a Direct Recruit Assistant in the Central Secretariat Service. Subsequently, he appeared in the Section Officer Grade Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 2003 (LDCE), conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), as per the Recruitment Rules, applicable to the post of Section Officer. As per the Rules, 50% of the vacancy in a recruitment year, were to be filled through the LDCE. In the said examination for the year 2003, UPSC declared 243 candidates as successful ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Monika Chandel Vs. Upsc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT139
Sunil Gaur, J.1. In the year 2004, in pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure P-4) Petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Master in English in the Respondent - College. At that time, Petitioner was working on ad-hoc basis on the post of Master in English, which is a Gazetted Group-B post with the Respondent - College. Vide letter of 22nd December, 2005, (Annexure P-6), Petitioner was called upon to appear for the interview for the said post and to produce her experience certificate, etc. Petitioner had claimed age relaxation on the basis of 'No Objection Certificate' of 6th August, 2004, (Annexure P-5), which disclosed that the Petitioner was working as Master in English on ad-hoc basis since April 2001 with break in service in each year.2. When the Petitioner had appeared for interview on 23rd January, 2006, she was purportedly told that she was not Government Employee as per the new Rules of Department of Personnel Training (hereinafter referred to as 'DoPT'). According...
Tag this Judgment!Anang Pal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT10
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The appellant's suit for declaration, injunction and damages has been dismissed being not maintainable in the 'present form' as well as being time barred by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 10th April, 2008. The appellant has questioned the correctness of the trial Court's decision by filing this appeal.2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of this appeal may first be noticed. On 16/12/03 the appellant and one Kartar Singh had sought permission of the Court to file a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and damages in a representative capacity for and on behalf of the villagers of village Khirki where they themselves were also living and also for the public at large. For seeking the permission of the Court to sue in a representative capacity an application under Section 91 read with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (in short 'CPC') was moved. The relevant facts which necessitated the initiation of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT131; 2009(41)PTC614(Del)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The application of the plaintiff for interim injunction in a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark and passing off, is for consideration. The plaintiff as registered proprietor of trademark 'HAJMOLA' in respect of goods in Class 05 has instituted the present suit for restraining the defendant from using the mark 'PACHMOLA' in respect of the same goods. On the counsel for the plaintiff citing the judgment dated 4th July, 2008 of the Division Bench of this Court in Pankaj Goel v. Dabur Ltd. FAO(OS) No. 82/2008 upholding the ex parte order of injunction (also at the instance of the plaintiff) restraining appellant in that case from using the mark 'RASMOLA' in relation to the same goods and further upon the counsel for the plaintiff informing that the Special Leave Petition preferred to the Supreme Court against the said judgment of the Division Bench had been dismissed, vide ex parte order dated 17th December, 2008 in the present case...
Tag this Judgment!