Delhi Court April 2009 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.
Mrs. Shilpi JaIn and ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Bansal (Huf) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT207
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants seeking a declaration that the suit property bearing mustil No. 62, Khasra No. (0-7) admeasuring 36 bigha, 8 biswa situated at village and PO Kanganheri, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi be declared a HUF property owned by defendant No. 1 in view of sale deeds dated 22.07.1988 and 27.02.1989. The plaintiffs have further prayed for a declaration to declare the agreement to sell dated 24.07.2006 between defendants No. 2 to 5 to be void.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this suit are that defendant No. 2 is the father of the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 3 and 4 are the mother and grand mother of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 2 being the father of the plaintiffs is the karta of two HUFs namely Mr. Anil Kumar Bansal (HUF) and M/s Anil Kumar Bansal & sons (HUF) (defendant No. 1 herein). The suit property was purchased in the name of these two HUFs through its karta (defendant No. 2) vide sa...
Raj and Associates and anr Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT141; (2009)155PLR21
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. This appeal challenges the order dated 18th July, 2005 of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the transfer of suit to the District Court in view of the value of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit being only Rs. 9,70,417/- that is less than Rs. 20 lacs which is the minimum amount at which a suit has to be valued for pecuniary jurisdiction to enable filing of the suit in the original side of this Court.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that though, the suit will have to be taken as valued at Rs. 9,70,417/- and which is the amount of which recovery is sought in the present suit, he contends that the defendant No. 1 had filed a counter claim and the valuation of which counter claim being Rs. 30,14,256/- consequently, the valuation being such that it is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court such counter claim has been directed to be tried by this Hon'ble Court.3. The issue therefore is that w...
Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: 2009BusLR467(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner challenges an order of the Mines Tribunal under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 (hereafter called 'the Act') and Rule 54 the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960, rejecting its application for condoning the delay in filing an appeal and consequently dismissing the appeal. 2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the case are that the petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the respondent No. 2 i.e. State of Chattisgarh on 4.5.2005 for establishing a steel plant. It is claimed that the State assured the petitioner that rights would be granted in respect of Rowghat and Bailedila Deposits. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease in respect of Deposits A to E of Rowghat Reserves in Chattisgarh in two blocks. It is contended that these applications overlapped with approximately 1600 Hectares of area for which Jayswal Neco Ltd. - the intervener, (hereafter called 'JNL') applied ...
Zahid @ Ballu @ Saleem Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3682
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellants Zahid @Ballu @Salim, Shahid @Lambu, Sahil @Israel, Abid and Pawan were charged with the offence of having entered into a conspiracy to commit murder of Udaivir and in pursuance thereof murdering Udaivir on 2.7.2000 at about 6:05 PM on the public street opposite House No. B-231 Old Seemapuri. Additionally, Sahil was charged with the offence of possessing a country made revolver without a licence i.e. the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act as also for the offence of having used the said firearm to cause firearm injury on Udaivir i.e. the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Shahid was charged with the offence of possessing a khukhri i.e. for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act as also for the offence of having used the khukhri to cause injury to Udaivir i.e. for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Abid and Pawan were charged with the offence of possessing a knife i.e. the offence ...
Polytron and Fragrance Industries (P) Limited Vs. National Insurance C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT534; (2009)155PLR6
Rekha Sharma, J. 1. By way of present petition under Section 11(4)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent, allegedly, on the ground that despite notice, respondent had failed to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 13 of the Contract of Insurance. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner who has a factory at B-70, Sector-57, Noida (U.P.) had got the same insured against fire and so also the stocks, plant, machinery and office equipments vide an insurance policy No. 361303/11/03/3100322 issued in its favour by the respondent. It is also not in dispute that a fire broke out in the aforementioned premises on September 13, 2004 resulting in extensive damage to the building, office equipment, plant, machinery and stocks lying therein. The petitioner lodged an insurance claim of Rs. 3,60,60,694/- with the respondent who in order to get the loss assessed appointed a surveyor by the name of Rakesh Kap...
Narender Singh Vs. Enforcement Directorate
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: [2009]92SCL174(Delhi)
ORDERS. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. By these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a quashing order, against the Show-cause Notice/Memorandum for adjudication, dated 21-5-2002 issued under Section 51 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA') issued by respondents.2. The allegations in the impugned show-cause notice, in brief, proceed on the premise that Nestle World Trading Corporation (NWTC) acted so as to raise suspicion that coffee exported by Nestle India Ltd. ('NIL'), was subsequently resold by it (NWTC) and that the petitioners herein being directors/in-charge of NIL, during the relevant period were responsible for the conduct of the said company. It was alleged, therefore, that they rendered themselves liable to be proceeded against and punished along with the Company for the contravention committed by the NIL, in terms of Section 68 of FERA, 1973.3. The facts in brief, as stated by the petitioners, are that since 1992, NIL was exportin...
Cit Vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2009
Reported in: [2009]184TAXMAN299(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The issue involved in all these appeals, in respect of the same assessee, is common, which relates to the deductions allowed by the authorities below under Section 80HH and Section 80-I of the Act. Before narrating the said issue and stipulating the questions of law that arise for consideration in these appeals, we may recapitulate the factual background under which these issues arise.2. The assessee, namely, Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. is a public sector company incorporated under the Companies Act and is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Railways. It is engaged in the manufacturing of large number of items such as ballast, concrete sleepers, specialised mechanical track laying/relaying equipments, railway panels, steel roof panels, columns, gentry, girders, wind girdles, frames, dressings, erection towers, tack...
Delhi Medical Association and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi163
S. Muralidhar, J. 1.1 These petitions and appeals raise similar questions and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment. The lead petition, Writ Petition (C) No. 4233 of 1993 by the Delhi Medical Association seeks a declaration that Rule 3 of the Delhi Nursing Home (Amendment) Rules 1992 is ultra vires the Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act 1953 ('Act') and is also arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The other prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Respondents not to give effect to the said Rule 3 and to register all nursing homes which are eligible for registration under the Act without insisting on the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under the impugned Rule 3.1.2 It was submitted at the outset by counsel for the petitioners that with the changes brought about by the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD) 2021 and the introduction of the mixed land use norms, the questions arisi...
F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT243; LC2009(2)1; 2009(40)PTC125(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Plaintiffs F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (`Roche') and OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc. (`OSI') is directed against the judgment dated 19th March, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing I.A. No. 642/2008 filed by them in their suit CS (OS) No. 89/2008, thereby declining their prayer for grant of an interim injunction to restrain the Defendant/Respondent Cipla Limited from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting the drug Erlotinib, for which the plaintiff No. 2 claimed to hold a patent jointly with Pfizer Products Inc. The impugned judgment nevertheless put the defendant to terms including furnishing an undertaking to pay damages to the plaintiffs in the event of the suit being decreed, to maintain accounts of the sale of its product Erlocip, file in the court quarterly accounts along with the affidavit of one of its directors, and to file in the court annual statement of the sales of Erlocip duly authenticated by its...
Gurvir Inder Singh and anr. Vs. Brig. Rajendra Singh (Deceased) Throug ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT150
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This order shall dispose off the execution petition filed by Shri Gurvir Inder Singh @ Bulbul Singh and Shri Jugvir Inder Singh (hereinafter to be referred to as decree holders) for execution of consent decree of partition dated 5.9.1989 in Suit No. 2526/1987. This order will also dispose off the objections against the execution filed by Smt. Priti Suri and Mrs.Timki Singh @ Salini Singh (hereinafter to be referred as the objectors).2. In order to decide the objections against the maintainability of the present execution petition it will be necessary to give a brief background of the facts of the case leading up to the filing of the present execution petition. These facts are summarised as follows:3. The decree holders and the objectors are related to each other as real brothers and sisters. The property which is in dispute is property bearing No. B-21, Westend, Diplomatic Enclave Extension, New Delhi built on a plot area of about 800 sq. yds. Late Brig. Rajendra Si...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »