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.
Mc-rotem-melco Consortium Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-2009
Reported in: (2010)157PLR13
ORDERShiv Narain Dhingra, J.1. On 4th April 2007, the Arbitral Tribunal in this case passed an interim award and directed the parties to appear before it on 8th October 2007 at 5.30 pm for adjudicating remaining issue that was to be decided after rendition of accounts by Claimant. The petitioner has challenged this interim award by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitral record was sent back to the Arbitrator for concluding the arbitral proceedings and for giving final award, Counsel for the petitioner has raised objections against continuing of arbitral proceedings further. It is submitted that although the award was termed as an interim award but the said award had rejected all the claims of the petitioner and was a final award as far as petitioner was concerned. The Arbitrator has allowed some of the claims of the respondent and while allowing the claims of the respondent, in order to evaluating exact value of the claim made in fa...
Krishan Lal Vs. Meet Finance Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT507
Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30th November, 2005 passed by ADJ by virtue of which petitioner's appeal under Order 41 CPC against judgment dated 23rd October, 2004 passed by Civil Judge was dismissed. It is pertinent to mention that Civil Judge vide said order had dismissed petitioner's suit being No. M-49/2002.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of this case are that on 10th August, 1983 petitioner/plaintiff purchased a three wheeler scooter (hereinafter referred to as 'vehicle') bearing registration No. DHR-6761 for a total consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. While petitioner/plaintiff himself paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- was given as loan by respondent/defendant finance company. The said loan of Rs. 10,000/- was to be repaid in twenty-four equal monthly installments of Rs. 616/-.3. In July, 1985 petitioner met with an accident and according to Mr. Tandon, learned Counsel ...
Mukand Swarup Vs. Manisha Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT118; (2009)155PLR24
Manmohan, J.1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging order dated 13th March, 2009 whereby the Guardianship Court has held that it has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try respondent's petition.2. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for petitioner contends that Delhi Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the respondent-wife's petition under Sections 7 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of the two minor children of petitioner and respondent. He submits that children are presently residing and studying in Chennai and, therefore, Court at Delhi does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try respondent's petition. In this context, he referred to the following judgments:A. Sanjay Agarwal v. Smt. Krishna Agarwal reported in wherein it has been held as under:12. The learned District Judge, Merta while stating the conclusions as reproduced above, has not referred to the rel...
Asha Rani and ors. Vs. Satinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT282
Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29th January, 2007 passed by Additional Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') whereby petitioners' appeal against order dated 26th February, 2005 allowing respondent-landlord's eviction petition under Section 14(1)(c) & (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act'), was dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts relating to the present petition are that on 6th January, 1966 Mr. Jaktar Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners took on rent, premises bearing Shop No. 12, Old Market, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises'). The respondent-landlord on 22nd December, 1999 issued an eviction notice to petitioners-tenants on the ground that they were misusing the tenanted premises. In the said notice it was alleged that tenanted premises were to be used for a specific purpose of 'Halwai' b...
Poorvanchal Caterers a Partnership Firm Through Swami Vivekanand Singh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 166(2009)DLT120
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by a direction requiring him to vacate the pantry car through which catering services are provided on train No. 8405-8406 (Puri to Ahmedabad and back).2. The Petitioner already provides catering services on train No. 8401-8402 from Puri to Okha and back and train No. 8403-8404 from Puri to Ahmedabad and back. The train services of 8401-8402 and 8403-8404 are run with integrated rakes.3. What are integrated rakes? We have been explained that train No. 8401 leaves Puri on Sunday at 0845 hours and arrives in Okha at 1505 hours on Tuesday. The next day it leaves Okha at 0700 hours (as train No. 8402) and arrives in Puri on Friday at 1330 hours. On Saturday, at 1015 hours, the same train (as train No. 8403) departs from Puri and goes to Ahmedabad arriving there the next day and leaves Ahmedabad (as train No. 8404) soon thereafter and arrives in Puri on Wednesday at 1210 hours. 4. The journey of this train is more or less continuous and the va...
Simplex Concrete Piles (i) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 163(2009)DLT652
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The respondent Union of India seeks condonation of delay of 118 days in filing the objections to the arbitral award, under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The application has been contested vehemently by the petitioner. At the outset, it is contended that the delay in filing the objections is of 315 days and not 118 days as represented by the respondent. Thus, at the outset, it has to be determined as to how much is the delay. The respondent has computed 118 days on the premise that upon receipt of award in this Court, on 2nd April, 2002 notice of filing of the award was ordered to be issued to the parties for 23th August, 2002; that even though notice had not been served on the respondent, but the counsel for the respondent appeared on 23rd August, 2002; that the objections ought to have been filed within 30 days thereof but have been filed on 18th January, 2003.2. On the contrary, the senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the record shows that the a...
Sh. Paras Vs. Lovely Ticket Wala
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT365; (2010)ILLJ35Del
V.K. Shali, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the award dated 13th January, 2005 passed by the learned Labour Court No. VIII in ID No. 1126/2000 in the case titled Sh. Paras v. Lovely Ticket Wala, (Aar Kay Printers) only to the limited extent of quantum of compensation which is directed to be paid to the petitioner.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a reference was made by the appropriate government to the learned Labour Court:Whether the services of Sh. Paras have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect3. On the basis of the aforesaid reference, the petitioner filed his statement of claim claiming that he was employed as a Machine Operator for monthly wages of Rs. 3000/- and in 1999 when the petitioner demanded increase in salary, overtime, earned leave and other benefits, the respondent got annoyed and terminated the services...
Kulpreet Kaur Sole Prop. Govind Travels Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT64
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue notice. Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate accepts notice. With consent of counsels for parties, the matter was heard finally, for disposal.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 25.03.2009 so far as it determines that its further business relationship with the firm, M/s. Govind Travels is banned for a period of two years in the date of the letter.3. The facts necessary for deciding the case are that the petitioner entered into a contract with the Respondent No. 2 for supply of vehicles on hire-basis; the contract was to be in force for three years, i.e. from 01.04.2007 till 31.03.2010. It was submitted that when the contract was subsisting, the petitioner gave notice of termination on 19.08.2008 in view of the then prevailing circumstances in 'INS India', the respondents' naval vessel. The said letter is in the following terms:19th August, 2008GOVIND TRAVELSPrincipal Director of AdministrationDOA, A Block HutmentsDalhousie RoadNew DelhiSir,Due to presen...
Sh. Devashis Bhattacharya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT780
Gita Mittal, J.1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the proceedings in Complaint Bearing No. 880/1 dated 27th May, 2002 entitled Enforcement Directorate v. Sanjay Malviya and Ors. under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Act, 1973 read with Sub-section 3 and 4 of Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and prays for quashing thereof primarily on the ground that the same have been commenced without effecting statutory compliance of the mandatory provision of the proviso to sub Clause (ii) of Sub-section 2 of Section 61 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner has also assailed the order of the learned trial judge taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing summons to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be an ordinary director of the Intergroup C & E Ltd. ('ICE Ltd' for brevity) which was allotted six Integrated Services Digital Network telephone connection ('ISDN connections'...
Mr. Rakesh Bhatia and ors. Vs. Mr. Parmod Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2009
Reported in: 168(2009)DLT183
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The applications of the plaintiffs for interim relief and for amendment of the plaint and of the application for interim relief are for consideration.2. The nine plaintiffs instituted this suit against nine defendants for the relief of permanent injunction. It is inter-alia the case in the plaint that the plaintiffs No. 6 & 7 companies namely M/s. BGIL Films & Technologies Ltd. and M/s. Bhartiya Global Infomedia Ltd. respectively are inter-alia engaged in the business of film production; that the other plaintiffs hold shares of the said companies; that the defendants No. 1, 2 & 9 are related to each other and/or are in control of the defendants No. 3 to 8 companies; that the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 have been friends for long and the defendant No.1 has been financing the businesses of the plaintiff No. 1 from time to time; that the plaintiff No. 1 in September, 2007 was under tremendous financial pressure and in need of funds and approached the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »