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.
National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Wig Brothers Builders and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT642
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. These are objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Sections 12, 13, 16, 18, 28(3) and 31 of the Act by the petitioner-National Thermal Power Corporation (for short 'NTPC') against the Awards of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 13th September, 1999 and 25th June, 2002.2. The disputes between the parties arose from a lump sum contract for 4 Cooling Towers of reinforced cement concrete 120 Metres high along with RCC basin for collection of cooled water and arrangement of RCC channels and AC Pipes provided horizontally for sprinkling of hot water through nozzles over layers of PVC serrated sheets, for the purpose of cooling of hot water from 43 Degree C. to 32 Degree C. through natural draft created in the towers. However, the supply of hot water and distribution of cold water from the basin was outside the scope of the contract.3. The contract, inter-alia, provided for foreign collaborato...
Rakesh Kumar and anr. Vs. Umesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi129
Rekha Sharma, J. 1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The reliefs claimed are as under:a) That the partnership business of M/s Bharat Chatai Bhandar, 6534, Khari Baoli, Delhi as per partnership deed dated April 01, 1999 may be dissolved.b) The accounts of the business including profit, interest, capital, rent, damages for use and occupation and goodwill of the partnership business M/s Bharat Chatai Bhandar and M/s New Bharat Chatai Bhandar may be rendered to the plaintiffs and the amount so ascertained as due to the plaintiffs and against the defendants may be paid to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs undertake to make the payment of the deficient court fees according to law.c) The plaintiffs may be allowed interest at the rate of 15% p.a. pendentelite and future till payment.d) Costs of the suit may be allowed to the plaintiffs against the defendants.2. The defendants not only have filed written statement to the plaint and there...
inderjeet Singh Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT46
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia, amongst others, for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents No. 1 and 2, MCD to execute a lease in perpetuity (99 years) in respect of shop No. 3635, Ward 11, Faiz Bazar, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi in favour of the petitioner, for quashing the notice dated 24/25.09.1990 calling upon the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the aforesaid shop and pay damages for unauthorized use thereof w.e.f. 11.12.1981, till the date of vacation and for quashing the proceedings pending before the Estate Officer, respondent No. 3 herein.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that pursuant to an auction in respect of the aforesaid shop held by the respondent No. 1 on 15.04.1971, the petitioner was declared the highest bidder and allotted the shop by virtue of an indenture dated 04.08.1971, for a period of five years at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month. Thereafter, the p...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Chadha Engg. Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 165(2009)DLT6; (2010)157PLR14
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. In relation to a contract entered into between the parties, which contained in arbitration agreement, the disputes were referred to arbitration of Sh. R.N. Poddar, Additional Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The learned arbitrator made his award dated 09.08.1996. Notice of making of the award was issued by the learned arbitrator on 09.08.1996 itself to both the parties. At this stage itself, I may notice that it is not the petitioner's case that the notice of making an award issued by the learned arbitrator was not received by it. 2. The award was filed in this Court by one Sh. S.B. Sharan, who claimed himself to be the sole arbitrator, on 18.05.1998 i.e. nearly 20 months after the making of the award and after the issuance of the notice of its being made to the parties. The forwarding letter along with which the award has been filed in this Court records that in compliance...
Sambhavana Organization Vs. Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 166(2009)DLT103
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners claim to be a group of visually impaired disabled persons who are actively working for the cause of persons with disabilities in matters of employment, education and accessibility. The present petition has been filed against the non-implementation by the respondents of the relevant provisions of The Rehabilitation Council of India, Act 1992 which require that the special teachers for disabled students, being rehabilitation professionals possess the qualification of degree or diploma in special education recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'RCI') and are registered with the RCI. It is stated in the petition that pursuant to advertisement dated 27th February, 2008, the respondents have, in September, 2008, appointed the teachers without the said qualifications in respondent No. 1's school for visually impaired children in direct contravention of the orders of the Deputy Chief Commissioner for Persons with ...
Smt. Shakuntla Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: 166(2009)DLT108
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to the arbitral award dated 9th July, 2004 is for consideration. 2. The petitioner/ her predecessor is/was the owner of a portion of a property No. 2, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. The said property was requisitioned on 3rd April, 1980 under the provisions of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. It is not in dispute that the said requisitioning lapsed on 10th March, 1987. The Government, however, on 6th March, 1987 issued notification under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the said property. The said notification was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 894/1987 in this Court and which was allowed vide Order dated 26.02.1997.While allowing the said Writ Petition and directing the restoration of possession of the property to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereof, it was held...
Mohd. Aslam and ors. Vs. Mohd. Ajmal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)155PLR38
Manmohan, J.1. Present revision petition has been filed against order dated 18th July, 2008 by virtue of which petitioners/tenants, leave to defend application has been dismissed.2. Mr. J.K. Jain, learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC), had not considered the effect and impact of Muslim Personal Law in the present case, as here a Muslim landlord/owner died leaving behind two sons and four daughters. According to Mr. Jain, the principle that one co-owner can file and maintain an independent eviction petition without impleading the other co-owners applies to Hindus and not to Muslims. He submitted that after death of a Muslim owner/landlord all his legal heirs become owners in common and not co-owners as in Hindus. According to him, all heirs are necessary to be impleaded in eviction petition and as respondent No. 1/landlord failed to do so, eviction petition was liable to be dismissed. In this context, Mr. Jain referred to and relied upo...
B. Braun Melsungen Ag and ors. Vs. Rishi Baid and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2009
Reported in: LC2009(2)292; 2009(40)PTC193(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiffs seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale and in any other manner dealing in or with safety I.V. catheters / cannulae or other device or apparatus that infringes the subject matter of the plaintiffs' registered patent number 210062. The plaintiffs also seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, exporting, advertising or dealing in any safety I.V. catheters / cannulae under the trademark 'VASOFIX(r) Safety(tm)' or any other mark which uses the plaintiffs' alleged confidential information, know-how, trade secrets, data, technical input, drawings, materials and / or any other resource derived by the defendants from the plaintiffs. 2. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No. 1 (B. Braun Melsungen AG), which is a company incorporated in Germany, supplies the global healthcare m...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Singapore Airlines Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR29(Delhi); [2009]180TAXMAN128(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. In these batch of appeals, which have been preferred by the revenue, there are three issues which require consideration of this Court.(i) In the first batch of appeals; the issue which arises is whether supplementary commission received by travel agents of assessee-airlines is a 'commission' within the meaning of Section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). If that be so, the failure on the part of the assessee-airlines would render them liable for consequences under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.(ii) In the second set of appeals, the issue for consideration is whether certificates issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee-airlines under Section 197 of the Act permitting the assessee-airlines to deduct tax at source at a lower rate or even 'nil' rate would also cover the supplementary commission.(iii) The third set of appeals raise the issue as to whether tickets issued by assessee-airlines to its travel agents at a...
Gandhi Scientific Company Vs. Mr. Gulshan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(40)PTC22(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the aforesaid pending applications in the two cross-suits filed by the parties against each other. C.S.[OS] No. 1192/1997 has been filed by M/s. Gandhi Scientific Company [hereinafter referred to as 'Plaintiff'] against Shri Gulshan Kumar [hereinafter referred to as 'Defendant'] for permanent injunction, infringement of copyright, passing off and damages.2. I need not discuss most of the facts as both the parties have admitted in their respective pleadings that the trademark and copyright is identical with each other except that the parties are claiming prior user of the trademark 'DIAMOND' and copyright in question against each other and seeking interim injunction against each other. To establish the claim of prior user, various allegations and counter-allegations are made on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.3. It is not disputed between the parties that their applications for registration of the trademarks are ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »