Delhi Court May 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.
Vaish Brothers Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT526
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act against order dated 10th September, 2007 and 26th March, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 340/1993. The order dated 26th March, 2009 arose from IA No. 11993/2007 which sought the appointment of any person as an Arbitrator for adjudication of the claims set aside by the learned Single Judge on the objections filed by the respondent-Union of India in respect of the Award dated 19th January, 1993. 2. The learned Single Judge noted the following facts: -a. Upon a reference of disputes, an arbitration award dated 19th January, 1993 was passed.b. In respect of the said award, objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 were filed by the respondent and which were partly allowed by a judgment dated 10th September, 2007, also belatedly challenged in this appeal, claims No. 1, 2, 9 ...
Jitender Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 184(2009)DLT767
Mool Chand Garg, J. 1. This order shall dispose of aforementioned revision petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners who are already facing charges under Section 363/366A/376/34 IPC in Sessions Case No. 294/2007 registered vide FIR No. 244/2003 of P.s. Kanjhawala. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2008 whereby the learned ASJ on an application moved by the prosecution also framed a charge against him as well as the other co-accused persons under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2. It is the case of the petitioners that at the stage when this application was moved by the prosecution the case had reached at the stage of pronouncement of judgment inasmuch as not only the prosecution evidence had been closed and the statement of all the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) of the petitioner had been recorded. As a matter of fact, Manoj, one of the co-accused also produced two witnesses in his defence and closed his defence e...
Sh. Vijay Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Manali Malik and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT259
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. Does a cheque presented for payment to the bank after the death of the drawer and returned unpaid for the reason of death, ceases to be a cheque for a suit under Order 37 CPC to be maintainable thereon. This question inter-alia arises for consideration in this application for leave to defendant.2. The three plaintiffs instituted the suit under Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of the total principal sum of Rs. 22,65,000/- together with pre-institution interest at 18% per annum amounting to Rs. 71,720/-, total Rs. 23,36,721/- and further together with pendente lite and future interest at 18% per annum against the three defendants on the basis of three dishonoured cheques. The plaintiffs No. 1&2 are pleaded to be the sons of the plaintiff No. 3. It is the case in the plaint (i) that the plaintiffs were having friendly relations with Shri Anil Kumar Malik the deceased husband of the defendant No. 1 and father of the minor defendants No. 2&3; (ii) that the said Shr...
Dharambir Khattar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 159(2009)DLT636
S. Muralidhar J. 1. These four Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) are directed against order on charge dated 8th April, 2008 and an order dated 16th April, 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) framing charges against each of the petitioners, inter alia, for the offences under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 13(2), 13(1) (d) PCA and for some of the accused for the substantive offence under Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) PCA. Background of the Lift Case2. The present batch of four revision petitions arise from a common charge sheet filed by the CBI in RC No. 25(A)/2003-CBI/ACB/New Delhi. This concerns the unauthorised construction of a lift at a commercial complex at Mahavira Towers, IIIrd Floor, Paschim Vihar and is hereafter referr...
Rajiv Kumar and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: [2009]151CompCas434(Delhi); [2009]92SCL283(Delhi)
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The short point involved in this case is as to whether the complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners for making a mis-statement in a prospectus and for making a false statement in the prospectus offence punishable under Section 63 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 is within limitation. The relevant paragraphs of the complaint are as follows:2. That No. 1 and 3 being signatories to the prospectus dated 11.04.1997 are responsible for conduct of affairs of the company at the relevant point of time and are, therefore, responsible for compliance with the provisions of Section 63 and 628 of the Companies act, 1956. Copy of the prospectus regarding the proof of directorship of the company being the person who authorized the issue of the prospectus is marked as Annexure II to the complaint.3. That the company, in question, in terms of Section 60 of the Companies Act 1956 filed the prospectus with the office of the complainant for raising money from the p...
Amrik Singh Saluja Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2877; 2010(251)ELT24(Del)
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. Admit.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing and after hearing the parties, the orders had been reserved.3. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner prays for quashing of the complaint pending before the learned trial court titled as 'Niranjan Subudhi v. Amrik Singh Saluja' for the violation of the provisions of Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA).4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that on 15.08.1997, the residential premises of the petitioner were searched under Section 37 of FERA, which allegedly resulted in the recovery and seizure of Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 1,18,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakhs only), one bunch of loose sheets (29 in number) and one currency note of Rs. 50/- bearing No. 5AA 69JJ95, as per the details given in the panchnama. Follow-up searches were con...
Kunstoffen Industrie Volendam (Kivo) C.V. Vs. Mr. Ashok K. Chauhan and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi158; 159(2009)DLT421; (2009)155PLR16
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This order shall dispose of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by defendant No. 1 for rejection of the plaint in a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,85,04,084/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this application are that the suit is based on a continuing guarantee dated 19.11.85 given by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff, English translation of which filed along with the plaint is in the following terms:19 November, 1985Dear Mr. Kwakman,I hereby give you a personal, unlimited joint and several surety for all justified claims of KIVO GmbH Julianaweg, 198-202, NL 1131 DL Volendam, which exist now or in the future vis-a-vis Kunstoplast Chemie GmbH or another company or the group in which I participate.3. Two more translations of the same guarantee dated 19.11.85 were filed by the plaintiff during the pendency of the present suit...
Prof. Dr. J.R. Sabharwal, Vice Principal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT344
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The writ petitioner challenges an order dated 18.03.2009 whereby a reference under Section 5 of the Dentists Act, 1948 and Regulation 20 of the Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 questioning the election process which commenced on 25.08.2008, was declined.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding the case are that the petitioner, an MDS qualified teacher, was employed as a Lecturer in the Mithila Minority Dental College, Bihar on 16.08.1991. He continued to work in that institution till 2002 when he was employed by the Harsaran Dass Dental College, Ghaziabad in 2002. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Professor to which post he was confirmed on 21.09.2006 when he was also appointed as its Vice-Principal. The petitioner was concededly elected as a Member of the Dental Council in terms of provisions of Section 3 of that Act, in the year 2003; he served as a Member. He was elected in the category of Section 3(c), i.e. as a representative m...
Indian Bank Mutual Fund and anr. Vs. Sebi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT334; [2009]96SCL1(Delhi)
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners-Indian Bank Mutual Fund and Indian Bank have challenged the Order dated 30th November, 1999 passed by Chairman, Securities and Exchange Control Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI, for short) and the Order dated 18th February, 2000 passed by the Central Government. By the impugned Orders, the petitioners have been directed to pay dividend for the Financial Year 1996-97 to respondent No. 2-Asian Institute of Transport Department (hereinafter referred to as AITD, for short).2. AITD is an NGO which had applied and was issued Units under the Ind-Jyoti Scheme, 1990 (Plan A) (hereinafter referred as the said Scheme, for short) promoted and floated by the petitioners. It is admitted by the petitioners that as per Plan A. the Unit holders were assured of minimum return as per the offer document. The minimum assured return was as under:1st year Date of allotment to 31/03/1992 12.75% 2nd year 01/04/1992 to 31/03/1993 13.25% ...
Bci Optical Disc. Ltd. Vs. M.R.S. Film Craft and Advertising Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2009
Reported in: 164(2009)DLT666; 2009(41)PTC256(Del)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff has approached the court with a case that;(i) It is engaged inter-alia in the business of manufacturing and marketing Audio & Video, CDs & DVDs;(ii) That M/s Magnasound (India) Ltd., (hereinafter called Magnasound) was also engaged in the same trade and owned copyright of various Audio & Video Albums;(iii) Magnasound was being managed by Mr. Shashi Gopal, his wife Ms. Kalpana Gopal and Mr. Madhav Dass being the husband of Ms. Sudha Dass sister of Mr. Shashi Gopal;(iv) That Magnasound was facing financial crises and owed monies to several creditors, one of which filed a petition in the High Court of Bombay for winding up of Magnasound;(v) That the aforesaid persons in management of Magnasound, on the verge of their removal and appointment of the provisional liquidator wanted to transfer the copyright of Music Videos, owned by Magnasound and which was a valuable asset of Magnasound;(vi) They in furtherance of their misdeeds, involved the defendant N...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »