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.
Hamil Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3671
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. When examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C., responding to the question No. 20. Have you anything to say? The appellant answered:I am innocent and falsely implicated in this case. My wife Rajesh d/o deceased Bhagwana eloped with me with her own will. We had three children Sagar, Samundar and Aarti and we all were living happily in Punjab. Bhagwana, Santosh, Jugnu, Kishan and Bir Singh were inimical towards me and Rajesh for having run away with Rajesh and living separately.On 15.4.03 I had come to my village to meet my old mother, who used to walk with the help of stick/lathi. Bhagwana, Santosh, Mukesh, Bir Singh and Jugnu surrounded me and were armed with lathis. Bhagwana told me that I have brought disrespect to their family by taking his daughter Rajesh away and said that today they will finish me and then all of them started wielding lathi blows to me. I apprehended danger to my life and I wielded my old mother's lathi to save my life and in this commotion, s...
Arun Kathpalia Vs. J.M. Mukhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2009
Reported in: 162(2009)DLT441
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This application/petition has been made by the petitioner under Sections 14/15/23 and 25 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') seeking termination of the mandate of the present Arbitrator and for appointment of another Arbitrator in his place. It is stated by the applicant/petitioner that the learned Arbitrator in this case was appointed by this Court on 19th January, 2005, despite passage of more than four years, the respondent has avoided filing of his statement of claim before the learned Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator continued the proceedings and refused to terminate the proceedings in accordance with Section 25 of the Act resulting into the abuse of the arbitral proceedings by the respondent.2. The petitioner and the respondent in this case both are advocates and the dispute between them is in respect of dissolution and accounts of a partnership firm of advocates. The petitioner submits that the prolonged arbitration pr...
K.M. Industries Vs. Karan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-25-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ739Del
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated May 1, 2009.2. A reference was made for an industrial dispute raised by the respondent (original respondent in the writ petition). As per the respondent, he had been engaged under employment of the appellant for the last six years prior to the date of his dismissal on the post of 'Pressman'. It was urged by the respondent before the Labour Court that he had an unblemished track record and the Management had resorted to unfair labour practices. As per the respondent, the Management had not issued any appointment letter at the time of appointment or during the course of his employment despite repeated demands. He urged that his services were terminated without assigning any reason or cause or without serving any notice after withholding the salary of 22 days.3. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the Management before the Labour Court that it was the workman who had aband...
Sonia Mann Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT385
S. Muralidhar, J.1. These three petitions arise out of the common set of facts and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Crl. M.C. No. 1586 of 2008 by Sonia Mann seeks to challenge an order dated 12th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ') disposing of an appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 Gaurav Mann thereby upholding an order dated 7th November 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM') in Complaint Case No. 79 of 2007 awarding Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to Sonia Mann but modifying it to the extent that it was held to include a sum of Rs. 4,000/- available to her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('HMA').3. Crl. M.C. No. 1806 of 2008 by Gaurav Mann challenges both the orders dated 7th November 2007 passed by the learned MM as well as the order dated 12th March 2008 passed by the learned ASJ. Among the contentions raised is that the learned ASJ failed to take note of the fact that after 7th November 200...
Bonny Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bonne Care Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 166(2010)DLT509; 2009(41)PTC127(Del)
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. The suit has been filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the infringement of the registered trademark TENDER KARE, for restraining the defendant from passing off its same goods as that of the plaintiff by using the mark TENDER CARE, for restraining the defendant from infringing the copyright work of the plaintiff on its cartons/packaging and for the ancillary reliefs of delivery, damages and costs. Alongwith the plaint an application for interim relief (IA No. 811/2008) restraining the infringement / passing off has also been filed. Vide interim order (after notice) dated 2 nd May, 2008 the defendant was restrained from using the trademark of the plaintiff or any trademark similar to the trademark of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark TENDER KARE in class 10 in respect of the feeding bottles and nipples. The plaintiff has filed the original certificate of registration dated 24th December, 2005 of the...
Hdfc Bank Limited Vs. Amit Kumar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT478
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 21st March 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM') dismissing CC No. 4167 of 2009 titled HDFC Bank Limited v. Amit Kumar Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 ('NI Act').2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the learned MM, while entertaining a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, at the pre summoning stage, can insist upon the complainant producing some proof of despatch of the notice in terms of NI Act sent to the drawer of the dishonoured cheque.3. The aforementioned complaint was filed in respect of dishonour of a cheque No. 763884 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi dated 5th December 2008 for Rs. 19,083/- drawn by the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner HDFC Bank Limited ('Bank'). The cheque when presented for payment was dishonored with the remarks 'Funds insufficient'. It was stated in the complaint filed by the Bank ...
Ascot Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lala Diwan Chand Trust and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 160(2009)DLT215
ORDERAjit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This petition is filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.2. The facts are that an agreement to sell dated 6.7.1999 was entered into between the parties whereby the petitioner had agreed to purchase from the respondent the property bearing Shop No. 12, Ground Floor, Block No. 172, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, for a sum of Rs. 49,90,000/. Out of the total consideration of Rs. 49,90,000/-, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. According to the petitioner, the balance amount of Rs. 44,90,000/- was to be paid upon fulfillment of certain conditions by the respondent mentioned in Clause 2(b) of the Agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that those conditions have not been fulfilled by the respondent till date.3. The petitioner has annexed to the petition the letter of the r...
Star Cruise Management Ltd. Vs. Delhi Express Travels Private Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: [2009]151CompCas514(Delhi)
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') to seek the winding up of the respondent company, namely, Delhi Express Travels Pvt. Ltd on the ground that the respondent company owes a debt to the tune of Rs. 1,38,83,974/- to the petitioner company which the respondent has neglected to pay despite the service of a statutory notice under the Act.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Laws of the Isle of Man. The present petition has been filed through Mr. Ghanshyam Bhardwaj, appointed as the Attorney of the petitioner company vide resolution of the Board of Directors dated 4.5.2007 for the purpose of filing the present petition. Copy of the extract of the Board of Resolution dated 4.5.2007 and the Power of Attorney dated 4.5.2007 have been placed on record along with the petition.3. The petitioner states that the respondent is a company incorporated under the Act having i...
Smt. Abha Puri Vs. Amethi Hume Pipes (P.) Ltd.
Court: Company Law Board CLB Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(150)CC850,2010(1)CompLJ107,2010(94)CLA227,2009(95)SCL263(CLB-NEWDELHI)
1. In the instant petition filed under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the ‘Act’), the petitioners have alleged that by allotment of 1340 additional shares by the 2nd respondent to his own group, the petitioners have been converted from a majority into a minority and that he has also appointed respondents 3 and 4 as directors without the knowledge and consent of the petitioners. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioners have sought for cancellation of the allotment of additional shares and also for a declaration that the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 as null and void. When the 2nd respondent had disclosed in his reply that the petitioner-directors had also been removed as directors in an EOGM, the petitioners sought for restoration of their directorship. 2. The facts are : Amethi Hume Pipes Private Limited was incorporated in 1982. The 3rd and 4th petitioners and the 2nd respondent are brothers. The company was promoted by their father. The signato...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. National Co-operative Consumer Federat ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Delhi173
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a long drawn dispute over the last 27 years with a Public Insurance Company and a Public Sector Corporation arrayed against each other.2. The claim of the respondent for loss of goods on account of unprecedented rain at Kandla Port was rejected by the appellant-Insurance Company. The only question thus is as to which pocket of the government is enriched.3. The respondent is a Public Sector Corporation and acts as a canalizing agent of the Government of India inter alia for export of rice. The respondent thus purchases rice from different locations in India which is shipped through different ports including the one at Kandla.4. The appellant is a subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation of India. The appellant issued an Open Marine Inland Transit Insurance Policy ('the Policy' in short) for the benefit of the respondent in respect of the rice which was being shipped. Unprecedented rain and cyclone hit the Kandla Port on 09...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »