Delhi Court November 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 1 of about 90 results (0.021 seconds)Bhushan Steel Vs. Singapore International Arbitration Centre and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the applicant/ defendant in the suit seeking correction in the order passed by this court on 04.06.2010 in IA No.11355/2009 filed by the defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The main premise of the application is that the said order passed by this court dated 04.06.2010 needs to be corrected in as much as in para 47 where in this court observed that the parties by the agreement have excluded the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation CS (OS) No.1392/2009 Page 1 of 5 Act. The said observation in para 47 as stood in the order are recorded as under:"47. In the present case, it is evident that the parties by agreement have expressly and impliedly excluded the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, the suit is not maintainable."3. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sandeep Sethi appearing on behalf of the applicant/defendant submitted that the observations mad...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Electricals Ltd. Vs. Sylvania and Laxman Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. The captioned suit was originally filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for recovery of sum of Rs 48,89,814/- alongwith interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. This apart a prayer for cost is also made in the suit. It is not in dispute that this court by order dated 26.11.1999 came to the conclusion that the instant suit did not fall within the "categories and classes" contemplated by order XXXVII and, therefore, was not maintainable under the said provision. Accordingly, the court proceeded to grant unconditional leave to defend to the defendant herein.2. In the plaint the case set up is as follows: It is averred that the plaintiff carried out the business of manufacturing and marketing of brass nickel plated and aluminum caps in different grades and filament from pure tungsten for use in fluorescent tubes and bulbs. It is averred that the defendant app...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Laxmi Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
1. On 16th August 2001, a raid was conducted by SHO Police Station Kamla Market under the supervision of ACP Kamla Market with the help of Dr. Uma Davbratta, a social worker at kotha no.57, G. B. Road, Delhi as well as on other kothas. From Kotha no.57, Crl. Appeal Nos.120/2004 & 127/2004 Page 1 Of 11 police rescued four girls namely Anjali, Bindu, Pinki and Fatima. These girls were sent to Nirmal Chaya and a case FIR NO.470 of 2001 was registered against appellant Laxmi and her co-accused Shamshad, who were running this kotha on the basis of statement of prosecutrix Fatima @ Babita to Ms. Manju, Sutpd. OHG Nirmal Chaya. However, appellant Laxmi and her co-accused Shamshad, who were running this kotha did not get deterred by the raid of 16th August, 2001 and they continued their business with new girls. A second raid was conducted at different kothas of G.B. Road on 24th December 2001 by SHO and ACP along with same social worker and again six minor girls namely Mumtaj, Munni, Sapna, Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. This second motion under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act for short) has been filed by Ajit Estates Private Limited (Transferor Company No.1), Nexus Realtors Private Limited (Transferor Company No.2), Mandarin Estates Private Limited (Transferor Company No.3), Charul Estates Private Limited (Transferor Company No.4) and Arvind Estates Private Limited (Transferee Company). The registered offices of the transferor company Nos.1 to 4 and the transferee company are located within the National Capital Territory in Delhi.2. The transferor company Nos.1 to 4 and the transferee company had earlier filed first motion, which was registered as Company Application (M) No.60/2010 and was disposed of vide order dated 23rd March, 2010. By this Company Petition 150/2010 Page 1 order the Court had dispensed with the requirement to convene meetings of the equity shareholders of the transferor company Nos. 1 to 4 and the transferee company and the unsecured creditors of the of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Mohan Agarwal and anr. Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of the above two writ petitions preferred by the petitioners. The writ petition no. 152 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioners with W.P. (Crl.) No.1422/08 & 152/2010 Page 1 Of 7 prayer that Section 160 of Cr.P.C be declared unconstitutional being contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as it conferred unbridled powers on a lowest rank of police official and lays down no guidelines for exercise of the powers of issuing notice so as to ensure that there was no misuse or abuse of power. It is submitted that Section 160 Cr.P.C was also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as it encroaches upon the liberty of a citizen. The facts stated in the petition are peculiar to the petitioners and not relevant in considering the question whether Section 160 Cr.P.C is unconstitutional or not. The constitutionality of Section 160 has to be considered per se. The petitioners also prayed for quashing notices dated 21st Januar...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Shri Mahesh Chander Ahuja
Court: Delhi
1. This is an application seeking interim injunction restraining the defendant, his associates, servants, employees, etc. from causing any interference, disturbance and hindrance in the peaceful enjoyment of the roof of the suit property during pendency of the suit. CS(OS)No. 1759/2006 Page 1 of 42. The parties to the suit are brothers, being sons of late Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja and late Smt. Chanan Devi. Late Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja was the owner of property No. J-13/9, Rajouri Garden and Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina. It is alleged in the plaint that after death of Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja, Smt. Chanan Devi, mother of the parties, had relinquished her 1/3rd share in property No. J-13/9, Rajouri Garden, left by Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja, in favour of the plaintiff, thereby making him owner of 2/3 rd share in the aforesaid property. The plaintiff has now sought partition of property No. J-13/9, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.3. The defendant has contested the suit and opposed the application. The defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Deutsche Ranco Gmbh Vs. Mohan Murti
Court: Delhi
1. Confusion and complexities have been particularly confounded in the circumstances of this case, as a concise account thereof will disclose. Execution proceedings have been initiated by Deutsche Ranco GmbH against the Respondent, Shri Mohan Murti, who appears before us in person. On the hearing held on 20.3.2007, in EA No.356/2006 in Ex. No.58/1994, it has been minuted that "Counsel for the decree holder submits that he has instructions to withdraw from the case. He submits that EFA(OS)32/2009 Page 1 of 8 he would be moving an application for seeking discharge. At this request, adjourned to 07/08/2007". On the next date of hearing, EA No.356/2006 was once again listed for appropriate consideration of the Court. The Order passed on that date reads thus:-On the last date of hearing i.e. 20/03/2007 counsel for the decree holder had informed the court that he had instructions to withdraw from the case for which he wanted to file the application seeking discharge from the case. No such ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 3rd September 2010 passed by learned ASJ.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that on 30th December 1993, Food Inspector visited the shop being run in the name of Sunil Kiryana Store in Main Market, Kondli. Accused Sunil Sharma was present at the shop doing business. When Inspectors of Food Department were in the process of collecting samples, father of Sunil Sharma namely Rajinder Kumar Sharma along with some persons came to the shop and started manhandling the officials and thereafter both father and son snatched the sample bottles from the Food Inspectors and manhandled them and pushed them out of the shop. The matter was reported to the police and an FIR under Sections 186, 353 IPC was registered and a complaint case under Food Crl. Rev No.659/2010 Page 1 Of 2 Adulteration Act was also registered. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Euro GraIn Limited Vs. Auro Sugar Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. The affidavits filed on behalf of the transferor company Nos.1, 3 to 5 and the transferee company, are taken on record.2. This first motion under Sections 391(1), 393 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act for short) has been filed in respect of the proposed scheme of arrangement and amalgamation enclosed with the application as Annexure A-1 between Euro Grain Ltd. (transferor company No.1), Business Oriented Software & Solutions Pvt. Company Application(M) No.187/2010 Page 1 (transferor company No.3), Odimco Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (transferor company No.4), Glenasia Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (transferor company No.5) and Auro Sugar Pvt. Ltd. (transferee company).3. Registered office of the transferor company Nos.1, 3 to 5 and the transferee company are located in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the present joint application has been filed by the said companies. Registered office of the transferor company No.2 is located in Kolkata in the State of West Bengal. The present a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S JaIn Electronics Vs. Cobra Cables P. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 10th March 2005 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) dismissing the Petitioners appeal against an order dated 17th May 1995 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting the Petitioners application No. 481358 in Class 9 for registration of the trade mark Cobra.2. The Petitioner filed the aforementioned application in respect of voltage stabilizer and parts and fittings thereof included in Class 9 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (TM Act, 1958). The Petitioners application dated 19th November 1987 was advertised in the trade marks journal dated 1st February 1992.3. In response to the aforementioned application Cobra Cables Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No.1, herein filed a notice of opposition on 16th March 1992. The case of Respondent No. 1 was that they were engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical apparatus and instruments, electric cables and electric conductors under the trade mark Cobra whic...
Tag this Judgment!