Delhi Court November 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 7 of about 90 results (0.023 seconds)Mr.Ravinder Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. Dtc
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The writ petitioners secured appointment as Traffic Superintendents (re-designated as Manager Traffic) in the year 1987 and are aggrieved by the fact that seniority assigned to the 13 persons appointed as Traffic Superintendents is predicated on the date of birth with the eldest being the senior most and the youngest being the junior most. However, inter- se the petitioners, they have a conflict of interest inasmuch as the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.13177/2009 pray that inter- se seniority be determined with reference to the marks obtained by the candidates at the time of initial appointment and the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.13615/2009 pray that inter-se seniority be determined with reference to the marks obtained by them at a test conducted after all persons successfully completed the training period...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Lal Vs Uoi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who was a claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal with respect to the damages caused by the Railways in having damaged one consignment consisting of 490 kattas kabli Gram booked by them on Wadi Bunder to New Delhi on 06.10.1989 for delivery to the appellant. The booking was at Railway risk rate. The wagon containing the consignment was dispatched on 07.10.1989 and reached Delhi on 22.12.1989 i.e. two months and 15 days after the date of dispatch. On arrival when physical delivery was taken it was found that the contents were damaged and delivery was taken on assessment of damage. The assessment of damage by the Railways was as under:- (i) 20% damage on 200m Bags(ii) 25% damage on 290 Bags (Assessment Report)2. A sum of `54519/- which was offered by th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sineximco Pte Ltd. Vs. M/S. Dinesh International Pvt Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?ORDER1. This is a suit for recovery of `84,15,000/-. It has been alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is a company incorporated in Singapore and Sh. D.D. Gupta, who is its Managing Director and Principal Officer, is competent to institute this suit and sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff company. It has been further alleged that vide Sales Contract No. 3371 dated 29th April 1997, the defendant company agreed to purchase Australian Tyson Chick Peas from the plaintiff company on the terms and conditions detailed in the contract. Pursuant thereto the plaintiff company shipped 2000 MT of commodities valued at US$1,85,729.25, vide invoice dated 27th June 1997. As per the terms of the sale contract, the plaintiff drew Bill of Exchange for the invoiced amount. The Bill of Exchange envisaged...
Tag this Judgment!Schreder S.A. and One Another Vs. Trilok Chand and Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? : No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : No3. Whether the judgment should be reported : in Digest? No ORDER1. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of Design No.182346, in respect of a lighting apparatus which is being manufactured and sold by it under the name Alura. Initially, the design was registered w.e.f. 15 th May, 2000 and was valid for 5 years. A copy of certificate No.1077 issued by the Patent Office in this regard on 07th November, 2000 has been filed by the plaintiff. In view of the provisions contained in Section 11(1) of Designs Act, 2000, which came into force on 11th May, 2001, the copyright in registration became valid for 10 years from the date of registration. The plaintiff has applied for renewal of the aforesaid registration vide application dated 12th April, 2010. A copy of the letter written by L.S. Davar & Co. Patent and Trademark Attorneys, to the Controller of Designs, Kolkata...
Tag this Judgment!Panveshwari and ors. Vs. Uoi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.ORDER 1. This application has been filed by the appellants for condoning the delay of 187 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 22.08.2008 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants as dependents of the deceased was dismissed by holding that the the deceased de- boarded a running train.2. To seek condonation of delay, it has been pleaded that the appeal could not be filed in time because the appellants were under great sorrow and disappointment after the untimely death of the deceased, who was the father of the appellants No.2 to 5 and the husband of appellant No.1 and was the only bread-earner. Further, the appellants had no source of income and did not have sufficient money to pay the fees of their counsel for filing the present appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Uoi Thr General Manager Northern Rail Way Vs. Krishan Kumar Goel
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No :ORDER.1. This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the Railways Claim Tribunal in O.A No. 2/2005 whereby the claim petition preferred by the Respondent has been allowed and the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4, 00,000 along with interest at the rate of 9% to the Respondent and aggrieved by the said order the Union of India has come in appeal against the order dated 14.06.2007.2. The facts necessary to be noted for the present appeal are that the deceased alongwith the respondent who is the husband of the deceased and his sister purchased second class unreserved tickets on 13.11.2004 to travel from Delhi to Bhatinda (Punjab) and while they were using the foot over-bridge to platform no.1, a stampede occurred at the New Delhi Railways station due to heavy crowd and unprecedented rush which resulte...
Tag this Judgment!Ndtv Studios Ltd Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd
Court: Delhi
O R D E R (ORAL)1. This second motion under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) has been filed by NDTV Studios Limited, NDTV India Plus Limited, NDTV Business Limited, New Delhi Television Media Limited, NDTV Delhi Limited, NDTV Hindu Media Limited, NDTV News 24x7 Limited, NDTV News Limited (the transferor company Nos. 1 to 8 respectively) and New Delhi Television Limited (the transferee company).2. The first motion filed by the eight transferor companies and the transferee company was disposed of vide order dated 4 th June, 2010 passed in C.A. (M) No. 113/2010. By the said order, meetings of the shareholders and the creditors of the eight transferor companies were dispensed with. However, meeting of the shareholders, secured creditors and unsecured creditors (other than trade creditors of the transferee company) were directed to be held under the Court appointed Chairman/Alternate Chairman. The dates for holding of the meetin...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Luthra Vs. Neena Luthra and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?: ORDER1. This order shall dispose of an appeal filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 04.02.2010 passed by the learned ADJ, Delhi whereby while modifying the order directing maintenance of status quo of the suit property which was passed ex parte, the ADJ has observed as follows:-"Although there is no denial that preserving the possessory and title status of the flat in question would be required to avoid complication in this suit but considering the unilateral cancellation of registered GPA, the blanket status quo order cannot be allowed to continue as it is. Hence that status quo order qua injucting the defendant from selling, alienating, transferring or creating third party interest in the suit property is made absolute pending trial but with a rider that in case defendant No.3 so desire, he can alienate ...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Breweries Ltd Vs. Mahendra Kumar Gupta and anr .
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes: ORDER1. There is no dispute between the parties that there is an arbitration clause as part of the agreement which has given cause to the filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act seeking stay of proceedings in the civil suit filed by the respondents against the appellant for recovery of sum of ` 1,47,625/-.2. It is also a matter of record that on the first date of appearance after the service of summons the appellant simply requested for an adjournment for moving an application under Section 34 of the Act. However the application was defended by the respondent by taking a plea that the appellant was never interested in referring the dispute to arbitration inasmuch as he failed to give any reply to the 6 notices sent by the appellant calling upon him to pay the dues p...
Tag this Judgment!Citi Bank Na Vs. Kamlesh Kumari Nirmal
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant on 24.1.2003 had taken a loan of Rs. 2,93,423 from the appellant OP, for purchase of a Hyundai Santro Car for an amount of Rs. 3,81,394, to be paid along with interest in 60 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 6,645 commencing from 1.3.2003. 2. The complainant paid 05 instalments regularly and failed to pay the stipulated instalments in August, September, October 2003. He paid the instalments due on 1st August, 2003 on 13.9.2003 and due on September 2003 on 13.11.2003. 3. The case of the complainant is that it was agreed between the parties through OP No. 3 M/s. S.M. Enterprises an agent of OP, that by 20.11.2003, the complainant will pay off the over due instalments along with interest and cheque return charges. The OP Bank without waiting for the due date with the help of its recovery agents snatched and repossessed the car on 15.11.2003 and refused to return it despite that thereafter the complainant t...
Tag this Judgment!