Delhi Court December 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 20 of about 211 results (0.019 seconds)Lalit Gulati and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. The challenge in both these writ petitions is to a Notification dated 16th/19th May 2008 issued by the Department of Power, Government of WP (C) Nos. 8568 and 13046 of 2009 Page 1 of 14 National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Notification dated 20th February, 2004 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.2. By the said impugned Notification, the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of the NCT of Delhi issued directions, in public interest, to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commissioner, as under:"(1) direct the Discoms to write off the principal dues against sale of power during DESU/DVB period in respect of the private electricity consumers and to waive off their late payment surcharge as well pertaining to that period only, except the cases under litigation at any forum and at any level.(2) direct the Discoms not to raise any bill on the private electricity consumers pertaining to...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. V Pitchandi
Court: Delhi
1. A search on the internet would reveal that two decisions of the Supreme Court have proved to be a lawyers delight and a Judges despair. They are the decisions in Adalat Prasads case pertaining to the power of a Magistrate to recall a summon of appearance and the second is the decision in Dev Dutts case. The two decisions have generated enormous litigation, to the happiness of the lawyers and the despair of the Judges.2. Instant writ petition concerns the applicability of law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Dev Dutt vs. UOI & Ors. 2008(8) SCC 725.3. The concept of an ACR grading which was adverse to the employee concerned; adverse being as understood in common parlance was held to be of a kind which requires the same to be communicated to the employee concerned with a right to make a representation and the representation to be decided. This was the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1996 (2) SCC 363 U.P. Jal Nigam vs. Prabhat Chand...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Arora and anr Vs. Jitender Singh and anr
Court: Delhi
IA 16253/2010 (on b/o. plaintiff u/O.1 R.10(2) CPC) Notice of the application be issued to the proposed additional defendants for 10th March, 2011. IA 16259/2010 (on b/o. plaintiff u/O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC) Notice of the application be issued to the defendants for the date already fixed above. CS(OS)No. 650/2010 Page 1 of 5 IA 4460/2010 (O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC)1. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants had entered into a Collaboration Agreement with the owners of property No.1195, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi, under which they had to re-construct the aforesaid property and the third floor of the property was to fall to share of the defendants, whereas the other share were go to the owners. This is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants vide Agreement to Sell dated 15th April, 2009 had agreed to sell the third floor of the aforesaid property along with terrace rights to them for a total sale consideration of Rs.53,75,000/- and they have already made part-payment of Rs.15,60...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Roshan Lal Makkar
Court: Delhi
1. This second appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 23.1.2010 wherein on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the suit of the plaintiff seeking possession of the suit premises bearing property no.X/978, Ground Floor, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi had been decreed in his favour.2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed premises. He had vide a registered leased deed dated 08.04.2004 given the premises on rent for a period of five years to the appellant which lease had expired on 7.4.2009 by efflux of time. Legal notice dated 16.4.2008 had been issued to the defendant terminating his tenancy with effect from 8.4.2009 RSA No.104/2010 Page 1 of 3 determining the tenancy of the appellant/defendant with the date of expiry of the lease i.e. with effect from 7.4.2009. Present suit was filed on 24.4.2009. The adm...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash and ors. Vs. Gian Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 01.9.2003 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 24.1.1994 whereby the suit of the plaintiff seeking mandatory injunction had been dismissed.2. This is a second appeal. On behalf of the appellant, it has been pointed that findings in the impugned judgment are perverse; the report of the hand writing expert DW-1 has not been considered in its correct perspective; the plaintiff no.4 Mohd. Javed had all along denied that he had ever written the disputed letter dated 2.4.1984. It is submitted that the only way of access of the plaintiff to his suit property was through a staircase of which he has now been denied access by defendant. All these submissions have raised a substantial question of law.3. Arguments have been countered.4. Perusal of the plaint show that this was a suit for mandatory injunction wherein it had been averred by the plaintiff that he is a tenant in the first floor of house No.977, Pam Mandi, Sad...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Hindustan Unilever Ltd(Formerly Known as Hindustan Lever Ltd.). V ...
Court: Delhi
1. Through these petitions, the petitioners M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., M/s. Rama Harzai and M/s. Sachdeva Enterprises have sought quashing of respective complaints filed against them, being complaint cases No. 59/PF/DA/08, CC No. 1854/2009, CC No. 1944/2009 & CC No. 1961/2009, all under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as PFA Act) pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and also impugned orders respectively dated 01.05.2008, 02.05.2009, 16.09.2009 & 14.10.2009, issuing processes against the petitioners as also the proceedings emanating from the complaints.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of these petitions are that on 10th May, 2005, 18th April, 2006, 24th May, 2006 and 07th November, 2006, the concerned Food Inspectors purchased samples of Kissan Tomato Ketchup for analysis from the premises of M/s. Nut and Cookies, Shop No. G 24/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi; M/s. Shangrila Chinese Food (...
Tag this Judgment!Hukam Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against his conviction whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 and Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.2. The prosecution's story is that the victim Kailash was found in injured condition on road and he reported that on 11th August, 2001 at about 9.30 pm he had hired a Three Wheeler Scooter Rickshaw (TSR) from Tigri Khanpur for Anand Vihar ISBT and in the said TSR one person was already sitting. At about 10.30 pm, the TSR driver instead of going to his destination turned TSR to Hasanpur, when he objected to it and asked the driver as to where he was taking the TSR, the person sitting on the back seat took out a knife and pointed at his Crl. Appeal No. 18/2004 Page 1 of 3 throat and robbed Rs.400/- from his pocket and snatched a suitcase containing his clothes and cash of Rs.5500/-. In the process of robbing him, he was injured by knife. He was th...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M/S. Ktech Engineer Builders Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
G.P. MITTAL, J.1. These appeals raise an important question of law. Whether an application for setting aside of an Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short A&C; Act) can be filed on the day when the Court reopens, by virtue of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, if the period of three months or for that matter additional period of 30 days on proof of sufficient cause expires on a day when the Court is closed?2. We would like to extract the provisions of Section 34 (3) of the A&C; Act hereunder for ready reference:-34. Application for setting aside arbitral award -(1) xxxxxxxxx(2) xxxxxxxxxAn application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was preve...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kailash Sharma Vs. Sh. Jagdish Lal Sharma and Others .
Court: Delhi
1. This is an application for amendment of plaint. This suit has been filed for partition of the properties which were owned by late Pt. Bhola Nath Sharma, father of the parties to the suit. The plaintiff has sought partition of two CS(OS)No.565/2008 Page 1 of 11 properties bearing No. F-105-110, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi. In para 3 of the plaint, it is alleged that plaintiff is not aware of the existence of any other movable and immovable assets left by late Pt. Bhola Nath Sharma. Now, the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint so as to plead that late Pt. Bhola Nath Sharma was also owner of property bearing No. 31, Pushpa Market, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024 and, therefore, he is also entitled to a share in that property.2. It is alleged in para 13 of the application that inadvertently in the prayer clause, the plaintiff has not specifically mentioned his rights in property No. 31, Pushpa Market, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024. He is also seeking to ch...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sheela Rani Gandhi
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1984 which had reversed the finding of the Trial Judge dated 28.03.1980. Vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.1980, the suit of the plaintiff Smt. Sheela Rani Gandhi had been dismissed. Vide the finding of the Trial Judge was reversed; the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.2. Briefly stated the factual matrix is as follows.(i) Plaintiff had filed a suit for perpetual injunction seeking a restraint against the defendant i.e. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from in any manner pulling down or injuring the construction of the premises bearing No. 2774, Pratap Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. (ii) Plaintiff claimed herself to be the owner of the afore- stated property comprising of one shop in the ground floor and one room in the first floor with a common stair-case common to her as also the adjoining premises which is premises No. 2773.(iii) It is averred that this premises is in existence since the last 20-22 years; vide order d...
Tag this Judgment!