Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 1 of about 157 results (0.010 seconds)Mukesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. The appellant Mukesh has been convicted under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC in Sessions Case No. 4/96 FIR No. 121/93 Police Station Mansarovar Park in terms of the impugned judgment dated 21.03.1997 on the strength of circumstantial evidence i.e. (a) that Brahamanand (hereinafter referred to as `deceased') was last seen in the company of the appellant while leaving his house on 06.06.93 at around 5.00 p.m. - (b) the appellant visited the factory of the deceased on 07.06.93 and removed one briefcase containing Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 60,000/- (c) that the appellant was not found at his house at Kot Gaon, Ghaziabad when the complainant Vijay Singh Sharma(PW-11) visited his village - (d) recovery of the skull and broken jaws of the deceased at the instance of the above appellant on 13.06.93.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution as per the FIR and the evidence on record is that on 06.06.93 at about 5.00 p.m., PW-1 Satish Kumar saw the deceased leaving his house No. 1/...
Tag this Judgment!Shivani Handloom Wcs Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Manmohan, J.1. The only issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether there is an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties or not.2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on 24th January, 2007, Rate Contract for supply of blankets was concluded between the petitioner and the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. The said Rate Contract was valid for the period 12th January 2007 to 01st June, 2009. Clause 9 of the aforesaid Rate Contract reads as under:09. Conditions of Contracts/Agreement: Condition governing the Rate Contract may be seen in the DGS&D; 156. The Rate Contract and all the supply order placed under it shall be governed by the General Condition of Contract as detailed in DGS&D-68; including Clause 24 thereof....3. On 20th March, 2008, the Headquarters, Director General Border Roads, wrote to the petitioner stating that it intended to procure blankets against currently valid Rate Contract and it asked for a sampl...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Sar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The only question raised by the appellant in this appeal is whether the directions given by the learned Tribunal to the Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation amount and to recover the same from the owner were contrary to the settled legal position.2. The appellant relied upon The New India Assurance Co. Limited. v. C.M. Jaya and Ors. : (2002) 2 SSC 278 and pleaded that this issue was set at rest by the Supreme Court as it held that in case of Insurance Company not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer would be liable to bear only limited burden under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and would not be liable to pay the entire amount. The Tribunal in this case had awarded a compensation of Rs. 72,51,000/- to the injured who was crippled for rest of his life due to the accident and had to lose his service. However, the Tribunal observed that in its opinion the li...
Tag this Judgment!Stokely Van Camp, Inc. and anr. Vs. Heinz India Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This case is a classic specimen of what corporate fights are all about and how they are increasingly going to turn commercially ugly in days to come. Ergo, if on the one hand one Multi National Company (in short 'MNC') wants to monopolize a resource whether it is natural or that which pertains to the realm of English language, the other asserts its right to bring it within the public domain, not for any altruistic reason but for its own private interest. Perhaps from the point of view of corporate entities, there is nothing wrong with this except that sometimes the shoe is on the other foot. The court of course has to decide the matter purely based on its understanding of the legal position.2. The plaintiffs in this case seek to monopolize and protect their rights to the expression 'Rehydrate Replenish RefueF in relation to a sports drink 'Gatorade' manufactured and sold by it. The defendant, on the other hand, who has also been in business for several decades in I...
Tag this Judgment!H.B. Chaturvedi Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Siddharth Mridul, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for grant of bail in the case registered vide RC No. BDI/2009 E 0005 under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and 478 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 19th February, 2010 and remained in police custody till 27th February, 2010. The petitioner has been in judicial custody thereafter and has been chargesheeted along with five other co-accused in a case of defrauding the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI).2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with Sanjay Chaturvedi, Sumit Chaturvedi, Amit Chaturvedi, Praveen Juneja all of M/s Shamken Multifab Ltd (SML) and M/s Shamken Multifab Ltd and other unknown persons are parties to a criminal conspiracy during the year 2000-01 in the matter of obtaining Rupee Term Loan (RTL) of Rs. 15 crores from the IDBI by submitting...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Munshi Ram and Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The suit claims permanent and mandatory injunction. By virtue of an amendment permitted during the pendency of proceedings, a decree for damages/compensation to the tune of Rs. 66,43,087.5/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 13.07.1994 till realization has also been sought.2. The defendants (hereafter referred to collectively as 'the DDA') invited tenders for construction of houses at Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, in terms of a 'Self-Financing Scheme', sometime in 1992; the estimated cost of the work was Rs. 1,48,34,098/-. The plaintiff submitted his tender on 14.08.1992, offering to execute the works @ 61.75% of the estimated costs, or Rs. 2,39,94,150/-. He was the successful bidder; and the contract was awarded to him, by the defendants, through their communication dated 04.12.1992. It is submitted that a formal letter of acceptance was communicated on 10.12.1992, and a binding contract was concluded on 18.12.1992. The suit contends that on receipt of the work orde...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Rajput and ors. Vs. Yogender Ratawal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The appellants in this appeal seek to assail the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge by a decree passed in this behalf directed the appellants to hand over the possession of the suit premises bearing No. 2153, Naiwalan, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 to the respondents No. 1 to 3 by allowing the application of the said respondents under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal as set out in the plaint are that the respondent No. 5 Smt. Vidya Wati, since deceased, was the absolute owner in possession of the suit property bearing Municipal No. 2 135, 2136 and 2153, Nai Walan, Karol Bagh, Delhi by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 11.01.1972 executed in her favour. The respondent No. 5 Smt. Vidya Wati sold the said property to the respondents No. 1 to 3 by executing two sale deeds, b...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Constable Shrimant Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner against the order of the appellate authority dated 23.11.2007 whereby the order passed by the disciplinary authority forfeiting the service of the petitioner for a period of 10 years was converted into the order of dismissal after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner.2. It is the submission of the petitioner that the show cause notice issued by the appellate authority in this matter was based upon a decision already taken by the appellate authority to award the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner and was not based upon a tentative opinion which was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagade v...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Kumari trhrough L.R.'s Vs. Dropati Devi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred against the award dated 17th August, 1990 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest of 10 per cent per annum. The claimants, Smt. Daropati Devi and others, have assailed the award alleging that the compensation granted was inadequate, whereas the owner of the vehicle Smt. Kamla Kumari (through LRs) has assailed the award on the ground that the Tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company was limited only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and rest of the compensation was payable by the owner. The owner also raised an issue that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. The bus was running on a DTC route under a contract, therefore, DTC was liable for damages and learned Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence properly and did not take into consideration the entire evidence on record.2. The insurance company had contested both t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chand Goyal and ors. Vs. Genious Promoters and Developers Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. A neat question of law has arisen before us, the answer to which will indubitably have widespread repercussions. The Appellants contend that since user of premises for a Banquet Hall is commercial in nature, wherever commercial user is postulated and is permissible in law, no further restrictions are imposable. By a Perpetual Lease dated 10.11.2003, a parcel of land was leased out by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in favour of the Appellants. The first recital in the Perpetual Lease Deed makes a mention that - 'an auction was conducted on 21.7.2003 for the grant of the lease hold rights of a commercial plot of land to be used as Retail/departmental Store purpose hereinafter described, belonging to the Lessor'. The proviso to Clause 14 of the perpetual Lease Deed reads - 'PROVIDED that, if the Lessee is desirous of using the said commercial plot or the building thereon for a purpose other than that Retail/Deptt. Store the Lessor may allow such change of user ...
Tag this Judgment!