Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Rakesh JaIn and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhola
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2010
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 3,32,100/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realization against all the three defendants.2. The respondent-plaintiff in the suit filed by him against the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 for the recovery of the aforesaid amount had alleged in the plaint that the defendants No. 1 and 2 (the appellants herein), who were known to the plaintiff, had approached the plaintiff somewhere in July, 2000 and informed the plaintiff about their plans for expanding their partnership business. Thereafter, it is alleged, the defendants No. 1 and 2 repeatedly approached the plaintiff to invest his money in the expansion project of their partnership business. In view of the assurances held out by them, the plaintiff agreed to invest his money with the defendants on...
Tag this Judgment!Annapurna Industrial Resources Limited and ors. Vs. Registrar of Compa ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2010
S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. These are petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of summoning order dated 18.04.2009 and two complaint cases bearing Nos. 165 & 166/2009 under Sections 159/162 & 220/162 of the Companies Act, 1956 pending against them before the trial court.2. Both these petitions are proposed to be dealt with by this common order because questions of facts and law involved in both of them are identical.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to these petitions are that petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are stated to be its Directors and officers responsible for compliance of provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Registrar of Companies, respondent herein, had filed two complaints being complaint cases No. 165 & 166/2009 against the petitioners on 08.04.2009 for their prosecution under Sections 159/162 & 220/162 of the Companies Act for th...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Viney Kumar Mahajan Vs. Smt. Vishambhari Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2010
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This suit is listed before the Court, after admission/denial of documents and framing of issues. This Court has considered the submissions of parties, and pleadings in the suit and is of the opinion that the case can be disposed of at this preliminary stage, having regard to the rival averments as well as the materials on record.2. The suit claims a decree for possession against the defendant in respect of the premises shown in a Site Plan attached to the plaint. The plaintiff is owner and landlord of the property known as Regal Theatre, Connaught Place, New Delhi. It is submitted that Regal Theatre was being operated by a firm comprising of several partners (described in para 4 of the suit). The plaintiff claims that the shares in the firm were taken-over by him - a fact recorded in this Court's order dated 30.11.2006 in CS (OS) 1370/1982. The suit alleges that one Sh. Budh Singh Rawat, working as Peon in the Regal Theatre, used to live in the accommodation prov...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Hockey Federation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2010
ORDERPursuant to the suspension of Indian Hockey Federation by the Indian Olympic Association and formation of an ad-hoc Committee by the Indian Olympic Association to manage the affairs of Indian Hockey Federation in the interim, the recognition of the Indian Hockey Federation by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports is hereby suspended, as per provisions contained in Para 1 (ii) of the Annexure III of the 'Guidelines for Assistance to the National Sports Federations' till further orders.This issues with the approval of the Competent authority.Sd/-(Deepika Kachhal) Deputy Secretary to the Government of India27. The above order of suspension of recognition was received by the Petitioner on 23rd May 2008. On 29th August 2008 this Court directed Respondent No. 2 to file an affidavit indicating the time frame within which the elections of Office Bearers of the Council of the IHF were to be held. However, till date no such affidavit has been filed. On its part, the Petitioner filed CM No....
Tag this Judgment!Prime Industries Ltd. Vs. Seil Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2010
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plea of the appellant to seek adjudication of disputes before a Single Arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause rather than a panel of arbitrators as per rules of Indian Council of Arbitration ('ICA' for short) has given rise to the present appeal from the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.10.2008. The learned Single Judge on the interpretation of the arbitration clause came to a conclusion that the arbitration has to be by a panel of three arbitrators and thus allowed the preliminary objection of the respondents that the composition of arbitration tribunal was not in accordance with the agreement between the parties. The award passed by the Single Arbitrator thus stood negated on this preliminary objection.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 10.06.1994 in respect of its manufactured products of Vanaspati and Vegetable oils. Respondent No. 2, a unit of respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Krishna Mittal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2010
Manmohan, J.1. Present petitions have been filed under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for reference of disputes to arbitration.2. Though the arbitration clauses in the contracts are not disputed, Mr. Nalin Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondents submits that the present petitions are ex facie barred by limitation.3. He points out that the present arbitration petitions have been filed in respect of work orders issued in the year, 2001 which were completed in the year, 2002. In fact, the notices invoking arbitration clauses were issued only in February 2008, i.e., beyond the limitation period of three years. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no live claim which can be referred to arbitration.4. On the other hand, Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioners submits that in response to a Right to Information query in March, 2008, respondents had admitted that petitioners' bills could not be passed or processed due to non-submission of the bills and o...
Tag this Judgment!Kunal Kishor and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2010
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners, who were desirous of joining the Delhi Judicial Service, are aggrieved by the application of the rule of minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce of Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2008 ('DJS Examination, 2008' for short).2. The Registrar of Delhi High Court issued an advertisement on 25.08.2008 for holding the Delhi Judicial Service Examination. The number of vacancies was set out as 36 with the provision for possible filling- up of 50 more posts in case there are additional seats which were created.3. The examination was in a three-part format with a preliminary examination, main examination and a viva voce. The minimum qualifying marks were prescribed for the preliminary examination as 60 per cent for the General Category and 55 per cent for the Reserved Categories subject to a ceiling limit of 10 times the total number of vacancies of each category advertised. Such of the persons who would qualify the preliminary examination would be i...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Sky Limited Vs. Kamla Lall and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2010
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the appellant OP-1 had agreed to supply D.T.H. service to complainants two TVs in connection of which OP-1 through OP-2 M/s. Chaudhary Agencies got delivered two set top boxes to her for Rs. 3,774 each and promised to activate the services on 31.12.2006, while its engineers despite repeated calls reached the complainants house to activate on 4.1.2007 and could active D.T.H. service to only one TV. On quarry from her they failed to state as to what was wrong with the other TV that DTH service was not activated for it. The complainant therefore asked the engineers to take back one set top box which they refused as it had opened. Even service for the one TV provided was deactivated on 22.1.2007, which was restored after a day. The complainant therefore filed a complaint against the OPs for return of her money along with interest for the one set top box after accepting its return, to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 ...
Tag this Judgment!Agya Kaur and ors. Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2010
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The four petitioners, claiming to be employed with the schools run by the respondent No. 2 Police Families Welfare Society, have instituted this writ petition impugning the order of termination of their services and seeking a direction for their reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service. The writ petition was also accompanied with an application for interim relief. This Court vide order dated 13th March, 2002, while issuing notice of the petition, directed that any fresh appointment by the aforesaid Society shall be subject to further orders in the writ petition. On the next date i.e. 8th August, 2002 none appeared for the Society aforesaid. This Court issued Rule in the petition and also allowed the petition. The orders of termination of services of the petitioners were quashed and the petitioners were reinstated in service and also held entitled to the same pay scale as was given by the Society to other similarly situated employees. The Society t...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Earthmovers Vs. Girdhar Bhagat and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2010
Manmohan, J.I.A. No. 6189/2010For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and the petition is restored to its original position. Application stands disposed of.O.MP. 292/20031. Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') challenging the arbitral Award dated 4th May, 2003 passed by Mr. H.L. Ahuja, Sole Arbitrator.2. Briefly stated the facts relevant to the present case are that earthwork of approximately 2,20,000 CUM in Embankment between ROB I and Km 16.000 at Moradabad By-pass Project, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh was allotted to respondent by the UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd. In turn, respondent awarded part of the aforesaid work to petitioner-objector by way of an Agreement letter dated 20th June, 2000. In this Agreement, work awarded to petitioner-objector was described as under:S. Description of Work Unit Rate Qty. AmountNo. (Rs.) (Rs.)1. Earthwork inEmbankment betweenROB I and Km...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »