Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Ltd. Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may No. be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported No. in Digest?1. This is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure of Rs 56,28,364/-. The plaintiff is the owner of property No. 11, L.S.C., Masjid Moth, New Delhi, which is assessed to property tax in the Records of MCD. The defendant vide its letter dated 09th September, 2004, confirmed that after meeting the property tax liability for the above said property for the period up to 31st March, 2004, a sum of Rs 40,62,782/- was lying with it as on 31st March, 2004. In the meanwhile, liability of the plaintiff towards property tax for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, amounting to Rs 40,8,000/- has been adjusted from the aforesaid amount, thereby leaving a balance of Rs 36,54,782/- with the defendant. The plaintiff has claimed that amount along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum, amounti...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri Avnish Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 08.08.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby and whereunder the appellant Insurance Company has been held liable to pay compensation to the respondent No.1 in the sum of ` 78,692/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. 2. Briefly delineated the facts are that the respondent No.1 received injuries in a road accident while travelling as a passenger in TSR bearing No.DL1R-F3281 being driven rashly and negligently and at a high speed by the driver, the respondent No.2 herein. The respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation to the tune of ` 2.5 lacs. During the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, it was established beyond doubt that the vehicle was being driven by the respondent No.2 driver...
Yashbir Singh Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
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 No reported in the Digest?1. The land of the petitioner is sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894( hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner wanted to set up a retail outlet dealership of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HPCL) on his land and applied for the said purpose to the HPCL. The LOI was issued on 17.08.2004 to the petitioner and an enquiry was made about the status of the land of the petitioner by the HPCL. On 26.10.2004, it was informed by the LAC that the land was free from notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the said Act. Pursuant to this, the petitioner was required to deposit the land conversion charges, which was deposited on 01.12.2004.2. Unfortunately, for the petitioner prior to the deposit of the said amount and certain other communi...
All India Garment Exporters Common Cause Guild and ors. Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The petition is restored to its original number.The application is disposed of.1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to restrain the Apparels Export Promotion Council (AEPC), Respondent No. 2 herein from making any distinction between the registered exporters and member exporters by conferring certain important rights and privileges only on the member exporters. The Petitioner seeks the quashing of the relevant Articles of Associations (AOA) and Rules and Regulations of AEPC that bring about such classification. Consequently, the further prayer is made for a direction to the Union of India (UOI) through Ministry of Textiles (MoT), Respondent No. 1 herein to ensure that the election to th...
NaraIn Das Arora Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes.1. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 9th December, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7822/2009. 2. The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that the original writ petitioner-Narain Das Arora (since deceased) pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent-DDA dated 6th June, 2004 published in Hindustan Times, Delhi applied for allotment of a two bed room flat under the Housing Scheme-2004 vide application form No. 096652 on 30th June, 2004. On 3rd July, 2004, he deposited the application form No. 096652 along with the bank draft of Rs.50,000/- with the UTI Bank. 3. As set forth, the results of the computerized draw held by the DDA was published in Hindustan Times, Delhi on 13 th August, 2004 in w...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander and Bors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. By this appeal the appellant-bank seeks to impugn the judgment and decree dated 20.12.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in favour of the respondents and against the appellant.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the respondent, which is a registered partnership firm, instituted a suit for rendition of accounts against the appellant-Allahabad Bank. The respondent is a cloth merchant having its principal place of business at 571, Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The respondent had been maintaining and operating a current account with the appellant- bank at their Chandni Chowk branch since March, 1986 and approached the appellant for grant of various banking facilities. The appellant-bank agreed to grant cash credit/overdraft facility to the tune of ` 1,50,000/-, subject to th...
Vijay Gupta Vs. Gursharan Singh Sandhu
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
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 IA No. 652/2011 (u/S. 114 r/w S. 151 CPC) With the consent of the parties, IA No. 10268/2010 is being taken up today for disposal. Hence, this application stands disposed of.IA No. 10268/20101. This is an application for amendment of plaint. The plaintiff has filed this suit claiming specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 27th March 2004 in respect of a flat No. 113 on first floor of New Delhi house 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The case of the plaintiff, as set-out in the plaint, is that the defendant (Gursharan Singh Sandhu) on 27 th March 2004, being the owner of the aforesaid flat, entered into an agreement to sell the same to him for a total consideration of Rs.38,80,400/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the defendant as advance, which was acknowledged vide receipt dated 27 th March 2004...
Sh. Maulana Jameel Ahmad Ilyasi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
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 NO in the Digest?1. The petitioner claims that a plot of land admeasuring 210 sq. yards in Khasra No.564 in Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi vests in the respondent No.2 Delhi Wakf Board (DWB); that the respondent No.2 DWB vide unregistered lease deed dated 26th June, 1980 let out the aforesaid plot of land to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that a dilapidated and unused public toilet constructed by the respondent No.1 MCD exists on the said plot of land. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.2382/2006 in this Court seeking mandamus against the respondent No.1 MCD to demolish and remove the said public toilet and to hand over the physical and vacant possession of the plot to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 MCD in reply to the said writ petition admitted that the land underneath the toilet compl...
M/S Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. Vs. M/S Champion Cerami ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 07.02.2005 passed by the ld. Additional District Judge in Suit No.107/2003, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC seeking injunction against the respondent for injuncting them from selling their goods under the trade mark "HIMWARE" on the pretext that the appellant company is manufacturing sanitary wares and other allied products which are used in toilet and bathroom fittings since decade. The products of the appellant company were being sold under the trade name/trade mark "H-VITREOUS" since 1960. According to them, they added "HINDWARE" to their existing trademark since 1990 and got it registered.2. It is also their case that they garnered the lions share in the sale of ...
D K Wadhwa( Prop of V K Enterprises) Vs. Mcd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
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 No in the Digest?1. Mr. D.K. Wadhwa, petitioner in WP(C)4612/2010, having been granted a licence under Section 420 OF Delhi Municipal Corporation Act by the MCD for parking a Chef Cart in front of School of Open Learning , 5, Cavalry Lane, University of Delhi, filed the writ petition impugning the notice dated 6th July, 2010 of the MCD directing him to remove the Chef Cart/Catering Van from the said location and to shift to a suitable place after getting NOC from DCP (Traffic). The reason given by the MCD was that the Chef Cart was causing nuisance and obstruction at the said site and was also required to be removed in view of the Common Wealth Games Venue University stadium in the vicinity. The said writ petition came up before this Court first on 14th July, 2010 when Mr. D.K. Wadhwa offered to remove himself from the site du...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »