Delhi Court January 2011 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2011 Page 17 of about 216 results (0.013 seconds)M/S. Saipem Triune Engineering Pvt. Ltd Vs. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. L ...
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?1. This is an application under Section 5 & 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in a suit for recovery of Rs.1,79,92,366/-. On 26.09.2005, the defendant/applicant had issued a notice inviting tender for Project Management Consultancy Services, for design and engineering, carrying out investigation work, basic engineering with cost estimate, statutory approvals, procurement assistance etc. and preparation of project completion documents for implementation of LPG/Propane/Butane Import/Export Terminal at Ennore(Tamil Nadu), on a lump sum turnkey basis. The bid documents consisted of two volumes. The first volume contained instructions to bidders; forms of bid, bank guarantee and conditions of contract, etc. whereas the second volume consisted of scope of work and other project requirements. On 1.9.2006, t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sunil Fakay Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi, Directorate of Family ...
Court: Delhi
1. The prayer in this writ petition is to revoke the effect of order dated 16th July 2010 passed by the Appropriate Authority under the Pre-Conception & PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ['PNDT Act'] pursuant to order dated 23rd September 2010 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the case had been remanded to the District Appropriate Authority.2. The Petitioner runs a diagnostic centre under the name 'Sunil Fakay Imaging'. On the basis of the complaint of one Shri S. K. Sharma, Secretary, Beti Bachao Samiti, a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegation against the Petitioner was that it was revealed in a 'sting' operation that he had conducted an ultrasound of the foetus of a pregnant woman (a decoy customer) and disclosed to her the sex of the foetus. An order dated 16th July 2010 was passed by the District Appropriate Authority (Respondent No. 2), ...
Tag this Judgment!Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited Vs. Union of India and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
1. The Petitioner seeks a direction to the Director General, Directorate of Supplies & Disposal (`DGS&D;) (Respondent No.2) and the Jute Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India at Kolkata (Respondent No.4) to issue production control orders (`PCOs) to the Petitioners jute mill for production and supply of B Twill Bags to various governmental agencies and departments. A further direction is sought to restrain the Respondents from initiating punitive action against the Petitioner for not complying with the earlier PCOs.2. The Petitioner Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd., earlier promoted by the family members of J. K. Singhania Group, incurred heavy losses and on 24th October 1994 filed a reference with the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction. Thereafter, steps were taken for revival of the company. On 22nd October 2008, agreements were entered into with nine workers unions. A new management came into the picture and production recommenced on 12th Nove...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Moreshwar Vaidya and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Delhi
1. These appeals arise from Sessions Case No. 101 of 1987 in which in all six accused were put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 436, 120-B and 114 all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad by his judgment and order dated 10.5.1991 was pleased to convict accused nos.1, 2, and 5 for the offences punishable under Section 427 read with Section 34, 436 read with Section 34, 120-B read with Section 34 and Section 114 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Accused no.6 came to be acquitted from all the charges whereas accused nos.3 and 4 were granted pardon under Section 307 of Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, were acquitted of the offences charged. Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1991 has been filed by accused no. 1 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 1991 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence as accused nos.1, 2 and 5 were granted the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Admn. Vs. Jai Prakash and anr.
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? 1. The aforesaid appeal was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 9.11.2009 when none appeared for the contesting respondent i.e. R-1 who has sought modification of the said judgment and order.2. Land comprised in Khasra No.183 and 207 in the revenue estate of village Bharola was acquired pursuant to a notification dated 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4 of the LA Act 1894 and in respect whereof the award was published on 31.10.1968 and possession taken over on 15.11.1968.3. Late Sh.Kuria S/o Sh.Shiv Narain was the recorded bhoomidar of the land in question and thus compensation as per the award was received by him on 21.02.1972. Kuria expired on 28.1.1975 and it is not in dispute that when he died Kuria was an issueless bachelor.4. Under the Large Scale Acquisition Policy of the Government those whose land were a...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab National Bank Vs. M/S Delhi Properties
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 1. The only issue which is called for decision in the present appeal is the rate of mesne profits because the appellant bank has already surrendered possession of the tenanted premises on 31.1.2001 to the respondent/landlord.2. The facts of the case are that premises being Flat No.113, Second Floor of Pratap Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi were let out to the appellant/defendant at a rent of Rs.14,577.11 per month. The tenancy was on month to month basis and was terminated by a notice dated 30.6.1992 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. There is no dispute to these facts.3. The trial court framed the issue with regard to the mesne profits being Issue No.4-A which reads as under:-"4A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mense profits? If so, to what extent?With respect to this issue, the ...
Tag this Judgment!D.T.C. Vs. Prem Chand Ex Sweeper
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. Calling in question the legal sustainability of the order dated 7 th December, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 16938/2005, the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 2. The factual score which requires to be exposited are that the respondent-workman was a sweeper under the appellant, namely, Delhi Transport Corporation (for short the corporation). A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on 29th April, 1993 on the ground that he had remained unauthorizedly absent for 107 days during the period between 1st January, 1991 and 31st December, 1991. In the disciplinary enquiry, he was found guilty and thereafter the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal and issued the said order on 20 th August, 1993. 3. As during that period an industrial dispute was pen...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha New Delhi Vs. Sh.Chander Bhan (Since Decease ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesExemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.RSA No.2/20111. This second appeal has impugned the judgment and decreedated 16.9.2010 which had endorsed the findings of the CivilJudge dated 27.4.2006 whereby the suit of the plaintiff seekingpossession and perpetual injunction qua the suit property hadbeen dismissed.2. Present suit had been filed on 15.3.1983 . The plaintiff wasa society i.e. Sanatan Dharam Shabha, New Delhi, Laxmi Narain Templa (Birla Mandir). Suit had been filed through its secretaryM.L.Anand. Averment in the plaint was that M.L.Anand was dulyauthorized vide resolution dated 14.11.1982 to file the presentsuit. On 07.1.2006, a preliminary issue had been framed by thetrial court it reads as follows:"Whether the suit of the plaintiff has been duly instituted and by a duly authorized person? ...
Tag this Judgment!Birender Pal Singh @ Varinder Pal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?1. The present application is filed by the appellant praying inter alia for suspension of sentence passed against the appellant in a case arising out of FIR No.249/2003 lodged by the brother of the appellant, Shri Surender Jit Singh under Section 307 IPC, registered with Police Station: Paschim Vihar, Delhi. Under the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2010 passed by the learned ASJ, it was held that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the appellant beyond doubt. As a result, he was held guilty and convicted under Section 307 IPC. This was followed by the order on sentence dated 24.07.2010 whereunder, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years coupled with a fine of `2,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Pal Singh Vs. Shri Dharshan Singh
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. This appeal has directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2003 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge whereby the suit of the plaintiff Darshan Singh seeking declaration qua his share in the suit property measuring 21 bighas 11 biswas in Bagh Wala Rakba was decreed in his favour. 2. The plaintiff Darshan Singh and Jagdish Singh were cousins; they had jointly applied for allotment of evacuee land in Delhi in lieu of the land which had been held by them in West Pakistan. After the death of Jagdish Singh the defendant was substituted in his place. On their joint application two lots of land were jointly allotted to the parties i.e. 49 bighas 13 biswas falling in village Haibatpur and 21 bighas 11 biswas in Bagh Wala Rakba. Parties entered into a mutual agreement dated 14.4.1970; in term...
Tag this Judgment!