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.
Hindon River Mills Ltd.and anr. Vs. S.P. Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
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. W.P.(C) No.14999/2006 has been filed by the Hindon River Mills Ltd. (HRML) impugning the action of the respondent Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (IFCI) of selling/assigning its financial assets/debts qua HRML and for setting aside the bid/auction process initiated by IFCI and for restraining IFCI from so selling/transferring its debts payable by HRML. Direction has also sought to IFCI to consider the settlement of its dues as proposed by the HRML in the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme pending consideration before the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). Yet another relief of allowing HRML to match the highest bid received by IFCI for the assignment of its debts qua HRML is also claimed. Besides IFCI only BIFR was impleaded as the other respondent in the petition when filed.2. W....
Kirpal Kaur Vs. Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?1. This is a suit for partition and declaration. The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of defendant No.1, being the widow of his late son Ripudaman Singh. Defendant No.2 is the son of defendant No.1, whereas defendants 3 & 4 are his daughters. It is alleged in the plaint that defendant No.1 had two brothers namely Prem Singh and Dayal Singh and one sister namely Smt. Har Kaur. One of his brothers, namely Dayal Singh, expired and share of his property is being used by his legal heirs, whereas his sister Har Kaur has relinquished her share in favour of the legal heirs of Dayal Singh. The remaining agricultural land is alleged to be jointly owned by defendant No.1 Ram Singh and his brother Prem Singh. It is further alleged that in the year 1954, defendant No.1, out of the funds received from the agricultural land purchased the...
Deepak Kumar Pathak and ors. Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. The two petitions were being listed together for hearing on the contention of counsels that they entailed similar question. However, factual matrix being different, facts thereof are set out separately. W.P.(C) NO.926/20072. The fourteen petitioners are the occupants of the stalls allotted in the year 1983 by the Slum & J.J. Wing, then of the DDA, subsequently of the MCD and now succeeded by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, in Lakshmi Market, Madangir, Main Road near Khanpur Depot. It is the case of the petitioners that the said stalls were allotted on "License Fee Basis" with the license fee at the time of allotment of `25/- per month. The petitioners claim that about the same time stalls were also allotted on similar basis in Sidharth Market and G-Block Market, also in th...
Deepak Kumar Pathak and ors. Vs. Mcd and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
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 the Digest?1. The two petitions were being listed together for hearing on the contention of counsels that they entailed similar question. However, factual matrix being different, facts thereof are set out separately. W.P.(C) NO.926/20072. The fourteen petitioners are the occupants of the stalls allotted in the year 1983 by the Slum & J.J. Wing, then of the DDA, subsequently of the MCD and now succeeded by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, in Lakshmi Market, Madangir, Main Road near Khanpur Depot. It is the case of the petitioners that the said stalls were allotted on "License Fee Basis" with the license fee at the time of allotment of `25/- per month. The petitioners claim that about the same time stalls were also allotted on similar basis in Sidharth Market and G-Block Market, also in the Madangir area. The ...
Shri Arun Rathi and ors. Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?1. This is a petition for grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 28.2.1983 executed by Late Smt. Chautha Devi, as modified by the Codicil dated 14.3.1993. Smt. Chautha Devi expired on 7.4.1993 leaving nine legal heirs mentioned in para 5 of the petition.2. The citation was published in newspapers in terms of the order dated 6.1.1999 and notice was also served on the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority. The notice was also issued to the non-applicant legal heirs of Late Smt. Chautha Devi. All non-applicants legal heirs other than non-applicants legal heirs No.2 & 3 Shri Ram Chander Rathi and Punam Chand Rathi, have filed NOC to the grant of probate. Objections to grant of probate have not been filed by non-applicant legal heirs No.2 & 3 namely Ram Chander Rathi and Punam Chand Rathi despite service of notice.3. The p...
Shri N.S. Hoon Vs. Smt. Nimmi Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes. may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be Yes. reported in the Digest?1. The plaintiff in this case seeks a decree of possession against the defendants in respect of the property, being A-9, Green Park, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "the suit property"), or in the alternative, decree for damages and compensation, quantified at `12.2 crores, with 18% interest from the date of filing of suit, till realization.2. According to the suit averments, the plaintiff was in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the property from 09.05.1984 to 28.03.2001. He submits that on 28.02.2000, an attempt was made by the first defendant, her husband the second Defendant, the third defendant (hereafter referred to as "Sh. S.K. Kochar") and the fourth defendant, to forcibly oust him. The suit property was sealed under orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Hauz Khas till 28.03...
Dinesh Kumar and anr. Vs. Delhi Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
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. Rule DB.2. Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice.3. At request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.4. The elections to R-1/Society were held on 06.12.2009. These elections were challenged by petitioner No.2 under Section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 ('the said Act' for short) which resulted in an Award being passed on 09.07.2010. In terms of the Award, it was held that the Returning Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007 for conduct of elections of the Managing Committee of R-1/Society and thereby vitiated the election proceedings. The competent authority was directed to take necessary action.5. The RCS thereafter proceeded to appoint an Administrator on 06.09.2010. However, R-1...
M/S Dynamic Continental Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uco Bank .
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes. may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be Yes. reported in the Digest?1. The plaintiff, a private company, sues through its Director, Mr. Pawan Garg. It claims a declaration that no amount is payable to the defendant (hereafter called "the bank") as repayment, or prepayment charges.2. The plaintiff is involved in the real estate business, particularly in the development of shopping-malls-cum-multiplexes in Ludhiana. It decided to construct a shopping-mall-cum- multiplex called "Flamez" at the premises, measuring 4140 square yards in area, owned by the plaintiff at Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana. For this purpose the plaintiff applied for a term loan from the defendant. The estimated total cost of the project at the time was approximately ` 33 Crores.3. The Bank sanctioned a term loan of `18 crore on 20.05.2005, to partly finance the cost of the project on certain terms and conditi...
Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Sheela
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that late Shri Parminder Singh, husband of complainant Smt. Sheela, widow, on 4.5.2006 had obtained a policy from the OP LIC for an amount of Rs. 8 lac at a half yearly premium of Rs. 26,333, which was to mature on 4.11.2025. At the time of taking the policy, husband of the complainant deposited on 4.5.2006 Rs. twenty five thousand with the OP Insurance Company against the valid proposed deposit receipt. Four days thereafter on 8.5.2006, Shri Parminder Singh died due to sudden pain in his chest in Brahm Shakti Hospital, Delhi where he was rushed for treatment. The complainant lodged a claim of the insured amount, but the OP company on 10.4.2007 sent a cheque of Rs. 26,333 along with a covering letter towards the refund of premium, instead of giving her the insured amount Rs. eight lac and repudiated her claim on the ground that there were good grounds for suspecting the cause of death. 2. The complainant therefore f...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hari Om and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 13.05.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") in case No. WC/113/NW/07/1065-66, whereby the ld. Commissioner has awarded the injury compensation of `5,12,775/- in favour of respondent No.1/claimant and against the insurance company.2. The facts as stated in the claim petition preferred by the claimant/respondent No.1 before the Commissioner was that the respondent No.1 was employed as a driver on vehicle bearing No. UP 16H 9369 Eicher 1095 owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with the insurance company. On 27.8.2007 while going from Delhi to Ghaziabad for getting the vehicle loaded with Newspapers of Times of India, the said vehicle collided with another vehicle, as a result of which r...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »