Delhi Court October 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.
Rds Projects Ltd. Vs. Ratangiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. This writ petition would bear testimony to the adage that truth is a conundrum wrapped in mystery surrounded by a multitude of lies. The petitioner is in court, the second time round, much harried and exasperated. In the first round the petitioner, i.e., RDS Projects Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘RDS’) by way of a writ petition bearing no. 8252/2010, sought to challenge the decision of respondent no. 1, i.e., Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘RGPPL’) dated 04.10.2010, conveyed to it on 06.10.2010, seeking to scrap/ cancel the tender bearing no. 6724/T-138/08-09/SPL/24 (hereinafter referred to as the "1st Tender") after it had been declared the lowest tenderer, i.e., L-1. RDS withdrew the said writ petition alongwith an application for grant of interim relief in view of the stand of RGPPL that it had exercised its rights as an owner under Article 28.1 of the 1st tender. Since the petitioner apprehended his exclusion by the re...
Somnath Manocha Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. Aggrieved by a notice dated 20th November 2004 issued by Respondent No. 1 Punjab & Sind Bank (‘Bank’) under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’) and consequent possession notice under Section 13 (4) SARFAESI Act dated 13th April 2005 taking over possession of the immovable property bearing old No. 4A, New Municipal No. 32/24, Pratap Nagar, Jagdish Colony, Rohtak (Haryana) [‘the property in question’], the Petitioner, who is the owner of the property in question, has filed this present petition.2. The Petitioner stated that he had purchased the property in question by a registered sale deed dated 16th April 1980. In 1981, the Bank extended loan and credit facilities to one M/s. General Tyre House, a partnership firm in which the relatives of the Petitioner were partners. The Petitioner was one of the three guarantors in respect of the said loa...
Sushil Kumar Chakravarty Thru Legal Heirs. Vs. Ms.Tej Properties Pvt. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. By a common order dated 24.8.2009, the learned Single Judge has held that no sufficient cause was shown by the applicants of IA No.4531/2008 to have the delay condoned in filing that application as per cause shown in IA No.4532/2008; both applications were filed in CS(OS) No.1348/1996. Similarly, qua the same applicants it has been held that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay in filing IA No.3391/2008 in CS(OS) No.2501/1997. Thus neither was CS(OS) No.1348/1996, which was dismissed in default on 14.10.2004 restored, nor was the ex-parte decree dated 25.7.2007 passed in CS(OS) No.2501/1997 set aside.2. The memo of parties in the appeal is misleading for the reason it evidences as if the legal heirs of late Sh.Sushil K.Chakravarty are litigating on the demise of late Sh.Sushil K.Chakravarty. We may highlight that both appeals have been filed by Arun K.Chakravarty and Sunil K.Chakravarty who claim to be Class-II heirs of late Sh.Sushil K.Chakravarty.3. Both of them clai...
Indian Bank Vs. Gawri Construction Udyog Ltd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. By this common judgment, I will dispose of all the three suits and counter-claim referred above. Defendant No. 1 entered into construction-cum-agreements dated 23rd April, 1990 with the plaintiff-bank for construction on various properties. The sale deed was to be executed within 30 days from the date of giving possession to the plaintiff. Under the agreement, defendant No. 1 was to pay all taxes on the properties subject matter of the agreements till possession was delivered to the plaintiff-bank. The agreement provided for payment of penalty to the plaintiff- bank at the rate of 0.5% of the total sale consideration subject to ceiling of 7.5% of the total consideration if possession of the flats, to be constructed by defendant No. 1, is delayed beyond 18 months from the date of the signing of the agreement. The bank was entitled to rescind the agreement in case of delay beyond 15 weeks and in that case the amount disbursed by it was recoverable with interest from the date of disbur...
Satyam Enterprises Vs. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. These three petitions involve similar set of facts and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Satyam Enterprises [the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 323 of 2011], Sachinam Enterprises [the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 324 of 2011] and Sundaram Enterprises [the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 325 of 2011] are sister concerns engaged in the business of exhibition of films. Each of the Petitioners was running a cinema theater named ‘Satyam’, ‘Sachinam’ and ‘Sundaram’ respectively in Mumbai. It is stated that in view of the change in cinema exhibition technology and on account of the Government of Maharashtra offering 100% entertainment tax-exemption for five years and 75% entertainment tax exemption for a further period of five years on multiplex cinemas, the business of the Petitioners gradually came down by an average of 80% to 10% of ticket sales collections. With the financial downslide they were even unable to pay their water and electricity bill...
Hc (Gd) Om Prakash Vs. Central Industrial Security Force.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. Exercising power under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules read with Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, upon completion of 30 years service by the petitioner, the Commandant CISF Unit Korba has passed the impugned order dated 16.8.2011 retiring the petitioner prematurely with immediate effect directing that sum equivalent to pay for 3 months shall be paid.2. Relevant record concerning the impugned decision has been produced at the first hearing today itself inasmuch as the Rules of this Court require an advance copy of a writ petition to be served upon the respondents who have to appear in court at the first hearing and we are happy to note that the respondents have been rendering utmost cooperation to the Court by producing the relevant record on the date of the first hearing. Since record is produced today and the only issue which needs to be decided is whether the service record of the petitioner justifies impugned order being passed, learned counsel concede that the matt...
Verma Leather Factory and Tannery Pvt Ltd. Vs. Gulshan Rai.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. This petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby the application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed against it and two others by the respondent under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act in respect of the premises in question was dismissed and consequential eviction order came to be passed against it.2. The respondent claimed to have let out the premises in question to one Mr. B.N.Verma and after his death the tenancy allegedly devolved upon his two sons who were impleaded in the eviction petition as respondents no.1 and 2. The petitioner-Company was also impleaded as respondent no. 3 though it was claimed by the respondent that his tenants were respondents no. 1 and 2 only and in some other legal proceedings between the petitioner Company and the respondent it had been held that this Company was not the tenant in respect of...
Sowar Virendra Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. Pithily stated the factual matrix in the captioned writ petition is that the petitioner was enrolled as a Sowar in 3 Cavalry of the Armoured Regiment on 27 October 1992.2. Thereafter, on 7th November 2002 the petitioner was posted to 94 (I) Recce Squadron under the command of HQ 33 Armoured Division. While working in the Recce Squadron a Court of Inquiry was ordered against the petitioner to investigate the complaint made by Smt.Anita Singh wife of Sowar Baljit Singh for having held her hand and using criminal force on 3rd October 2008 to outrage her modesty at the Government accommodation allotted to her husband.3. The Court of Inquiry was completed and it was held against the petitioner that he was blameworthy with respect to allegations made by Smt.Anita Singh and this was placed before the GOC 33 Armoured Division who directed disciplinary action to be taken against the petitioner.4. Since 94 (I) Recce Squadron was attached with HQ 33 Armoured Division for disciplinary purposes ...
Hari Singh Vs. Gov T. of Nct and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. The petition impugns the action on 08.09.2011of the respondent No.2 DDA of dispossessing the petitioner from the land in his possession in Khasra No.393 in village Nasirpur, Delhi.2. The petitioner claims, that his father had filed an application under Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 for declaration of his Bhoomidari rights in the said land; the said application was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) on 14.12.2005. The petitioner claims to have preferred an appeal against the said order to the Deputy Commissioner and which appeal is stated to be still pending and listed next on 19.10.2011. The petitioner further claims that there is an interim order of status quo in the said appeal.3. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the dispossession of the petitioner is in violation of the order of status quo. The petitioner claim the relief of restraining the respondent No.2 DDA from interfering with the possession of the petitioner and also c...
Lal Bhambani Vs. the Registrar of Trade Mark
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. The petition seeks mandamus to the respondent to issue Certificate of Registration of Trademark ‘FA’ in Class-03 to the petitioner.2. The petitioner claims to have applied for registration in the year 1989. It is further claimed, that in pursuance to the said application the mark was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal on 1st October, 1993; that no objections were received and as per the law a Registration Certificate should have been issued to the petitioner after three months of such publication but was not issued; that representations were made by the agents of the petitioner in this regard in the years 1995,1996 & 1997; that in 2003 the petitioner was informed that the trademark was not registered; that in 2007 another application for registration of the same trademark in Class-03 was made; that in the year 2010-11 the petitioner learnt from the website of the respondent that the status of the earlier application was shown as "abandoned"; that the petitioner fil...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »