Delhi Court November 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.
Asian Global Ltd. Vs. Business Souls Associates Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. This is a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.The plaintiff entered a contract with defendant no.1 to import of 1000 MT(-/+10%) Heavy Melting Scrap at the rate of $ 270 per MT for a total sale consideration of US$ 2,70,000/-. The goods were to be exported to India from any African or European port at the option of the exporter. The payment was to be made to defendant no.1 by means of an irrevocable DLC (Documentary Letter of Credit) to be issued by Prime Word Bank and acceptable to the banker of defendant no.1. The amount was payable 100% at sight against presentation of shipping documents at plaintiff's bank counter. The plaintiff accordingly got a letter of credit issued by defendant no.2 - Standard Chartered Bank, which was transferred to defendant no.1. A Bill of Lading dated 20.5.2005 was then sent by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff giving details of 12 containers and indicating shipment of the scrap on 20.5.2005.2. When the plaintiff tried to tr...
Viney Kumar Mahajan Vs. Vishambhari Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. Appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2010 whereby the suit filed by the respondent for possession against the appellant was decreed without trial and the appellant was directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over the possession thereof to the respondent within three months of the decree.2. Claim of the respondent in the suit was that late Budh Singh Rawat, husband of the appellant was working as Peon/Care Taker since 1947 with the predecessor of the respondent and he remained in service till 24.02.1989 (till his death). During his employment, Budh Singh Rawat was given the accommodation in question without charging any amount either towards rent or other wise and since the master servant relationship snapped due to death of Budh Singh Rawat, his legal heirs were liable to return possession of the premises in question. Appellant took the defence that late Budh Singh Rawat was a tenant under the predecessor in interest of the respond...
Ajay Parmar and ors Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2/Ms.Sapna Parmar has already settled her disputes qua FIR No.538/2006 registered under Sections 406/498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Sarojni Nagar against petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively.2. Today, it is submitted that respondent No.2/Ms.Sapna Parmar/respondent has amicably settled all her disputes qua the said FIR vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 3rd March, 2011. Pursuant thereto, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved vide a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 24th October, 2011.3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, in view of settlement entered between them, respondent No.2 does not want to pursue this case any further and has no objection, if the present FIR be quashed.4. Ms.Sapna Parmar, D/o Shri Kashmir Singh Chauhan is present in person with her counsel Mr...
Ram Nath Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. By the present appeals the Appellants lay a challenge to the judgment dated 15th December, 2009 whereby they have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 394/34 IPC and the order dated 19th December, 2009 directing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the alleged Complainant PW1 Aleyamma neither gives the name nor the description of the accused in her statement. She did not lodge the First Information immediately after the incident, though she is allegedly a victim. She further states that after the incident she came to her house and after about an hour she received a phone call from Church whereafter she went to the Police Station. It is contended that PW1 does not say about the presence of PW3 Christy John. Further, also PW3 Christy John does not say that he...
Taj Mohd Vs. Mcd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. Counter affidavit has not been filed by respondent No.4/DDA despite repeated adjournments granted for the said purpose. In these circumstances, the right to file counter affidavit stands closed.2. Rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1/MCD is awaited. Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to file any rejoinder thereto.3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondent No.1/MCD to re-construct the shop occupied by the petitioner as a tenant under the Delhi Wakf Board, which, as per the petitioner, was illegally demolished on 16.1.2010. The petitioner has also sought directions to respondents No.2 & 3/Police not to harass him. Lastly, compensation of Rs.10.00 lacs has been demanded by the petitioner from respondent No.1/MCD, for the alleged illegal demolition.4. The stand of respondent No.1/MCD is that the shop in question, situated at Savitri Nagar near Kali Masjid, New Delhi, was demolished du...
Bharti Laiq ( Nee Bhargava) Vs. Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. Order impugned is the order dated 24.9.2011 vide which the application filed by the tenant seeking amendment of his application for leave to defend under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) had been dismissed.2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord M/s Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. on the ground that there is bonafide requirement of the one of the directors of the landlord company namely Pavan Kohli of the disputed premises for his residence. The disputed premises are the first floor of premises bearing no. 138-A, Golf Links, New Delhi which has been tenanted out to the tenant/petitioner namely Bharti Laiq. Application for leave to defend had been filed on 22.7.2010; present application seeking amendment of the said application for leave to defend had been filed about more than six months later i.e. on 05.02.2011. In the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code the submission ma...
Jawahar Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.07.1997 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 19/1996, which arose out of FIR No. 171/1992 of Police Station Darya Ganj, Delhi under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellant Jawahar Lal has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of Mahinder Gupta. The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 23.07.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the appellant Jawahar Lal was sentenced to imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of Mahinder Gupta. The benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was given to the appellant. 2. The prosecution version is that on 05.05.1992, at about 9:30 pm, Mahinder Gupta was driving his two wheeler scooter, on which he had a pillion rider. He was coming from the direction of Pataudi House and was ...
Rajesh Sharma Vs. Madhu Sehgal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings emanating from criminal complaint case No. 1609/1/09 titled as Mrs. Madhu Sehgal Vs. Mr. Rajesh Sharma for offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (in short N.I. Act). The issue raised by the Petitioner in the present petition is that in the absence of the company having been arrayed as an accused the Petitioner who had signed the cheque as authorized signatory of the company could not have been summoned, since the cheque was not drawn in his individual capacity on an account maintained by him.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the company M/S. Ramji Dass Motors Pvt. Ltd. and the Respondent Smt. Madhu Sehgal entered into an agreement whereby Smt. Madhu Sehgal let out the premises to the company on the basis of an agreement executed between the parties. The Respondent assured that the necessary repairs etc. would be carried out and thus the lease agreement was signed...
Sh. Niroti Lal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
HON’BLE DR.A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant seeks the following reliefs:- “(i)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 26.8.09, order dated 26.07.07. charge sheet dated 18.11.1996, inquiry report dated 01.11.2006 and while proceedings declaring to the effect that the whole proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, against the rules and against the principle of natural justice and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits including arrears of difference of pay and allowances, to the applicants. (ii)Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant.” 2. Brief facts of the case are given below:- When the applicant was working as Dy. Superintendent of Children Home for Boys at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi a tragic incident took place on 03.03.1996 in which one inmate was badgered to death by another...
Mahesh Bhardwaj and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its Princ ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. All the applicants, in this joint Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 4 (5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, are contract employees serving under the respondent No.3, namely, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Delhi. They had earlier approached this Tribunal vide OA No.1409/2010 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their case for giving them equal salary and perks at par with similarly placed persons working in other hospitals of Delhi Government on the ground that their case was fully covered by the judgment of the Full bench of this Tribunal dated 23.7.2008 in OA-1330/2007 and connected case - Ms. Victoria Massey Vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors. etc. The said OA was disposed of vide Annexure A-8 order dated 29.4.2010 with a direction to the respondents to treat it as a representation and to decide the issue by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months. Im...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »