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.
Deepa Trade and Commerce Ltd Vs. Raj Bhalla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. Two suits, seeking specific performance of four oral agreements dated 17.09.1988 (three agreements being the subject matter of CS(OS) No.2860/1991 and the fourth being the subject matter of CS(OS) No.2861/1991), in respect of the first and the second floor of property bearing No.5 Babar Road, New Delhi have been decided vide impugned decree, holding that the evidence establishes the defence that no concluded contract between the parties came into existence. The sum of `1 lakh received by the defendant pertaining to the discussions held, which would have fructified into four agreements, has been decreed in favour of the two plaintiffs together with interest @7% per annum from date of filing of the suit till realization. 2. The plaintiffs are in appeal and a two-fold grievance is raised. Firstly that the learned Single Judge has eschewed a reference to the testimony of the witnesses and thus it is a case where material evidence has been ignored while declining relief prayed for. Secon...
Ms Sikka Promoters Pvt Ltd Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. On the previous date, this Court had noted the fact that the Respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) had by a letter dated 19 th September 2011 informed the Petitioner that it was appointing an Engineer Member of the Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) as a sole Arbitrator. It was accordingly sought to be contended by Ms. Mini Pushkarna, learned counsel for the MCD that the present petition had been rendered infructuous.2. Mr. Sudeep Kumar Shrotriya, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, pointed out that the MCD had appointed its Arbitrator only after the present petition was filed by the Petitioner and notice was issued thereon by this Court. Relying on the decisions in Datar Switchgears v. Tata Finance Ltd. (2000) 8 SCC 151, Punj Lloyd v. Petronet MHB Ltd. (2006) 2 SCC 638 and Union of India v. Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 684, he submitted that the MCD had forfeited its right to appoint an Arbitrator and...
The Proctor and Gamble Co. and anr Vs. Shipra Laboratories.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. Plaintiff No.1 is a Company registered in USA, whereas plaintiff No.2 is a Company registered in India. Plaintiff No.2 has been licensed by plaintiff No.1 to sell and distribute its products in India. The plaintiff Companies are engaged in manufacture and sale of various products including perfumery, cosmetics, toilet preparations and goods, essential oils, anti perspirants, dentifrices, shampoos, toilet oils, toilet articles etc. and are selling their CS(OS)No.516/2004 Page 1 of 11 products under various trademarks including the trademark ‘SAFEGUARD’ which is being used in respect of toilet soaps. The trademark ‘SAFEGUARD’ was registered in USA on 19th May, 1964 and is stated to be registered in 90 other countries including India. In India, the trademark ‘SAFEGUARD’ is registered in favour of the plaintiff in class 3 vide registration No.867980, with effect from 26 th July, 1999. It is alleged that the plaintiff is advertising its products being ...
Praveen Kumar Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an FIR No. 301/2010 was registered under Sections 406/498 A/406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Patel Nagar on the complaint of complainant/respondent No. 2.2 Further submits that the petitioner had filed a divorce petition and the same was allowed vide order dated 22.10.2009 as ex-parte divorce decree.3 Thereafter, respondent No. 2 had moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte divorce decree.4 In between, on 26.04.2011, the disputes between the parties got settled in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court for a total sum of Rs.6,97,000/-5 Further submits that the entire amount has been given to respondent No. 2/complainant.6 Respondent No. 2/complainant is personally present in the court today with her counsel, Mr. Praveen Kumar Pachauri, Advocate, who duly identifies her. He submits upon instructions of respondent No.2 that she has received entire settled amount and she does not want to pursue the case f...
Fazlur Rehman Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. Vide order dated 20.09.2011, following order was passed:1. Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate is present in the Court. On request, she has agreed to assist the court. Therefore, I appoint her as amicus in this case.2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the Registrar of this Court had received the instant petition on 27.08.2011 in the form of a letter from jail. The same was placed before a Committee on PIL, the said Committee vide its communication dated 05.09.2011 was of the opinion that, the present letter/petition be listed on the judicial side, this cannot be treated as a PIL. Hence, the petition before this Court.3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide this petition the petitioner has prayed for the direction to the Court of Sh. Vinod Yadav, CMM, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in the case titled as State vs. Shalini Jayothi & Ors. (including the petitioner Fazlur Rehman) in case FIR No.94/2003 under Section 387,506,120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 of PS Special Cel...
Earththech Enterprises Ltd Vs. National Agricultural Co Oparative Mark ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. A Memorandum of Understanding (for short ‘MoU’) was entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 16.10.2003 followed up with an addendum signed on 12.2.2004 qua High Seas Sale contracts for importing various materials. The material to be imported was to be sold on High Seas Sale basis against 100 per cent payment for full value of the material plus (+) other costs and expenses, bank charges, interest and service charges, etc. The material sold after import was to stand hypothecated/pledged in favour of the respondent till payment of dues.2. The aforesaid arrangement worked satisfactorily initially but from July, 2005, it is alleged that the appellant lifted the material so imported and sold the same without payment resulting in large sums of money due to the respondent. Suffice to say, for the decision of the present appeal, that it is the say of the respondent that the appellant even issued post dated cheques amounting to `250.00 crore, which were also disho...
Shri Mohd. Sharif and Another Vs. Mohd.Shamim and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. The dispute amongst close relations over Shop Nos. 1733 and 1735, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi led respondents herein (plaintiffs before the learned Single Judge) to file a suit for recovery of possession and injunction against the appellants. Appellant No.1 is the brother of the respondents and appellant No.2 is their nephew. During trial, Agreement cum Family Settlement was filed before the trial court in which appellant No.1 with respondent No.2 entered into a compromise regarding shop No.1735. On the basis of that compromise filed before the trial court, respondent No.2 withdrew his suit against the present appellants. The learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgement and decree against the appellants regarding property bearing No.1733 Kucha Dakhni Rai, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi.2. Claim of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that the property in question was taken on rent by respondent No.1 from the Ministry of Rehabilitation, G...
Siddharatha Vashishta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. By way of this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner, a life convict in Jessica Lal Murder case, has challenged the order dated 21.10.2011, passed by the respondent, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of parole for a period of three months. The request for parole, although recommended by the Jail authorities was rejected by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner had earlier violated the terms and conditions of the parole.2. Mr.Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole by the respondent was totally arbitrary, irrational and without any merits. It was also contended by him that the petitioner had been consistently maintaining good conduct for which he had been issued commendation certificates by the Jail authorities. It was ...
Sh.Shish Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. At the outset, we may record that the original appellant has already expired and was substituted by his legal heirs. The appeal is presently sought to be prosecuted by the legal heirs of the deceased-appellant. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that legal heirs now comprise only of children of the appellant which includes three sons and three daughters of age varying between 27 to 45 years; the wife having also passed away in the meanwhile. The male legal heirs are gainfully employed; though without substantial income. Keeping in mind these factors we had called upon the respondent to ascertain whether they would be willing to settle the matter by giving some compensation to the legal heirs purely on compassionate grounds. We must record that the respondent had come up with a figure, which the legal heirs were not willing to accept. In these circumstances, we are left with no alternative but to decide the matter on merits.2. The captioned appeal has been prefe...
Devender Kumar Bajaj and ors. Vs. Satish Kumar Bajaj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. Appellants are the plaintiffs of CS(OS) No.1387/1997.2. Claim in the suit is to partition property bearing Municipal No.6/50, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, Delhi.3. Foundation of the claim is the plea that Late Sh.Bakshi Ram Bajaj acquired ownership of the property under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1962.4. Alleging that Bakshi Ram Bajaj died intestate on 10.12.1985, being a Hindu and his wife having pre-deceased him, he being survived by 4 sons and 3 daughters, it is pleaded that all 7 children inherited 1/7th share in the property in question.5. It is apparent that the foundation of the suit was by way of inheritance to the estate admittedly in the name of Bakshi Ram Bajaj.6. Suit was opposed predicating a claim under a stated will dated 13.9.1993 executed by Late Sh.Bakshi Ram Bajaj.7. Needles to state principal issue settled for adjudication between the parties was: Whether Bakshi Ram Bajaj died intestate or whether the will dated 13.9.1993 was the last legal and valid testament exec...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »