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.
Vijender Singh and ors Vs. Narinder Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. Late Sh.Ram Chander S/o Late Sh.Chippa was blessed with four sons named Dharamvir, Randhir, Narender and Yogender. He was blessed with two daughters, Shakuntla and Nirmla.2. Dharamvir having died, Vijender claims to be his son and it is not in dispute that Raj Bala was his wife and thus they jointly claim a share in the properties which Dharamvir would have inherited on the death of Ram Chander if Ram Chander died intestate or alternatively if properties in the name of Late Sh.Ram Chander were Joint Hindu Family Properties.3. The dispute raised in the suit is by Vijender, Raj Bala and Randhir; joining as co-plaintiffs. Yogender having died, his wife and children as also Narender Singh and the two daughters of Ram Chander are the opposite parties.4. At the outset we may state that whether Vijender is or is not the son of Dharamvir would make no difference for the reason if Vijender is held not to be the son of Dharamvir, Dharamvir’s share would then be inherited by his wife Raj...
Thdc India Ltd. Vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. THDC India Ltd., (formerly Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd.) challenges an Award dated 1st October 2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (`Act') to the extent of the award of pendente lite interest in its dispute with Respondent M/s Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. (now Jaiprakash Associates2. By a letter of intent dated 15th December 1998 the Petitioner awarded the work of construction of chute and shaft spillways at Tehri for its Tehri Hydro Dam Power Project to the Respondent. This was followed by an agreement entered into between the parties on 28th December 1998. The contract was priced at Rs. 474,81,53,760. The Start Date was 29th December 1998 and scheduled date of completion was 28th June 2003.3. Clause 60.0 of the General Conditions of Contract (`GCC') provided for a dispute resolution mechanism wherein in the first place the dispute or difference was to be resolved by the Engineer-in-Charge failing which the c...
infosys Technologies Ltd Vs. Adinath Infosys Pvt. Ltd and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. The plaintiff-company, which was initially incorporated in the name and style of Infosys Consultants Private Limited and which changed its name to Infosys Technologies Private Limited on 2nd June, 1992, is engaged in the business of providing IT services, solutions, consulting and business process management. The business of the plaintiff-company includes designing enterprise architecture, enterprise data and information security, software product development, customized software development, application maintenance, infrastructure maintenance, application testing, package application implementation roll-out and maintenance, business process modeling, business process outsourcing, business consulting and operations consulting, engineering design for products/hardware, or any combination thereof. These services and solutions are being offered by the plaintiff-company across various industry segments like banking, capital markets, insurance, healthcare, life sciences, retail, high-tec...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Purshottam Swaroop and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 22.01.2009 of MACT whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,33,600/- to the respondent No, 1 herein in his claim petition 151/2007 which he had filed seeking compensation on account of death of his wife Poonam who was travelling with him as a pillion rider on his two wheeler scooter and was hit by a bus being driven by respondent No. 2 herein namely Azad Singh, in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, his wife fell down and sustained fatal injuries. The driver/respondent No. 2 ran away from the spot. The offending vehicle was stated to be insured with the appellant, National Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,66,300/- which was made up of Rs. 39,600/- on account of loss of dependency, Rs. 30,000/- on account of loss of love and affection, Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. After making adjustment of Rs. 5...
Citibank N.a Vs. State Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No. 227/2009, a case under Section 406/409 Indian Penal Code, 1860.2 Further submits that the matter has been settled between the parties vide compromise deed dated 11.11.2011.3 The compromise deed has been executed between petitioner and Mr.R.Vasudevan s/o late Shri V.Raghavan, Special Power of Attorney holder of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4 Admittedly, the said Power of Attorney has been executed on 15.04.2009.5 Learned APP for State has raised the objection that the special power of attorney has been executed on 15.04.2009 and the compromise has been effected on 11.11.2011. Therefore, the aforementioned attorney has no locus in the case.6 Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the matter has already been compromised and even during the trial, the said attorney has been pursuing the case, therefore, the compromise deed has been executed between the parties.7 Further submits, in the said Power of Attorney the re...
Alok Sharma and anr Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. On 30.09.2011 the following order was passed:-"1. Issue notice.2. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 who is appearing in person accepts notice.3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that vide compromise dated 02.07.2011, petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably settled all the issues qua the aforementioned FIR and even mutually resolved all the differences.4. Vide instant petition, they have sought quashing of the FIR in question.5. Respondent No.2 present in person submits that he has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed, in view of the compromise dated 02.07.2011.6. I note that vide FIR No.265/2009 dated 31.07.2009 a case under Section 186/332/353/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Seemapuri, Delhi.7. Respondent No.2 was on government duty being employed in MCD and stopped the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 - the employees of BSES, who were laying elec...
Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Adv. Dri Vs. State.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the department had agreed to comply with the order dated 29.08.2011 & 24.09.2011, whereby the Chief Commissioner of Customs was directed to hold an inquiry and take appropriate actions against the erring customs officials and intimate the court in writing.2 Learned counsel further submits that after passing the order dated 29.08.2011; the department moved an application for recalling of the above mentioned orders. It is stated in the application that the Inquiry being conducted by the Investigation Officer shall be supervised by the Senior Officers of DRI, Delhi Zone.3 It is further stated that the investigation is being conducted from every angle.4 It is stated that the inquiry shall be fair and as per provisions of law.5 On instructions of Sh. Devender Singh, Investigation Officer of DRI, learned counsel for the petitioner assured this court that the direction given by the learned trial court in the above stated two orders shall b...
Kartar Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. Vide this petition challenge is made to the order dated 27th August, 2010 of learned ACMM whereby an application under section 5 of Limitation Act filed for condoning the delay in filing the application under section 456 Cr. P.C. of the complainant was allowed.2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner herein was convicted under section 448/34 IPC by learned MM, Delhi vide judgment dated 1 st March 2008 in FIR No. 164/1989 of P.s. Vasant Kunj. Thereafter he was released on probation of good conduct for a period of six months vide order dated 14th March 2008. While convicting the petitioner as above, the learned MM did not pass any order under section 456(1) of Cr. P.C. for restoration of the possession of the property measuring 2 bigha 14 biswa, forming part of Khasra No. 1146 min, village Rangpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property') in favour of the complainants. Even no application in this regar...
Pakistan International Airlines Vs. Abaskar Constructions Pvt. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. Jural relationship between the appellant and the respondent came into existence when a registered lease deed dated 31.12.1996 was executed between the parties under which the respondent let out Flat No.102 in Kailash Building (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tenanted Premises’) to the appellant with retrospective effect from 01.09.1996.2. The dispute between the parties centers on the clauses of the lease deed which are the appellant’sRFA (OS) 47/2011 Page 1 of 19 obligations under the lease deed and thus we note the said clauses, which are as under:-"NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBYAGREE AND THIS DEED WITNESSETH ASFOLLOWS:1. That in consideration of and subject to the aforesaid and the covenants on the part of the Lessor and the Lessee hereinafter contained and on the Lessee agreeing to pay the monthly rent `200.00 sq. ft. in respect of 1691 sq. ft. area and also in respect of the presently adjacent shop area of 65 sq. ft. which has been made into floor are...
Bhagwan Kishan Gupta Vs. Rani Gupta and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.1. With respect to unity of title and unity of possession, suit for partition filed by the appellant was held, with consent of parties, not liable to be proceeded any further in as much as in a parallel suit being CS (OS) No.1363/1998 filed by the opposite party, subject property was partitioned by metes and bounds.2. In the suit filed by the appellant, the only issue which survived for consideration was whether plaintiff would be entitled to mesne profits, which he claimed on the ground that in the joint property he was in possession of an area which was less than his share as finally determined.3. Thus, the issue which was settled was: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any mesne profits as claimed by him? OPP4. In Paras 7.4 to 10.1, the learned single Judge has opined, with reference to the decisions reported as 122(2005) DLT 629 National Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. Vs. Motion Pictures Associatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »