Delhi Court December 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.
Vanashthali Textiles Industries Vs. Regency Exports Private Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 15th December, 2011 + RFA (OS) No.62-63/2011 and CM No.10747/2011 (Stay) VANASHTHALI TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD. ....APPELLANT Through: Mr.A.K.Mishra, Advocate versus REGENCY EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD. ...Respondent Through: Mr.Sandeep Khurana, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J. (Oral).1. Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2011 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of `25,10,716/- was decreed for a sum of `14,82,601/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. In brief, facts of the case are as under:-.2. Respondent filed suit for recovery of `25,10,716/- claiming that it had given advance of `17,00,000/- to the appellant in January 1996 in relation to supply of 40,360 pieces of beach towels, which were to be delivered in four distinct ...
# Alka Sharma Vs. $ Mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
s* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % W.P.(C) 8737/2011 + Date of Decision: 15th December, 2011 # ALKA SHARMA ....Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate Versus $ MCD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN JUDGMENT P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL).1. The petitioner challenges the award dated 2nd May, 2011 rendered by the Labour Court whereby the dispute raised by her directly before the Labour Court regarding termination of her services by the respondent has been decided against her and it has been held that her services had not been illegally terminated..2. The claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that she had got employment with the respondent on 8th November, 2005 and she was posted at Poly Clinic, Nimri Colony, MCD as a Ward Aaya vide office order 5501/AO(H)/RCS/2005 dated 8th November, 2005 W.P. (C) 8737/2011 Page 1 of 10 and she had been working continuously there up to 30th April, 2006. However, with effe...
M/S Delhi Stock Exchange Vs. Ujala Leasing Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 386/2000 M/S DELHI STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCN. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through None versus UJALA LEASING LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ashish Makhija, Advocate for Official Liquidator. Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate for applicant in CA 2183/2011. Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya with Mr. Niraj Bobby Paonam, Advocates for Auction Purchaser. % Date of Decision: 15th December, 2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J : (Oral) CO. APPL. 2183/2011.1. Present application has been filed by a third party praying for setting aside the auction dated 5th October, 2011. Co. Pet. 386/2000 Page 1 of 8.2. It is pertinent to mention that by virtue of order dated 5 th October, 2011 this Court had confirmed the auction of respondent- company's flat situated at 111, Pratap Chamber, First Floor, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in favour of Auction Purchaser for a sum of ` 42,00,000/-..3. The present applicant has offered to purchase the afor...
State Vs. Ram Kumar and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved On: 26th September, 2011 Pronounced On: 15th December, 2011 + CRL.A No.140/1998 STATE ...... APPELLANT Through: Sanjay Lao, Additional PP Versus RAM KUMAR and ORS .....RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.R.N. Vatsa, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.Puneet Ahluwalia, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.Javed Hashmi, Advocate for respondents No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G.P. MITTAL, J..1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 19.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No.139/94 P.S. Malviya Nagar whereby three accused (respondents herein) were acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under Section 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code..2. In brief, the prosecution case was that accused Ram Kumar was a friend of Jatinder (the deceased) as both of them were studying together in ITI Pusa. Fifteen/twenty days prior to the incident, accused Ram Kumar went t...
Judgment Delivered On: 15th Vs. Sonia Khosla and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 165/2008 % Judgment delivered on: 15th December, 2011 MONTREAUX RESORTS P.TLD. and ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anand Mohan Mishra, Adv. for petitioners No.1. to 3 Versus SONIA KHOSLA and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT ORDER % 15.12.2011 + Cont.Case (C) No.165/2008.1. In the instant case, notice was issued vide order dated 17.03.2008 and could not be adjudicated due the following reasons..2. Thereafter CM. NO. 11170/2008 was moved by the applicants / respondent no.1 and 2, i.e., Sonia Khosla and her husband Deepak Khosla, and sought recall of order dated 17.03.2008. As alleged in the said application, the Petitioner has managed to obtain notice by misrepresenting the true and correct facts and on 08.08.2008 this court passed an order which is as under:- Cont. Case (C) No.165-2008 Page 1 of 35 "In my opinion the correct remedy of the applicants is to fi...
# Manju Rani Vs. $ Mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % W.P.(C) 8730/2011 + Date of Decision: 15th December, 2011 # MANJU RANI ....Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate Versus $ MCD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN JUDGMENT P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL) The petitioner challenges the award dated 2nd May, 2011 rendered by the Labour Court whereby the dispute raised by her directly before the Labour Court regarding termination of her services by the respondent has been decided against her and it has been held that her services had not been illegally terminated..2. The claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that she had got employment with the respondent on 19th June, 2002 and she was posted at Hindu Rao Hospital as a Kitchen Attendant vide office order No.748/AO(H)EC(E)/2002 dated 19.06.2002 and she had been working there continuously up to 30th April, 2006. However, with W.P. (C) 8730/2011 Page 1 of 10 effect from 1st May, ...
M/S. Blooming Colours Vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and Other ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
Heard Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant. It is submitted that the relief sought for in this application is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal passed in Application No. 3/2011 to 11/2011 i.e. M/s. Raagam Exports Vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and others as well as other analogous matters, disposed of on 11th October, 2011. On perusal of the records, it is found that the facts and point of law in this case, are similar to the cases which have been disposed of by common judgment dated 11th October, 2011. After hearing Learned Counsel for the Applicant, and going through the records we feel that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents if this application is also disposed of in the light of the ratio of earlier decision passed in the case of M/s Raagam Exports, Supra. We also feel that no useful purpose would be served by issuing notices to opposite parties as the order sought to be passed shall not in any way prejudice them. Th...
Paryavana Sanrakshan Sangarsh Samiti Lippa Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2011
The Appellant seeks to assail the order dated 14th June, 2011 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests, granting final approval for diversion of 17.6857 ha of forest land in favour of M/s. Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., (HPPCL) for construction of 130 MW Integrated Kashang stage II and III Hydroelectric Project in this appeal, filed under Section 18 (1) read with Section 14, 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as NGT Act). 2. Under Section-16 of the NGT Act, an appeal against an order granting forest clearance, is to be filed within 30 days. The proviso of the said section stipulates that if the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal 2 within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding 60 days. 3. The appellant presented the Memorandum of Appeal in the office of NGT on 12th December, 2011. The same was registered as Appeal No.17 of 2011, subj...
Om Wati Vs. Panchi Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 14th December, 2011 RFA(OS) 93/2011 OM WATI ..... Appellant Through : Dr.Naipal Singh, Advocate. versus PANCHI DEVI ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Kaadambari with Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Ms.Nimitha Mathews and Ms.Monica Chugh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG PRADEEP NANDRAJOG J. (Oral).1. We shall be referring to the parties by their nomenclature in the plaint..2. Smt.Panchi Devi is the plaintiff and Smt.Om Wati is the defendant..3. Panchi Devi stated in the plaint that she is the owner of the suit property which she had let out to the defendant in June 2002 and that the last paid agreed rent was `13,000/- p.m. She stated that Om Wati stopped paying rent from the month of May 2010. Tenancy being oral, it was pleaded that as per law the tenancy would be treated to be from month to month and that vide the legal notice dated 03.06.2010 the tenancy was determined and yet inspite...
Skb Overseas Corporation Vs. Joint Secretary (Drawback) M/O
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13335/2005 SKB OVERSEAS CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Pradeep Jain, Advocate versus JOINT SECRETARY (DRAWBACK) M/O ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER % 14.12.2011 There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent, accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner..2. The petitioner is a firm and had imported photographic colour films by paying customs duty of Rs.19,12,281/- vide TR-6 challan dated 24.4.2003 under cover of bill of entry No. 836127 dated 16.4.2003..3. The petitioner re-exported the said goods within about four months of import, to another overseas buyer M/s Jamaica Trading EST. The said export was made vide shipping bill No. 2095 dated 12.8.2003..4. As the petitioner had re-exported the same goods which were W.P.(C) 13335/2005 Page 1 of 13 imported on payment of customs duty of Rs.19,12,281/-, they filed an applicatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »