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.
United India Periodicals P. Limited Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. O.M.P. No. 135 of 1994 has been filed by United India Periodicals Pvt. Ltd. ('UIPL') under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act') praying for declaration that arbitration clause contained in Clause 20 of the Agreement dated 14th March 1987 between Respondent No. 1 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. ('MTNL') and UIPL does not subsist insofar as UIPL is concerned on account of events subsequent to the said Agreement and for a declaration that an order dated 21st September 1994 issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director ('CMD') of MTNL appointing Justice K.S. Tiwana as Arbitrator is invalid, void and to no effect. 2. The connected O.M.P. No. 151 of 1996 is by MTNL under Section 28 of the Act praying for extension of the time for the Arbitrator to make and publish the Award. 3. In terms of an Agreement dated 14th March 1987 (hereafter 'the Original Contract') UIPL was awarded by MTNL the job of printing and publishing five main telephone directories and five supplementary telepho...
Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S Capital Building and Fu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. challenges an Award dated 12th April 2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal allowing Claim Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Respondent Capital Building and Furnishing Co., together with interest and costs while rejecting the counter-claims of the Petitioner. 2. In May 1994, the Petitioner invited tenders for interior and allied works at its registered office building comprising four floors. The tender was an item rate tender and work was to be completed in four months. On 15th July 1994 the Petitioner split the tender into two packages. The first package comprised of second and third floors and the second package comprised of ground, first and fourth floors. This was on the premise that a single contractor might not be able to complete the entire work within four months. 3. The tender of the Respondent for the first package was accepted by the Petitioner. The Respondent gave a rebate of 3.01% on the amount quoted by it. The value of the contract, after ...
M/S Municipal Corporation Jalandhar Vs. Cce, Ludhiana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
PER MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, J. 1. The Commissioner vide his impugned order confirmed service tax of Rs.1,25,23,555/- against the appellants along with imposition of penalties u/s 78, 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the impugned order confirms two Show Cause Notices as detailed below issued to the noticee:- (i) Show Cause Notice dtd. 27.11.08 proposing the demand of Rs.92,30,754/- for the period 1.05.06 to 31.03.08. (ii) Show Cause Notice dtd. 20.10.09 proposing duty demand of Rs.48,18,165/- for the period 1.04.08 to 31.03.09. 3. The appellants entered into a contract with one M/s Shri Durga Publicity Service and certain other parties for investing into the construction of certain Built, Operate, Own and Transfer (BOOT) projects. 4. In return, the said parties were granted permission to put up specified number of sky-signs, unipoles, kiosks, lollipops etc. at different parts of Jalandhar-Kaparthala railway over bridge and also rent certain s...
Vinay Kumar Malhotra and ors Vs. Vashist Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2011
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 3.11.2007 disposing of the suit as compromised under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for declaration and injunction, inasmuch as there were disputes between the parties with respect to a company of which the respondent and the appellants were directors. It was alleged by the respondent/plaintiff that he was wrongly removed from the directorship and that defendant No. 2 was wrongly appointed as the Director of defendant No.3. 3. The company in question seems to have received money from the Chief Controller, Accounts, Ashoka Road, New Delhi amounting to Rs.70 lakhs. Obviously, the real dispute was for the claim towards these amounts. During the pendency of the suit, appellant/defendant No.1 and respondent/plaintiff made the following statements on 8...
Rajendra Shanker Vs. Devendra Shanker
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2011
1. By this common judgment I shall dispose of all the three Suits referred above two of which are Probate Petitions (registered as suits) that were initially filed before the District Judge, Delhi but were withdrawn to this Court vide order dated 22nd August, 2005 to be tried along with the suit CS(OS) No.985/2002. Vide order dated 6th July, 2007 all the three matters were consolidated and it was directed that evidence will be read in all three matters. 2. Suit CS(OS) No. 985/2002 has been filed by Shri Rajender Shanker against his brother Shri Devendra Shanker seeking partition of the estate of their father late Shri Damodar Dass Mathur alleged to be comprising of house No.104, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, investments in FDRs, Units, Shares, jewellery, goods etc. it is alleged in the plaint that late Shri Damodar Dass Mathur died intestate on 7th February, 1995 leaving the plaintiff and the defendant as his class I legal heirs. It is also alleged that after the death of Shri Damodar Dass Math...
Niranjan Lal Gupta and anr. Vs. Gurmeet Singh Baweja and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2011
1. Defendant No.3 of All India Motor Transport Congress is stated to be a body consisting of more than 5000 members, representing more than 01 lac transport companies and approximately 72 lac truckers, Light Motor Vehicles, buses, commercial vehicles etc. The Articles of Association of defendant No.3, which has been registered as a company, provides for formation of a Managing Committee consisting of not less than 15 and not more than 121 members to be elected zone-wise by its members. The members of the Managing Committee elect the President and Vice-Presidents of the body from amongst themselves, for the tenure of two years each. For the period 2011-13, plaintiff No.1 Mr. Niranjan Lal Gupta, defendant No.4 Mr. Bal Malkit Singh and one Mr. Nimesh J. Patel, all of whom are members of the Managing Committee filed the nominations for the post of President whereas plaintiff No.2 Mr. Harish Sabharwal and defendant No.5 Mr. Kultaran Singh Atwal filed nominations for the post of Vice-Preside...
M/S Senbo Engineering Ltd Vs. Ahlcon Ready Mix Concrete
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2011
1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (`Act') by Senbo Engineering Ltd. (`SEL') is to an Award dated 1st August 2011 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator allowing the claims of the Respondent Ahlcon Ready Mix Concrete (`ARMC'), a Division of Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. (`ACIL') which was succeeded by Ahlcon Ready Mix Concrete Pvt. Ltd. (`ARMCPL'). By the impugned Award, the learned Arbitrator held that SEL should pay the Respondent Rs. 1,11,49,108/-, consolidated costs of Rs. 1,12,000/- and interest on Rs. 81,98,063/- at 9% per annum with effect from 1st August 2011 till realization. By the said impugned Award all the counter-claims of SEL were rejected. 2. On 20th February 2006 SEL was awarded the contract of BC-2 Project by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (`DMRC'). According to the SEL, it required ready mix concrete (`RMC') to enable it to meet the deadline for the completion of the DMRC project. For this purpose on 2...
Bharat Udyog Vs. Vinay Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2011
1. Appellant’s suit has been decreed against defendant No.4, impleaded as respondent No.4 in the instant appeal. Said respondent has not been served. Since the grievance in the appeal relates to the suit being dismissed in respect to the claim against defendants No.1 to 3, impleaded as respondents No.1 to 3 in the appeal, vide order dated November 01, 2011, in spite of respondent No.4 not being served, it was directed that the appeal would be heard for final disposal today. 2. Accordingly, arguments have been heard in the appeal. 3. We shall hereinafter be referring to the parties by their nomenclature in the suit. 4. Bharat Udyog, claiming to be a division of CLC Global Ltd. filed a suit impleading M/s. Vinay Corporation as defendant No.1 and Mr.Pramod Gupta and Mrs.Deepika Gupta as defendants No.2 and 3, stating that the two were partners of defendant No.1, which was stated to be a partnership firm. Radhika Fibers (India) Ltd. a company registered under the Companies Act was im...
Bansi Ram Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2011
1. The petitioner, a Head Constable at the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), has challenged the order of dismissal dated 2nd May, 1997 passed by the Inspector General, CRPF, on the charge that he had submitted a false certificate of his date of birth and he had changed his date of birth as he was not eligible for the post of Constable at the time of his enlistment, and the order dated 16th January, 1998 passed by the Director General dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the enhancement of punishment imposed on him. 2. Brief relevant facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 27th April, 1968. At the time of joining he had submitted his date of birth certificate verified by the concerned authority, in accordance with Rule 14 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and the Verification Roll No. 1225 dated 29th May, 1968, was received on 16th July, 1968. 3. On 16th March, 1995 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner le...
Om Prakash Gupta and anr. Decd Thr Lrs Vs. Rameshwar Yadav and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2011
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2011 whereby the suit filed by the appellants for declaration, cancellation of instruments and possession was dismissed. 2. Case of the appellants as per the plaint was that appellant No.2 Somwati, being owner of property No.TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi intended to raise construction thereon and needed money. Respondent No.1 Rameshwar Yadav, agreed to initially advance `2,50,000/- and such further amount as would be required by the appellants for the purpose of construction as a loan without any interest. It was further agreed that appellants would mortgage an area of 40 sqr.yards having one big room at their property No.TA-105, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi to respondent No.1 and would hand over possession of the same to be used by respondent No.1 as godown. The parties acted upon the said terms and conditions. 3. Appellants further pleaded that after receiving the said ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »