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.
S.C. JaIn and Others Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary Ministry ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) : MA No.479/2011 1. Applicants have moved this MA praying to implead IASE as necessary party in the controversy. During the hearing all parties agreed that the inclusion of IASE as a party in the OA will expand the scope of the controversy and the adjudication will be delayed. Further, it was noted that the statutory bodies like UGC, AICTE and DEC have been impleaded as party respondents and have filed their reply affidavits which would suffice to adjudicate the controversy. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no necessity to implead IASE as necessary party. Hence, the MA is dismissed. MA No.2649/2011 2. Shri Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel has moved on 28.09.2011 this MA with the prayer to implead Shri Madan Mohan serving as AE, DDK, Delhi as intervenor as party respondent in the OA. As the OA has been finally heard, it may not be necessary to include fresh party as respondent which would delay the adjudication. The OA was filed in the ye...
Chander Bhan Dass Vs. Shri Ram Nath Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 295/2003 % 20th December, 2011 CHANDER BHAN DASS ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Paritosh Budhiraja, Advocate. versus SHRI RAM NATH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. M.K. Vashishta, Advocate along with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL).1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 5.2.2003. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for possession and damages..2. The brief facts of the case are that the property bearing No. 5524-5531 Shora Kothi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, admeasuring 700 sq. yds along with Shop No. 4569-4571, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi were owned by Mahant late Shri Manohar Dass. Mahant late Shri Manohar Dass executed a RFA No. 295/2003 Page 1...
Mohan Lal and anr Vs. Registrar of Companies Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
$~13, $~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 % Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011 MOHAN LAL and ANR. ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Akhil Sibal and Mr. Diwakar Maheshwari, Advs. versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DELHI and HARYANA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Gaurav Liberhan and Mr. Neeraj Kr. Gupta, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Adv. for R-2. AND + CRL. M.C. 255/2010 BHUSHAN STEEL LTD and ORS ..... Petitioners Through : Mr.N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Akhil Sibal and Mr. Diwakar Maheshwari, Advs. versus REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DELHI and HARYANA and ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Gaurav Liberhan and Mr. Neeraj Kr. Gupta, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Adv. for R-2. Crl.M.C179/2010 and Crl.M.C.255/2010 Page 1 of 12 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral).1. Vide the instant petitions, the petitioners have sought to quash the impugned order dated 21.02.2009 passed by CMM, Tis Hazari ...
Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved On: December 09, 2011 Judgment Delivered On: December 20, 2011 + FAO(OS) 549/2011 CARLSBERG INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr.C.A.Brijesh, Mr.V.Mohini, Mr.Kamal Sharma and Mr.Peeyoosh Kalra, Advocates. versus RADICO KHAITAN LTD. ....Respondent Through: Mr.Vivek Dholakia, Advocate and Mr.Deepak Gogia, Advocate. FAO(OS) 567/2011 RADICO KHAITAN LTD. ....Appellant Through: Mr.Vivek Dholakia, Advocate and Mr.Deepak Gogia, Advocate. versus CARLSBERG INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr.C.A.Brijesh, Mr.V.Mohini, Mr.Kamal Sharma and Mr.Peeyoosh Kalra, Advocates. FAO(OS)-549 and 567/2011 Page 1 of 22 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J..1. We shall be referring to the parties as Radico and Carlsberg. We highlight that Radico Khaitan Ltd. hereinafter referred to as Radico was the p...
Union of India Vs. Microwave Communications Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. 235/2004 Reserved on: November 24, 2011 Decision on: December 20, 2011 UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Geeta Sharma with Ms. Priya Singh, Advocates. versus MICROWAVE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 20.12.2011.1. Union of India (`UoI') in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (`Act') challenges an Award dated 13th February 2004 to the extent it rejects the Petitioner's claim against the Respondent to recover a sum of Rs. 1,21,42,490/- together with interest from 1st January 2003 till the date of payment..2. The Respondent Microwave Communications Ltd. (`MCL') applied to the Department of Telecommunications (`DoT') for grant of licence for operation of Voice Mail Service (`VMS') on their Radio Paging Network in Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta, Ahmedabad and Surat. The Petitioner DoT issued to the Respondent a letter of in...
Rama Construction Company Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 05.12.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 20.12.2011 + CS(OS) 921/2005 and IA 5040/2005 RAMA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. A.K.Trivedi, Adv. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .... Defendant Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Adv. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.1. This is a suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff was awarded work for construction of live stock marketing for sheep, goat and buffalo at Gazipur Dairy Farm, vide work order dated 18th March, 2003, which the plaintiff claims to have received on 31st March, 2003. The work was to be completed within fifteen months and the time allowed for carrying out the work was to be reckoned from the tenth day of the work order. Admittedly, the work was not completed within the period of fifteen months stipulated in the order irrespective of whether the period is reckoned from the tenth day of the CS(OS)No.9...
Mauji Ram Vijay Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Vat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ST. APPL.10/2010 % Date of Decision : 20th December, 2011 MAUJI RAM VIJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.C.Kathuria, Mr. Vasdev Lalwani and Mr. D.V.Kapoor, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF VAT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kailash K.Ahuja, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR.1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL) The present appeal under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004 impugns order dated 19th August, 2010 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax. By the impugned order the Tribunal has allowed the application under Section 48 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 ST.APPL.10/2010 1 of 8 (Act, for short) filed by the revenue and has reversed their earlier order dated 4th July, 2008..2. Having heard the counsel for the parties...
Surakshit Exports Private Vs. M/S. Gcg Transglobal Housing
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 21.09.2011 % Date of decision : 20.12.2011 + CS (OS) No.1077 of 2000 SURAKSHIT EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED and ORS. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju and Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Dinesh Rastogi and Mr. Aditya Ganju, Advocates. Versus M/s. GCG TRANSGLOBAL HOUSING PROJECT PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Amit Sibal, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Sidharth Bawa, Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Gurpreet S. Palwanda and Mr. Arvind Sah, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. IA No.6386/2008 (under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC) in CS (OS) No.1077/2000.1. The prayer made by the plaintiffs seeking unconditional withdrawal of the suit filed for foreclosure of mortgage or sale and in the alternative for recovery or `2,04,76,219.00 is being resisted by the defendant..2. One Shri Shridev Sharma (for shor...
Ashok Kumar and Narinder Pal Vs. Shakuntala Rani and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 20.12.2011 +CM(M) No.1115/2007 and CM Nos.11089/2007, 14404/2007,16909/2007 and 13829/2008 ASHOK KUMAR and NARINDER PAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anil Kumar Gupta and Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocates. versus SHAKUNTALA RANI and ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.R.L.Kohli, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral).1. Order impugned is the order dated 18.7.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 18.12.2002 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord Shakuntala Rani and others seeking eviction of her tenant from the suit property (comprising of one room measuring 20 x 10 feet, ground floor of the property no.25/16,Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi) under section 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed..2. Record shows that the present eviction petition had been CM(M) No.1115/2007 Page 1 of 7 filed under section 14(1)(a), 14(1)(c) and 1...
North Delhi Power Ltd Vs. Swarna Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 20.12.2011 + CM (M) No. 1588/2010 and CM No. 22286/2010 (stay) NORTH DELHI POWER LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divyam agarwal, Mr. Manish Kr. Jha and Mr. Mohit Bakshi, Advocates. versus SWARNA GUPTA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anshu Mahajan, Mr. Karan Arora and Ms. Seema, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral).1. The order impugned before this court is the order dated 08.09.2010 which is an order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) reversing the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 22.09.2009 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord i.e. Swarna Gupta against the tenant namely Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) on the ground of sub-letting as contained in Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. The impugned judgment reversing this finding...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »