Delhi Court April 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.
Ram Mani Panday, and ors. Vs. Pnb Housing Finance Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
1. The writ petition was filed seeking to restrain the respondent no.1 M/s P.N.B. Housing Finance Limited from taking any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 with respect to the property constructed on Plots no.D-1 & D-2, Dilshad Colony, Delhi 110 095 and for quashing all actions already taken and from visiting, trespassing or damaging the said property. The petitioner also claims compensation for the damage caused to him.2. The petition came up before this Court first on 25 th March, 2008 when the Judge was not holding the Court and the same was adjourned to 21 st May, 2008. The petitioner filed an application for early hearing and which was listed on 2nd April, 2008 when early hearing was allowed and the writ petition taken up for hearing and notice thereof issued and vide ex parte order a Court Commissioner appointed to visit the property and to report on occupation thereof and status quo q...
M.S. Sethi. Vs. Delhi State Industrial, and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJThe present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 13th August, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 3773/2007.2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be adumbrated are that the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC), the respondent herein, floated a scheme in September, 2003 for allotment of flats to the successful allottees of plots under relocation scheme for the employees known as Rajiv Gandhi Housing Project Self Finance Cost Effective Workers Housing Scheme (for short the Scheme). The applications were invited from both bona fide industrial workers and industrial owners. The respondent had constructed 3164 flats/houses (1500 type-I and 1664 type-II) under the said project. The respondent rec...
Regency Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vanasthali Textiles Industries.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 16,82,601/- is based upon advance funding of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs only) made by the plaintiff to the defendant in January, 1996 in relation to supply of 40,360 pieces of beach towels, which was to be delivered in four distinct lots during April to June 1996. As per the plaintiff, the overseas buyers could not translate their quotation into an Order by 15th March, 1996 and therefore, the offer made by the plaintiff to the defendant for supplying of the aforesaid towels was withdrawn and this was communicated to the defendant vide final Notice of Demand of 19th December, 1988 but the defendant refused to pay back the aforesaid advance money to the plaintiff on the specious plea of keeping its production potentials idle for the plaintiff and so being entitled to retain the aforesaid advance money and so, this suit.2. The defendant- Company contested this suit for recovery of principal suit amount of Rs.16,82,601/-, while asserting i...
Brij Kishore Anand. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. The petitioner is aggrieved from the rejection of the plan submitted for construction on property no.108, Anand Villa, Jaipur Estate, 1 Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-110 013. The petitioner along with the respondents no.4 &5 (who were impleaded pursuant to the order of this Court) are the owners of this property. According to the petitioner, as per the family settlement between the petitioner, respondent no.4 and the respondent no.5, they are the owners of separate demarcated portions comprising of built up structure and open areas in the said property. The respondent no.1 MCD rejected the plan submitted by the petitioner for construction in his portion for the reason of the same having not been filed by all the three owners jointly. This Court finding that issues of sharing of FAR may be involved, impleaded respondents 4 & 5 also as parties to this petition.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, in the proposed construction is intending to utilize less than 1/3 rd of...
Alstom Projects India Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may beallowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes 20.04.20111. The petitioners challenge a demand raised by the Respondent Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (OICL) on Petitioner No.1 Alstom Projects India Ltd. (APIL) for an additional premium in the sum of Rs.1,49,88,732/- and applicable service tax in relation to an Erection All Risk Insurance (EARI) cover policy issued by OICL. Background facts2. APIL, having its registered office at Mumbai, is stated to be engaged in the business of design, manufacture, installation and servicing of power generation equipments in India and abroad. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to be a shareholder and Director of APIL. APIL and the Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (GSECL) entered into an Agreement dated 27th April, 2007 for Onshore Services under which APIL was required to design, engineer, procure equipment, materials, ...
C.K. SucharitA. Vs. State of Delhi.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. This is a petition for grant of probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by late Smt.P. Lakshmi Bhanu Rao on 21st August 2000. The petitioner is the executor of the Will, which is alleged to have been executed in the present of two witnesses namely Sh. P. Raj Kumar and Smt. Shashi Vashist. Under the Will, undivided half share of the testator in property No.32 (Old) and 38 (New), Barraby, Kilpauk, Chennai 600010 was bequeathed to her nephews N. Sivram and N. Bhaskar, vacant plot of land of about two grounds comprised in R.S. No.3129/9 of Puraswalkam, Perambur Taluk was bequeathed in equal shares to Mrs. M. Uma Rao, niece of the deceased and Mr. N. Bhaskar. Flat No.71, DDA (SFS) Gautam Apartments, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi-110049 was bequeathed to Mr. P. Uma Maheshwar Rao, hushand of the deceased, who was to have life interest therein and after his demise the flat was to devolve upon Mr. N. Sivram. All the investments such as mutual funds, UTI units, bonds, etc. were to go to the...
Sudha GuptA. Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. The petition impugns the demand of the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) of which the respondent is a successor, in the sum of `2,65,352.23 on account of charges for subletting of electricity. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide interim order dated 23 rd February, 2007, subject to the petitioner depositing `1,00,000/- with the respondent, the respondent was directed to re-energize the electricity connection which had been disconnected for default in payment of the said amount. The order dated 19 th March, 2007 records payment of the said amount of `1,00,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent. Pleadings have been completed and the counsels have been heard and the written submissions filed by them perused.3. The petitioner is the owner of premises No.I-7, DSIDC Industrial Complex, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi and obtained the industrial connection to which this writ petition pertains, therein, in her own name. An inspection of the premises of the petitione...
Khurji Devi Vs Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of property No.WZ-110-B, admeasuring 85 sq. yards, in the Colony of Sant Garh, M.B.S. Nagar, New Delhi, an unauthorized regularized colony of Delhi. The petitioner bases her title on a Sale Deed dated 18 th January, 2008 and further claims that at the time of purchase by her, the aforesaid property was already built up; reliance is also placed on ration card and electricity bills of the earlier occupants of the property. It is further the case of the petitioner that when she after purchase commenced the works of repairs / renovation on the property, objection thereto was taken by the respondent No.4 Sh. J.S. Vohra in occupation of adjoining property and a civil suit was also filed by the respondent No.4 impleading the petitioner and the MCD, to restrain the petitioner from making illegal construction on the property and to command the MCD to take action with respect to the unauthorized construction being raised by the petitioner; it was the case...
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Bwl Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. This Appeal assails the concurrent findings of the Arbitral Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge. The Respondent had challenged the deduction from its Running Bills of a sum of ` 1,32,04,290/- inclusive of interest. The Appellant made these deductions on the ground of liquidated damages. An Advance Purchase Order was placed by the Appellant on the Respondent on 23.10.1996 for the supply of (a) 21 nos. 60 M Tubular Tower and (b) 108 nos. 80 M Tubular Towers. Eventually, on 19.11.1996, the Appellant placed a Purchase Order on the Respondent for the aforementioned numbers of Towers for a total value of ` 9,10,49,192. The terms, inter alia, were that the supplies would be effected only after issuance of Quality Approval by the DOT and secondly that these supplies would be completed within six months, that is, on or before 28.5.1997. The necessary Drawings were supplied by the Appellant to the Respondent on 9.12.1996.2. Clauses 16.1 and 16.2 of the Contract, which deals with the ...
Delhi State Industrial. Vs. Road Master Industries.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge, which we shall reproduce below for facility of reference:-1. Petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 seeks reference to an arbitrator of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the agreement dated 7.10.1976.2. Petition has been filed in the year 1988.3. It is stated in para 16 of the petition that vide letter dated 28.7.1979, petitioner raised a demand against the respondent arising out of the contract and that vide letter dated 11.8.1979 defendant refuted the demand.4. A principal issue arises whether present petition is within limitation, for the reason, law is well settled. A party must move under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 within a period of 3 years when dispute surfaces.5. A perusal of the petition shows that the chairman of the petitioner has appointed an arbitrator on 4.3.1980 which appointment was challenged by the respondent vide OMP No.91/1981. Vide decision d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »