Delhi Court May 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.
Vayam Technologies Ltd. and anr. Vs. Container Corporation of India Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayers: (a) Issue an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, commanding the Respondent No. 1 to issue a Purchase Order against the tender No. CON/IT/1191/10/01 to the Petitioner No. 1, being the L1 bidder; and (b) Issue an appropriate writ, order and/or direction to Respondent No. 1, quashing the subsequent Tender No. CON/IT/1191/11/01 being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and a malafide exercise of administrative discretion, without assigning any reason/s; and (c) Issue an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, directing for holding of an enquiry against the illegal, malafide, arbitrary and perverse action of Respondent No. 1 in floating fresh tender identical to the earlier tender for the same scope of work, without assigning any reason, identify the officials concerned responsible for the same and take necessary action against them for the same; and (d) Award costs in favour of the petitioners;...
Laxmi Narayan Shastri Vs. Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha Laxmi Narayan Temp ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2011
1. The petition impugns the order dated 29 th March, 2011 of the Industrial Adjudicator holding the petitioner to be not a workman and the consequent award dated 8th April, 2011 that the dispute raised by the petitioner before the Industrial Adjudicator was thus not maintainable. 2. The petitioner claims to have been the Head Pujari of the famous Birla Mandir at Mandir Marg, New Delhi. The counsel for the petitioner during the hearing has invited attention to the report dated 3 rd August, 1981 at the time of appointment of the petitioner recording that the petitioner has passed Shastri education and is also an Acharya. The said document rather shows the high qualifications of the petitioner in the field of priesthood. The Industrial Adjudicator has premised the orders/award on the Sai Bhakta Samaj (Regd.) v. Durga Prasad2006 ILR 1241 where a Single Judge of this Court held that a Pujari in a temple cannot be a workman. The Industrial Adjudicator has also relied on a judgment of t...
Lt Gen L.M Misra Vs. Sushil Kumar Mehta and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 1,51,61,000/- and permanent injunction. The plaintiff is a senior citizen, having retired as a Lieutenant General from Indian Army. Defendant represented to the plaintiff that he was the sole and absolute owner of Plot No. 7, Paschim Marg, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, admeasuring 400.40 sq. metres and the aforesaid plot was free from all kind of encumbrances, such as sale, gift, mortgage, litigation, etc. He agreed to sell the aforesaid plot to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs 51,61,000/-. In order to convince the plaintiff, the defendant provided him the original receipt, which the erstwhile owner of the property Mr Harish Bhandari, had executed in his favour. Believing the representation made by the defendant, the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration of Rs 51,61,000/- to the defendantm from time to time. Since the defendant was unable to get the plot transferred in the name of the plaintiff, a Settlement Agreement was executed ...
Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhan Vs. Sh. Manoj Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the impugned order dated 3.12.2010 which has dismissed the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by which the petitioner was seeking to add in para 4 of the plaint certain averments with respect to four documents dated 3.10.1988 i.e. an agreement to sell, affidavit, Will and a general power of attorney. 2. The disputes in the present case pertain to the property WZ- 123 (D-58), Raj Nagar, Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi admeasuring 100 sq. yards. The plaintiff put up a case in the plaint that this property was purchased jointly by the petitioner/plaintiff/son alongwith his father Sh. Govind Ram Bhan. After making this averment in para 4 of the plaint the plaintiff/petitioner in support of the averment with respect to the joint ownership with his father also relied upon documents being agreement to sell/receipt dated 3.9.1988, r...
Pramod Kumar JaIn and anr Vs. Ramesh Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. This is an application filed by the defendant for amendment in the written statement. The defendant wants to add the following paragraph to the written statement:- "5A. That in any case, the present suit is barred by the law of limitation as it has been instituted 12 years after the possession of the defendant through his predecessor-in-interest namely Shri J.R. Jain became adverse to the plaintiffs." 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the co- owners of the property no. 26, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi-110065 along with Smt. Niti Jain and Smt. Ram Kali Jain. This is also their case that Late Shri J.R. Jain, father of the defendant was appointed as attorney of the plaintiffs in respect of the aforesaid property and power of attorney has since been cancelled. This is also their case that the defendant is in occupation of a portion of the suit property as a family member of another co-owner Smt. Ram Kali Jain and this was admitted by him in a suit for partition of the ...
Shri Jai Prakash Vs. Smt. Ram Roshni
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. This is a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, in M. No. 171/2009 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. in case titled Smt. Ram Roshni v. Shri Jai Prakash wherein the maintenance of Rs.500/- was enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 15.05.2003 and Rs.2,500/- from the date of order i.e. 30.11.2009 till the time she is legally entitled. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the respondent was awarded a maintenance of Rs.500/- by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide order dt. 4.5.1995 in pursuance to the proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It may be pertinent here to mention that after the amendment in Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 24.09.2001, the Court is empowered to fix the maintenance as per the earning capacity of the respondent. The respondent filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Ms. Deepa Sharma...
Champagne Moet and Chandon Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. An order dated 27th October 2004 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (`IPAB) dismissing the Petitioners appeal against an order dated 12th June 1995 of the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks (`DR) is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Petitioner also challenges an order dated 3rd March 2006 passed by the IPAB rejecting the Petitioners Review Petition No. 6 of 2004. 2. The Petitioner states that it is a company established under the laws of France and is a well-known manufacture of wines which it is selling under the trademark MOET, MOET & CHANDON and other brands in more than 150 countries of the world. It is stated that the Petitioner was founded in 1743 in France by Claude Moet who is stated to have been born at the time of Dom Perignon and stated to have dedicated his life to developing and perfecting the methods by which Champagne is made. He was succeeded by his grandson Jean-Remy Moet who in turn handed over the business in 1...
Sh. Satyendra Kumar Vs. M/S. Mik Finance and Chit Fund (P) Ltd. and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The challenge by means of this first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned order dated 17.2.2010 by which the application of the respondent No.2 herein under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC was accepted and the auction sale proceedings in execution of a money decree was set aside. 2. The facts of the case are that respondent No.1/finance company advanced a loan to one M/s. Shama Airways Private Limited. On failure of the said company to repay the dues, a suit for recovery was filed against the said M/s. Shama Airways Pvt. Ltd. under Order 37 CPC impleading therein three other defendants who were the directors and guarantors. This suit was ultimately decreed ex-parte in favour of the respondent No.1 company. However, before the suit was decreed, the respondent No.2 herein had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded in the suit on the ground that he had purchased the rights in the suit property from the defendants/ju...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The captioned reference pertains to assessment year 1984-85. The reference is at the behest of the revenue. We have been called upon to adjudicate the following question of laws: (i) (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that expenses of Rs 3,47,157/- on foreign tour in connection with the new project were not capital in nature? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that expenses of Rs 61,708/- on modernization and expansion of plant were not capital expenditure? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that expenses of Rs 1,18,845/- incurred on foreign travel by wives of directors were business expenses and incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that expenses of Rs 1,42,...
Banwari Lal Vs. the Management of M/S Moolchand Kharaitiram Hospital
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the award dated 22 nd January 2008 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: "Whether the services of Sh. Suresh S/o Sh. Pistola have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" 2. The Industrial Adjudicator first framed an issue as to the fairness and compliance of principles of natural justice in the departmental inquiry held by the respondent preceding the order of termination of the petitioner and vide order dated 15th January, 2008 held that the departmental inquiry was fair, proper and conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Industrial Adjudicator thereafter vide award dated 22 nd January, 2008 impugned in this writ petition held that the penalty imposed on the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »