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.
M/S Mirc Electronics Limited Vs. Sh. Shashank Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The writ petition was filed impugning the order dated 1 st March, 2011 of the Industrial Adjudicator dismissing the application of the employer for amendment of the reply/written statement. Notice of the writ petition was issued on 2 nd May, 2011 for today on the condition that the proceedings underway before the Industrial Adjudicator will not be held up for this reason of pendency of this writ petition and no date shall be taken before the Industrial Adjudicator on the ground of pendency of this petition. 2. Contempt petition has been filed by the workman on the ground that notwithstanding the direction to the employer not to take adjournment before the Industrial Adjudicator, on 4th May, 2011 when the matter was listed before the Industrial Adjudicator, adjournment was taken on the ground of the pendency of the present writ petition. 3. The senior counsel for the employer has fairly conceded that what transpired before the Industrial Adjudicator is in contempt of the order dated ...
Delhi University Teachers Assn. and anr Vs. University of Delhi and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. This Court on 12th May, 2011, while hearing these two petitions, had passed the following order: "Though this matter was listed for final disposal yet Mr.Parag P.Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Mr. Jayant Nath, learned senior counsel along with Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that there should be a delineation first on the facet highlighted in the counter affidavit relating to a resolution passed by a College which creates an impediment in giving effect to the semester system. It is urged that the same tantamount to contempt of the Courts order as it creates an obstruction in implementation of the order passed by the Court. Mr.V.K.Rao, learned senior counsel with Mr.Prashant Bhushan, Mr.Saket Sikri and Mr.Tariq Adeeb, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no contempt and in any case the resolution has been passed keeping in view that semester system cannot be imposed on the institutions without ...
Progressive Career Academy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fiit Jee Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The question in this bunch of Appeals concerns the legal proprietary of judicial directions for the removal of an arbitrator even before the publishing of an Award. Several judgments of our esteemed Single Benches have been cited before us, a perusal of which manifests the existence of a polarity of opinion. On one side of the watershed is the view that assertions as to the de jure or de facto incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal must immediately be addressed by the Court, and in deserving cases remedied, whilst on the other side is the contrary view that the statutorily provided procedure postulates an immediate remonstration but a deferred assailment of the Award, inter alia on this ground, by way of an invocation of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act for short). 2. At the threshold, an objection has been lodged to the maintainability of the Appeals on the ground that Section 37 of the A&C Act provides for such remedy only against orders (...
Smt. Parwati Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement of the award dated 31st August, 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereunder the appellant was held entitled to an amount of Rs.59,600/-, with interest thereon, against the respondents for the untimely demise of her daughter in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 19th December, 1985. 2. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the deceased was aged 18 years and was unmarried on the date of the motor accident. The appellant-Smt. Parwati, being the mother of the deceased, is her only legal heir as her father had already expired before the said accident. The appellant, who appeared in the witness box as PW5, deposed that the deceased was doing various house jobs for the family which was residing at C-II/32, Moti Bagh, New Delhi and in lieu of her services, they had given her a servant quarter. She further deposed that the services rendered by the deceased were of the value of Rs.1,000/- per mon...
Tata Sons Limited Vs. D. Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of trademark, passing off, damages rendition of accounts and delivery up. 2. Along with the suit the plaintiff has also filed the application for interim injunction being I.A. No. 2672/2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. The suit as well as the application was firstly listed before the court on 29.02.2008 and the court passed the interim order relevant portion of which reads as under: "that the defendant No.1 shall not use the domain name TATAHIRE.COM or any other domain name which includes the plaintiffs registered mark TATA. The defendant No.1 is also restrained from using any email address which incorporates the word TATA in respect of any goods or services that the defendant No.1 may be providing to his customers. The defendant No.2 is directed to freeze the domain name TATAHIRE.COM and prevent it from being transferred and/or sold to a third party pending adjudication ti...
ifci Ltd. Vs. Tfci Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22nd March, 2011 passed by the Company Law Board (for short 'CLB') whereby Company Petition No. 124(ND) of 2010 filed by appellant company under Sections 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant company (hereinafter referred to as 'IFCI') owns 37.85% of shares of respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as 'TFCI'). On 26th November, 2010 IFCI sent a requisition to TFCI for convening an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (for short 'EOGM') with the objective of appointing four new directors and removal and replacement of one director on the Board of TFCI. However, TFCI vide letter dated 2nd December, 2010 questioned the validity of the requisition on the ground that though it was signed by the Company Secretary of IFCI, but specific authorisation/board resolution to file such requisition had not been annexed and it requested IFCI to sen...
M/S Ashirwad Enterprises Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The writ petitions have been filed claiming that the petitioner in each of the cases is in lawful possession of godown in Village-Siraspur; that though notices dated 11 th June, 2010 under Section 86A of the DLR Act were issued to the petitioner in each case for 26 th July, 2010 but even prior thereto on 16th June, 2010 action for demolition was carried out and the petitioner called upon to hand over possession of the land. The present writ petitions were filed impugning the actions of 16 th June, 2010 and 17th June, 2010 and for restraining the respondents from forcibly taking over possession of the land from the petitioners. 2. Notice of the writ petitions were issued and the respondents restrained from dispossessing the petitioners or from carrying out any further demolition but with the condition that the petitioners shall not deal with the property in any manner whatsoever and shall not part with possession or make any addition, alteration or construction thereon. 3. Counter af...
All India Council for Technical Education Vs. Council of Architecture ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. A short but interesting question of law concerning the interpretation of Section 3 (3) (b) of the Architects Act, 1972 (AA) arises for consideration in this writ petition. 2. The Petitioner, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), is a statutory body constituted by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (the AICTE Act 1987). Prior to the AICTE Act 1987, the AICTE was established by a Resolution of the Government of India by a Notification dated 30 th November 1945. The Council of Architecture (COA), Respondent No. 1 herein, is constituted under Section 3 (1) AA. Section 3 (3) (b) AA provides that the COA will, inter alia, include two persons nominated by the AICTE. At the time of the enactment of the AA, the AICTE Act 1987 had not been enacted. Although after the enactment of the AICTE Act the AICTE became a statutory body, no corresponding amendment was made to Section 3 (3) (b) AA. Nevertheless, up to the year 2006 the COA was accepting the nominations ...
Smt. Shakuntala and ors Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing at the admission stage. 2. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and award dated 26th November, 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. The essential facts are that on 26th December, 2007 one Ram Dhari was travelling in a TSR No. HR-69-4436, which was hit by a truck bearing No. HR-69B-4308 at GT Road near Yamuna Filling Station, Industrial Area More. Ram Dhari (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. On the allegation that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, a claim petition was filed by the widow and five children of the deceased claiming compensation for the untimely demise of the deceased in the aforesaid road accident. In the said claim petition, the age of the deceased was stated to be 39 years at the time of his accidental death. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal, after not...
Krishna Saini Vs. Chameli Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. FAO(OS) No.176/2011 & CM No.6542/2011 2. This Appeal impugns the Order dated 14.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge wherein the Prayers of impleadment of the Appellant/Applicant in Suit No.2120/1998 was declined. 3. The Appellant is said to be a bonafide purchaser of a property, bearing No.E-111, Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi for a consideration of ` 14,20,000/-, out of which a substantial sum of ` 9,00,000/- stands paid at the time of the execution of the subject Agreement to Sell, and the delivery of possession thereof to the Appellant. An impleadment is sought in CS(OS) No.2120/1998 which is a Suit for Partition in which a Preliminary Decree has been passed by Order dated 2.5.2007 by the consent of all the parties to the said Partition Suit. The Appellant/Applicant seeks to set aside this consent Decree by getting herself impleaded in the said Suit on the ground that she is a bonafide purchaser not having knowledge of the said Partiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »