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.
Hardas Singh and Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. By way of present petition, petitioners have challenged a finding on a preliminary issue by the Estate Officer, a statutory authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as „the PP Act) wherein it is held that petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of public land for commercial purposes and does not come under the purview of Gadgil Assurance. Initially the present petition was filed by M/s Gurdial Singh Rajinder Singh through its proprietor Smt. Sumitra Devi widow of late Sardar Rajinder Singh. Smt. Sumitra Devi died on 5.6.1995. An application was filed by Pratap Singh and Hardas Singh for substitution as her legal representatives. The said application was allowed by this court vide order dated 1st May, 2003 and aforesaid applicants were substituted in her place. Amended memo of parties was filed which was taken on record. 2. Late Sardar Gurdial Singh and Rajinder Singh were real brothers. They were displaced perso...
Bal Krishan Khanna Vs. Ravi Kanta Madhok
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
1. This revision petition under section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 has been filed by a tenant who has been unsuccessful in getting the leave to contest the eviction petition filed by his landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement of the leased premises. 2. The petitioner's application for leave to contest the eviction petition had been rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 02.12.2009 and an eviction order had been passed against him. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant had invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing a revision petition. The petitioner-tenant had raised two points before this Court. First was that there was an understanding between him and the deceased father-in-law of the respondent herein that he could remain in occupation so long as he wanted to live during his lifetime. Oral understanding in that regard between him and the father-in-law of the respondent herein was pleaded by the petitioner her...
B.K. Jewellery House Marketing (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Champa Sahni
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2011
Kanwal Inder, Member: 1. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 214 days in filing this appeal has been moved. The same is being contested by the respondent. 2. We have heard arguments and have perused the record. 3. As per record, the respondent filed complaint before District Forum dated 25.5.2009 inter alia alleging that allured by the appellant she purchased Investment Plan offered by them and made payment of Rs. 68,216 on 18.3.2008 in the office of the appellant No. 1 in presence of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on their undertaking to pay Rs. 1,36,432 to her by way of delivery of 12 cheques in her favour in twelve months break up payments and 12 months span of time. However, that undertaking was not honoured. She received only two cheques, one for Rs. 3,672 in July 2008 and another for Rs. 6,480 in October 2008. The appellant had eaten up her principal amount and earned interest and caused her tremendous mental agony due to their unfair method, deceptive prac...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chelsford Club Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. At the outset, we may point out that we have been informed by the learned counsel for both the parties that the captioned matters, which include both references as well as appeals involve a set of questions of law which are common and hence could be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. This brings us to the common questions of law which we are called upon to adjudicate in the remaining matters. 2.1 Before we do that, it be noted that the Tribunal has made out a common "statement of case" as questions of law were raised both by the assessee as well as the revenue. The questions raised at the behest of the assessee have also been referred to in the statement of case have been dealt with by us in WTR 28/1992 and WTR 29/1992. The said references were disposed of by us by orders of even date, i.e., 01.04.2011. 2.2 There is another aspect of the matter which we would also refer to at this juncture itself. This is with respect to the fact that even though the questions of law which we are ...
H.G.S. Pahwa Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. The petitioner was compulsorily retired in the year 1991 from New Bank of India. The New Bank of India merged with the respondent no.1 Punjab National Bank in the year 1993. This writ petition was filed in the year 2009 seeking direction to the respondents to release the payment of pension and other retiral benefits stated to be due to the petitioner and not paid, together with interest. 2. Notice of the petition was issued. Pleadings have been completed. 3. As far as the claim for pension is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any pension scheme of New Bank of India in force at the time of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner however relies on the Pension Regulations of the year 1995 of the Punjab National Bank. The counsel for the respondent Bank contends that the said Regulations were not applicable to the New Bank of India at the time of compulsory retirement of the petitioner though in some cases the benefit of the said Regulations was...
Rakesha and ors. Vs. Amzad Ali and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. By way of this application filed on behalf of the appellants u/s 151 C.P.C., the appellants seek release of the amount of `5,00,000/- lying in fixed deposits in terms of the order dated 16 th February, 2010 passed by this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No.1, who is the widow of the deceased has purchased Plot No.32/11, Indira Vikas Colony, Nirankari Colony, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi from one Sh. Rajinder Kumar son of Sh. Jai Guru resident of 32/11, Indira Vikas Colony, Nirankari Colony, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi for a sum of `4,00,000/- vide Agreement to Sell dated 29.11.2010. He further submits that the appellant No.1 now proposes to construct a house on the aforesaid plot, for which she requires a sum of `5,00,000/- and prays for the withdrawal of the same. A copy of the agreement to sell and general power of attorney executed for the purchase of the said plot have been annexed by the appellants alongwith a copy of t...
M/S United Cutlery Works Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. The Petitioner, M/s United Cutlery Works („UCW), seeks a mandamus to the Respondent, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Limited („DSIDC), to inter alia raise the correct demand for the industrial plot No.1108, DSIDC Narela Industrial Estate. By an order dated 28th October 2005, this Court recorded the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner, the entire demand raised by the DSIDC would be paid to it within four weeks. This Court ordered that if such payment was made, the DSIDC would hand over possession of the plot in question to UCW within two weeks of the receipt of the payment. The Petitioner made the payment in terms of the above order and was handed over possession of the plot in question on 20th December 2005. Background facts 2. In response to an advertisement issued by the DSIDC, UCW, a partnership firm, submitted an application dated 24th January 1977 for allotment of an i...
Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. Notice. Mr. Tarun Gulati, Mr. Shaqib, Ms. Pallavi Shroff and Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, learned counsel accept notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition has been heard finally. 2. The Steel Authority of India („SAIL) challenges an order dated 17 th March 2011 and a consequential order dated 25th March 2011 passed by the Competition Commission of India („CCI), Respondent No. 1, in Case No. 11 of 2009. 3. The facts in brief are that Jindal Steel & Power Limited („JSPL), Respondent No. 3, invoked the provisions of Section 19 read with Section 26 (1) of the Competition Act, 2002 („CA') by providing information to the CCI alleging that the Petitioner SAIL had inter alia entered into an exclusive supply agreement with Indian Railways („IR), Respondent No. 4, for supply of long rails. JSPL alleged that SAIL had abused its dominant position in the market and deprived others o...
Pramila Sachdeva Vs. Kuldip Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12th August, 1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.5,12,000/- alongwith interest thereon. 2. The claim petition which resulted in the institution of the present appeal related to the death of one Chetan Sachdeva (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased), who was driving a two wheeler scooter with one Sushil Kumar Puri, sitting on the pillion seat. When the said scooter was on the National Highway near Mayur Vihar Phase-2, it was hit by the offending truck, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.1. The said truck, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3 had come from behind and hit the scooter. Both the driver and the pillion rider succumbed to the injuries sustained by them. The claim petition was filed by the father and the mother of the deceased. The father of the deceased having died on 22.05.1993, his name was deleted...
Dr. V.P. Sharma Vs. Manu Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant Leave to place on record certain additional documents holding the same to have been filed after inordinate delay. 2. The dispute pertains to partition of the property bearing No.C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi which is in the joint possession of the Appellant/Defendant, and the Respondent/Plaintiff and his mother through whom the subject Suit has been filed. 3. One of the Issues struck in the Suit reads as follows:- Whether the defendant purchased the ground floor of property bearing municipal No.C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi with funds made available by Shri Room Ram, father of the Defendant and grandfather of the Plaintiff. If yes, to what effect? OPP 4. The Division Bench of this Court, vide Order dated 18.1.2008, granted liberty to the Respondent/Plaintiff as well as Defendant to adduce evidence in Trial to substantiate his (their?) stand with regard to the ownership of the Grou...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »