Delhi Court November 2012 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.
Prakash Jha Productions Vs. Bata India Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 07, 2012 + FAO(OS) 505/2012 PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTIONS ..... Appellant Represented by : Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms. Aparajita Singh, Advocate. versus BATA INDIA LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. P.R. Sikka, Mr. Amet Sikka, Advocates for R-1. Mr.Anshu Bhanot, Advocate for R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. On October 17, 2012 while admitting the appeal and listing it for hearing for today, disposing of CM No.18117/2012, granting a stay of the operation of the impugned order dated October 15, 2012, we had written as under:1. The instant appeal challenges order dated October 15, 2012 disposing of IA No.18245/2012 filed by the respondent No.1 who was the plaintiff.2. With respect to the cinematographic film titled Chakravyuh; and relatable to a song sung in the movie being Mehengai, the learned Single ...
United Manufacturing Company (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. and O Vs. ----------
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:07.11.2012 COMPANY APPLICATION NO. (M) 173 OF 201.UNITED MANUFACTURING COMPANY (DELHI) PVT LTD APPLICANT/TRANSFEROR COMPANY No. 1 NRV INFRASTRUCTURE LTD APPLICANT/TRANSFEROR COMPANY No. 2 LOTUS RECREATION AND MOTELS PVT LTD APPLICANT/TRANSFEROR COMPANY No. 3 AND KAIZEN LIFESTYLE PRODUCTS PVT LTD APPLICANT/TRANSFEREE COMPANY Through: Mr Rajeev K Goel Advocate for the Applicants CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This is a first motion joint Application under sections 391 & 394; 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956, in connection with the Scheme of Arrangement for (a) Amalgamation of United Manufacturing Company (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd, NRV Infrastructure Ltd and Lotus Recreation and Motels Pvt Ltd with Kaizen Lifestyle Products Pvt Ltd; and (b) Reduction of post merger capital of the Transferee CompanyKaizen Lifestyle Products Pvt Ltd. A copy of the proposed Scheme of Arrangement is filed alon...
Rakesh Gupta Vs. Khoday India Ltd and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:7. h November, 2012 % + CS(OS) 2150/2010, IA No.14166/2010 (u/O 3.R 5), IA No.6878/2011 (u/O 3.R 2(3). RAKESH GUPTA Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Jayant Nath, Sr. Adv. with Mr. L.M., Asthana, Adv. versus KHODAY INDIA LTD & ANR Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Ankur Sood & Mr. Aman Avinav, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J IA No.8495/2012 (of the defendants for leave to defend).1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for recovery of Rs.1,80,81,800/- with future and pendente lite interest @ 24% per annum from the defendants. Summons for appearance and thereafter summons for judgment were issued to the defendants. An affidavit of one Mr. K.L. Swami working as Director of the defendant no.1 Company seeking leave to defend on behalf of both the defendants, has been filed. Though there is no application for leave to defend but vide ord...
Veda Research Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Survi Projects
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI F-119 (Not reportable) + O.M.P. 10 of 2007 VEDA RESEARCH LABORATORIES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Banati with Mr. Arpit Bhargava, Advocates. versus SURVI PROJECTS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. George Thomas with Ms. Joji Sunil and Mr. Abin Mathew, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR % ORDER 07 11.2012 1. The challenge by the Petitioner, Veda Research Laboratories Limited (VRLL), in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) is to an impugned Award dated 28th September 206 passed by the learned arbitral Tribunal (Tribunal) in the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent, M/s. Survi Projects, arising out of an agreement dated 31st January 1998 entered into between the parties for construction of factory building of VRLL at Noida.2. The work was to commence on 1st February 1998 and was to be completed by 30th August 1998 for the value of Rs. 1,25,56,948 after adjusting a rebate of ...
Abhineet Pesticides Private Limited and ors. Vs. ----------------
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:07.11.2012 COMPANY PETITION NO. 250 OF 201.ABHINEET PESTICIDES PRIVATE LIMITED . Transferor Company No.1 AND CRAFTSILVER JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED .. Transferor Company No.2 AND FERN HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED .. Transferee Company Through Mr. Mukesh Sukhija, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr.K.S.Pradhan, Dy.ROC for the Regional Director. Mr.Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for the Official Liquidator. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1. This joint Petition has been filed under sections 391(2) & 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Petitioner Transferor Companies and Transferee Company seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation of M/s ABHINEET PESTICIDES PRIVATE LIMITED (Transferor Company No. 1); CRAFTSILVER JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED (Transferor Company No. 2); with FERN HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED (Transferee Company).2. The registered offices of the Petitioner Transferor Companies and Transferee Company...
Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Hb Leasing and Finances Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the above captioned appeal are that on May 29, 1992 the respondent company filed a suit for possession and recovery of a sum of Rs.23,04,199/- against the appellant company on the original side of this Court. 2. It was pleaded that the respondent company is engaged in the business of leasing machines and providing other financial services. On May 23, 1984 Mohta Industries Ltd. wrote a letter to the respondent company stating therein that the respondent company should purchase 1 Hydraulic Bricketting Press (hereinafter referred to as the “Equipment”) costing about Rs.12,00,000/- from M/s.Punjab Machinery Manufacturing Corporation and thereafter let out said equipment to it i.e. Mohta Industries Ltd. On May 29, 1984 the respondent company purchased the equipment from M/s.Punjab Machinery Manufacturing Corporation for a sum of Rs.13,20,000/-. After several discussions, on May 31, 1984 the parties entered i...
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Master Daiyan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
$~ 34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:6. h November, 2012 + CM(M). 1201/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Pradeep Gaur, Advocate versus MASTER DAIYAN & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT C.M. APPL No.18838/2012(Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. MAC APP. No.1201/2012 & CM. APPL No.18837/2012(Stay) 1. A Claim Petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) was preferred by the First Respondent claiming compensation from Respondents No.2 and 3.2. The Appellant was impleaded as an Insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. As per the averments, the Appellant Insurance Company filed its written statement on 25.09.2012 and the case was adjourned to 26.10.2012 for filing of written statements by Respondents No.2 and 3.3. On 26.10.2012, it was stated by the learned counsel for the ...
Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: % + 02.02.2012 Judgment delivered on:06. 11.2012 W.P.(C.) No.9033/2008 and C.M. No. 17353/2008 LLOYDS STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Mr.Nirnimesh Dube and Ms. Jyoti Gupta, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. S. K. Dubey, Mr. Vivek Pipersenia and Mr. Vibhor Gupta, Advocates for the respondent/UOI. Mr. T.K. Ganju, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Advocate for the respondent No.5. Mr. C.V. Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Surekha Raman and Mr. Varun Singh, Advocates for respondent nos. 7 and 9. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devashish Mishra and Mr.Atul Pandey, Advocates for respondent no.8. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner impugns the recommendation of the Screening committee appointed by the Respondent No.1/Union of India throu...
Hdfc-ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sharda Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:6. h November, 2012 + MAC. APP. 463/2012 HDFC-ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ... Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Kapoor, Adv. versus SHARDA DEVI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R-1 & R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `7,15,112/- granted in favour of Respondents No.1 and 2 for the death of Sanjay, a bachelor, aged 22 years who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 17.08.2010.2. The finding on negligence has not been challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company. Thus, the same has attained finality.3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was working as a helper and was earning `8,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence with regard to deceased Sanjays income the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker as fixed by the Govt. of NCT ...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Abdul Rashid and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:6. h November, 2012 + MAC. APP. 422/2005 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. versus ABDUL RASHID & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant United India Insurance Company Limited takes exception to the judgment dated 23.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Claim Petition under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) preferred by the Respondents No.1 and 2 was suo moto converted under Section 163-A of the Act and compensation was awarded as per the Second Schedule.2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that if the Claims Tribunal opined that the negligence which is sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Act was not proved, the Claims Tribunal could not have suo moto converted the Petition from the one un...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »