Delhi Court February 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.
Devi Charan Vs. Ndmc and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J.(ORAL)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondent No.1/NDMC to relocate his present vending site to another vending site, and for further directions to respondent No.1/NDMC and respondent No.2/Delhi Police, to not disturb the petitioner at his present vending site.2. Counsel for the petitioner states that vide order dated 25.05.2011 passed in W.P.(C) 3216/2011 filed by the petitioner and other vendors in a batch of matters taken up on the same date, the Court had directed the respondent/NDMC not to disturb the petitioner herein and other petitioners from their present hawking sites, till the vending committee completed the exercise of determining the status of their eligibility. It was further directed that if the petitioners were found to be eligible for allotment of a vending site under the Scheme, then the aforesaid interim protection would continue to operate in their favour, till such time that the respondent/NDM...
Shoreline Infrastructure Developers Ltd and Others Vs. State and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
1. By this petition the Petitioners pray for a direction to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the application of the Petitioners dated 28th May, 2011 before proceeding with the trial any further.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners moved an application challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court to try the complaint filed under Section 138, Negotiable Instrucments Act (in short „NI Act‟). The learned Trial Court kept the application pending and ultimately vide order dated 28th May, 2011 held that since the trial is at the fag end, this application will be decided with the main matter at the final stage. Learned counsel contends that the issue of jurisdiction has to be decided in the first instance as and when it is taken. Relying upon Hira Lal Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. State, AIR 1956 Allahabad 619 it is contended that it is open to the accused to raise objections to jurisdiction at any time when he can satisf...
Rahul Sharma Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J.(ORAL)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondents No.1 and 2/University to permit him to continue with his B.Sc. (Nautical Science) course conducted by respondents No.1 and 2/University. The second relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the respondents to send him on sea on-board training and to adjust the fee already paid by him for on-board training. Lastly, he has sought quashing of the order dated 31.03.2008 passed by respondents No.1 and 2/University, where under, the respondents reiterated an earlier decision of cancelling the admission of the petitioner and declined to regularize the same on account of his having submitted fake documents to respondents No.1 and 2/University.2. At the outset, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/University states that the relief sought in the present petition at prayers (i) and (ii) have been rendered infructuous for the reason that respondent No.1/University has discontinu...
Shoreline Infrastructure Developers Ltd and Others Vs. State and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
1. By this petition the Petitioners pray for a direction to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the application of the Petitioners dated 28th May, 2011 before proceeding with the trial any further.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners moved an application challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court to try the complaint filed under Section 138, Negotiable Instrucments Act (in short „NI Act‟). The learned Trial Court kept the application pending and ultimately vide order dated 28th May, 2011 held that since the trial is at the fag end, this application will be decided with the main matter at the final stage. Learned counsel contends that the issue of jurisdiction has to be decided in the first instance as and when it is taken. Relying upon Hira Lal Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. State, AIR 1956 Allahabad 619 it is contended that it is open to the accused to raise objections to jurisdiction at any time when he can satisf...
Premier Tissues India Ltd. Vs. Rolia Tissues Industries and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, a company incorporated in India under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at No.230, II Floor, 15th Cross, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560003 has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the registered trademark ‘PREMIER” and copyright of the plaintiff, passing off, dilution, unfair trade practice and damages.2. By way of this order, I propose to decide the following three applications:a) I.A. No.10846/2011 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the Plaintiff.b) I.A. No.12084/2011 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the Defendants.c) I.A. No.12085/2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the defendants.3. The plaintiff company through its predecessor ‘First Aryco India Ltd.” had ado...
Pramod Kumar Vs. Sunita
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL) CM No. 4933/2010 in MAT.APP. 96/2007 Present is an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed in aforesaid Matrimonial Appeal of non-applicant/husband challenging impugned judgment dated 08.09.2006, by which his divorce petition has been dismissed. The aforesaid application is dated 12.03.2010 and prayer is made for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses during the pendency of the appeal. The Applicant/wife has stated in her application that non-applicant/husband is working in Delhi Police as a ‘Head Constable’ and is getting salary of Rs. 21,000/- p.m. She has stated that he is also having rental income and is also running a milk dairy, etc. which is his joint family business. As per her, the total earnings of husband are Rs. 70,000/- p.m. By way of this application, she is claiming Rs.20,000/- p.m. as maintenance for herself as well as for her minor child who is of 15 years of age and is studying in Class VIII...
Udai Pratap Singh Yadav Vs. Veterinary Council of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral)1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, a resident of Kanpur praying inter alia for directions to respondents No.1/Veterinary Council of India (VCI) and respondent No.2/College situated in Puducherry to grant him admission in the B.V.Sc. and A.H. Course for the academic session 2011-12 .2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner completed his 12th Standard Education from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. On 14.05.2011, he appeared in the Common Entrance Examination (All India Pre-Veterinary Test) conducted by respondent No.1/VCI for admission to Government Veterinary Colleges under the said Council. In July, 2011 the result of the entrance examination was declared. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner, who belongs to the OBC category, had qualified in the entrance test and on 20.08.2011, he received a letter for participating in the counselling which was to be held in the office of respondent No.1/VCI at Delhi...
Sandeep Gambhir and Another Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral)Crl. M.A. 228 of 2012 (exemption)1. Notice issued.2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 101 dated 02.04.2010, case under Section 498A/406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 2 at Police Station - Rani Bagh.4. It is further submitted that thereafter, vide Compromise Deed dated 10.02.2012, respondent no. 2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners and she is no more interested to pursue the case further as she is living with petitioner no. 1 as husband and wife and leading a happy married life.5. Respondent no. 2 is present in person. She has been identified by SI Dilbagh Singh of Police Station - Rani Bagh. Respondent no. 2 has submitted that she has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners and thereafter she has been living with petitioner no. 1 as husband and wife...
M/S. Inca Builders Vs. Housing and Urban Development Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
IA No. 12018 of 2007 (u/Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940) 1. These are objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘Act’) to the Award dated 28th April 1999 of the learned sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes between the Plaintiff/Claimant M/s. INCA Builders and the Respondent, Housing and Urban Development Corporation (‘HUDCO’), arising out of the contract dated June 1982 for construction of 875 General Pool Residential Quarters at Mehrauli Badarpur Road (Sector VII), Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, Site No. 1 at New Delhi. Background Facts 2. Initially the above work was awarded by HUDCO to M/s. R.S. Builders. After the said firm abandoned the work, HUDCO invited fresh tenders for the balance work. According to the Plaintiff, the reasons for M/s. R.S. Builders abandoning the work were not disclosed by HUDCO. While inviting the tenders, HUDCO divided the entire work in seven groups, each consisting of 25 blocks, and each block of...
Jai Pal and Others Vs. Randhir Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
ORDER :1. The impugned order of 23rd February, 2011 of Financial Commissioner, Delhi refusing to condone extra-ordinary delay of fifty one years in filing of an appeal under Section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 against mutation order of 23rd February, 1958 passed by the concerned Tehsildar, is assailed in this petition.2. The challenge to the aforesaid impugned order by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the void orders can be challenged anytime therefore the bar of limitation cannot be raised against the petitioners. According to the petitioners’ counsel, the concerned Collector vide order of 15th July, 2009 (Annexure P-9) had rightly cancelled the aforesaid mutation order of 22nd February, 1958, as the Respondents herein were not the legal heirs of Late Shri Ramji Lal in terms of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Shakuntala ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »