Delhi Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cybernetics Network Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Bisquare Technologies Pvt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
1. These three petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the same Award dated 14th March 2005 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator whereby the claim of Cybernetics Network Pvt. Ltd. (‘CNPL’) was allowed and the Respondent Bisquare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (‘Bisquare’) was held liable to pay CNPL Rs.98.77,672/- together with interest @ 9% from 30th March 2002 till the date of the Award and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the Award till the date of payment. CNPL was awarded costs of Rs.5,00,000/-. The counter claims of Bisquare and Mr. Ramendra Singh Baoni (hereinafter Mr. Baoni) were rejected. 2. Aggrieved to the extent that some of its claims have been rejected, CNPL has filed O.M.P. No. 267 of 2005. Against the rejection of the respective counter claims Bisquare has filed O.M.P. No.282 of 2005 and Mr. Baoni has filed O.M.P. No.283 of 2005. Background Facts 3. CNPL is a company incorporated under th...
Rajesh Verma and Another Vs. Uoi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
1. The Petitioners seek quashing of a detention order dated 07.10.2004 issued by the second respondent under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "COFEPOSA Act"). The detention order has not been served on the subject, i.e. the second petitioner (the detenu), till date.2. At the outset, this court notices that the present Petitioners had challenged the detention order impugned in this case in a previous writ petition filed in 2005 (WP (Crl) 566/2005), alleging that it was mala fide, issued without application of mind, and arbitrary, as well as liable to be set aside on various other grounds. This court, through a Division Bench judgment dated 02.01.2007, in WP (Crl.) 566/2005, negatived the challenge to the detention order. The court, importantly, also held that a pre-detention challenge to the order could not have been maintained by the present Petitioner, on an application of the la...
Gopal S. Krishnan Vs. Raju and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Gopal S. Krishnan impugns a judgment dated 28.08.2002 arising out of the Claim Petition No.530/2001 whereby a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) on the ground that the Appellant had failed to establish that the accident was caused on account of rash or negligent driving on the part of the First Respondent of Maruti Van No. DL-2C-F-0883. The said vehicle was owned by the Second Respondent, financed by the Third Respondent and insured by the Fourth Respondent. 2. The manner of accident as stated by the Appellant and the defence of the First and the Second Respondent as stated in paras 2 and 6 of the impugned judgment is extracted hereunder: “2. It is alleged that on the night intervening 26/27-5-1994 at about 12.30 a.m. petitioner was returning back to his residence on his Maruti Car No.DL-3C-D-3363 via National Highway No.24. On reaching the right turn tow...
New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs. Kamla and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/New India Assurance Company impugning a judgment dated 06.07.2010 whereby a compensation of ` 3,66,000/- (including the interim compensation of `50,000/-) was awarded in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 4.2. The ground of challenge is the failure to prove the negligence and the quantum of compensation. During the pendency of the Claim Petition an application under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act (the Act) was moved but that was withdrawn by the Respondents.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 4 that the Claim Petition may be treated under Section 163-A of the Act he may be awarded compensation on the basis of structured formula where the Respondents should not need any obligation to prove negligence.4. The question of conversion a Petition under Section 163-A of the Act into one under Section 166 of the Act came up before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in New India Assurance Co...
K.L. Rohilla Vs. Ved Prakash Kapoor and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
(ORAL) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby his claim petition has been dismissed.2. The accident dated 18th October, 1988 resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant was travelling in bus No.DEP 4949 on 18th October, 1988 at about 02:30 PM when the said bus met with an accident with bus bearing No.DEP 7348 at Church Road, Mall Road Crossing, Delhi. The appellant suffered multiple fractures including Pott’s fracture and fracture of right leg apart from the wounds on the left hand and leg and blunt injuries all over the body. The right ankle of the appellant was also dislocated. The appellant remained hospitalized from 18th October, 1988 to 17th November, 1988 and 2nd December, 1988 to 6th August, 1990. The appellant was operated upon for open reduction and nails were fixed at the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. The appellant filed claim petition against the owners of both the buses. The appellant could get the insurance particular...
Union of India Vs. M/S Conbes India Pvt Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
A.K.SIKRI,ACJ: (ORAL)1. This intra court appeal is preferred by the Union of India challenging the orders dated 5.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 122/2009 preferred by the appellant which was a petition under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the respondent herein for making the award passed by the Arbitrator as a rule of the Court. On receipt of notice of the said petition, the appellant had filed objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, (hereinafter referred to as „the Act, 1940‟). Specific objection was laid to the award in respect of Claims No. 1,2,5,6, and 8 etc. Objection qua Claims No. 1,2,5 and 6 were rejected and qua claim no.8, objections were sustained thereby reducing the amount awarded under this claim to Rs. 1,75,000/-. Insofar as this part of the order of the learned Single Judge is concerned, there is no dispute. In this behalf, though the order of the learned Single Judge sustaining the claims is c...
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another Vs. Neeraj Kuma ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL) 1. The respondent had applied for the post of Teacher (Primary) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The application was pursuant to an advertisement by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB). Clause 8 of the advertisement prescribed the conditions for invalid applications. It was indicated in the advertisement that the application with any of the deficiencies specified in clause (a) to (o) in the said clause 8 would be treated as invalid and would be summarily rejected. In the present case, clause 8(e) is relevant and that reads as under:-“e. Signature in block capital letters in English or in different languages and in different style/mode.”2. The respondent had applied in response to the said advertisement. The respondent belongs to the OBC category. He had submitted his application within time. A Roll Number was also issued to him being 01623760 and he appeared in the examination on 15.02.2009 for selection. The petitioner pre...
State Vs. Mehkoolal and Anthor
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) 1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Ld.Addl. Sessions Judge dated 08.04.2011 in SC No.175/2008 by which the Respondents were acquitted of the charge for having committed offences under Sections 363/366/34 IPC read with Section 376(g) IPC.2. The prosecution alleged that on 05.01.2006, the complainant Ashok Kumar, father of the prosecutrix informed the police that his daughter (prosecutrix) had gone missing. It is further alleged that information was received by the concerned police station the very next day that the girl had been traced in Mainpuri in U.P. The prosecution case is that the complainant visited the police station on 09.01.2006 stating that he had received a telephone call disclosing the girl’s whereabouts somewhere in Mainpuri in U.P. The police proceeded there along with the prosecutrix’s father; she was rescued. Upon her return to Delhi, her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded...
M/S. Rajesh and Co. Vs. M/S. Ravissant Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
MANMOHAN, J. 1. Present winding up petition has been filed under Section 433(e) read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 stating that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debt allegedly amounting to Rs.17,26,952/-. 2. The facts as stated in the present petition are that the petitioner-firm had supplied fabric to the respondent-company on regular basis from 1996 onwards and as per the reconciliation of accounts for the period from 1st April, 1997 to 31st March, 1998, a sum of Rs.17,26,952 was due and payable by the respondentcompany, which the respondent-company had failed to pay, hence this petition. 3. Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn attention of this Court to respondent’s letter dated 26th March, 1998 at page 48 of the paper book wherein the respondent-company had admitted the amount of Rs.17,26,952/- as due and payable by it as on that date. 4. Mr. Mittal further submitted that the case set up by the respondent in reply...
Berjinder Singh Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
A.K. SIKRI, ACJ. 1. In the Writ Petition (C) No.12205 of 2009, arguments were heard on 12.1.2012 and judgment reserved. Before judgment in that case could be delivered, Writ Petition (C) No.3570 of 2011 was also heard finally on 17.2.2012. Issue involved in this writ petition is identical as raised in the first petition. In the first petition, the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as „DERC‟). In the second petition, the petitioner was appointed as Chairperson of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board. There is a provision of fixation of pay contained in the Rules in both the regulatory bodies which inter alia provides that in case the Chairman or a Member appointed to these positions is in receipt of pension, the pay of such person is to be reduced by the gross amount of pension drawn by him. Both the petitioners have challenged the vires of this part of the Rule, as according to them, the normal...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »