Delhi Court March 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.
Vale Australia Pvt. Limited and Others Vs. Steel Authority of India Li ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
Introduction 1. These are three petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) arising out of the proceedings in which a final Award dated 10th March 2011 was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) constituted under the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC International Court of Arbitration. 2. OMP No.414 of 2011 is by Vale Australia Pty Ltd. (‘Vale’) formerly known as CVRD Australia Pty Ltd. and OMP No.415 of 2011 is by AMCI Pty Ltd. (‘AMCI’). Both petitions challenge the final Award dated 10th March 2011 whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim of Respondent No.1 - Steel Authority of India Ltd. (‘SAIL’) for damages and held that Vale and AMCI were liable to pay SAIL damages equivalent to US Dollar (‘USD’) 152,270,789.10, simple interest on the said sum at the rate of 2.335364% per annum pendente lite from 2nd April 2009 till the date of the Award aggregating to USD 6,897,815.48, 8...
Daya Ram Vs. Commissioner, Mcd and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondents/MCD to hand over possession of plot No.A-141 at Ghogha Dairy Colony, allotted to him to carry on his Dairy business by demanding the cost of the plot @ ` 2,500 per sq. meter. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the impugned letter dated 14.12.2010 issued by the respondents/MCD wherein, he was informed that as his dairy was being run on a Govt. land/ encroachment land, the plots for the said purpose will be allotted @ `7,000/- per sq.mtr. 2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are that, the petitioner has been residing at the address, SE-64-65A, Singhalpur village, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi much prior to the year 1998. In or around the year 2004, the respondent/MCD had invited applications for rehabilitation of dairy owners running unauthorized dairies in the Delhi Urban areas so as to allot them plots at Ghogha Dairy Colony for running ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others Vs. D.P. Ray
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, whereby the charge memo dated 26.11.2009 issued to the respondent was quashed. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid OA are as under:- By a Transfer order dated 12.01.2009, the respondent was transferred from Hindu Rao Hospital to Chest Clinic, Jhandewalan. The order relieving the respondent from Hindu Rao Hospital was also passed on 13.01.2009. The Transfer Order was challenged by the respondent in OA No. 389/2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.02.2009 with a direction to the petitioner to dispose of the representation of the respondent and further directing maintenance of status quo till one week after the decision of the representation. The respondent sent a ‘joining’ letter dated 18.02.2009 to the Medical Superintendent of Hindu Rao Hospital, but, did not join at Chest Clinic, Jhandewalan. Th...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sh. Jagbir Singh Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
JUDGMENT 1. In this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’), the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) challenges an Award dated 3rd May 2006 of the learned Sole Arbitrator in the disputes between it and the Respondent in respect of the award of work of widening and improvement of road from Outer Ring Road to APJ School, Malviya Nagar by an agreement dated 4th January 2002. 2. The start date of the work was 6th January 2002. The work was completed on 24th December 2002 even before the stipulated date of completion of 5th January 2003. The Respondent states that after completing the work of the value of Rs.21.5 lakhs on 29th October 2002 he submitted his first Running Account (‘RA’) Bill for a sum of Rs.21,36,500.40. The bill was passed for a sum 41.41% below the billed amount i.e. for a sum of Rs.12,51,775,61. Thereafter a net amount of Rs.10,61,761, after deducting income tax, surcharge and sales tax, was pai...
Teesta Chattoraj Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by Ms. Teesta Chattoraj, a minor through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Rajeshwari Chattoraj. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 04.04.2011 (Ref. No.RPO/PG/133/11) issued by the respondent, i.e. the Regional Passport Officer (RPO), New Delhi, whereby the petitioners request for issuance of a passport has been declined. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent RPO to issue a passport in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the information supplied by the petitioner in her passport application form. 2. The petitioner was born on 15.11.1995 at Kolkata. Her natural parents are Sh. Abhijit Ghosh and Smt. Rajeshwari Ghosh, who is now known as Rajehswari Chattoraj. When the petitioner was only about two years old, the natural parents of the petitioner obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent. So...
Sanjay Mittal and ors Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CRL. M.A. 3945/2012 and 3947/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.A. 3946/2012 (Delay) Delay condoned, application disposed of. CRL. M.C. 1122/2012 1. Notice issued. 2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State accepts notice. 3. Respond...
Harvinder Singh and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) + Crl. M.C. 1143/2012 1. Notice issued. 2. Ld.APP accepts notice on behalf of the State / R1. 3. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings relating to the case FIR no. 204 dated 31.07.2008 registered at PS-Vikas Puri, under Section 498/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners and emanating proceedings thereto. 4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 2. Thereafter, 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. 5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that Petitioner no. 1 agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to respondent no. 2 and an FDR of which is lying on the judicial file of trial court. Therefore, instant petition may be allowed. 6. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the Court. ASI Dharamvir Singh,...
Esic and Another Vs. Sumi Samadder
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.01.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby OA No. 3496/2011 filed by the respondent was allowed. The facts giving rise of the filing of the petition can be summarized as under: Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the petitioner inviting applications for filling up the vacancies in Employees State Insurance (ESI) Hospital, Gurgaon and ESI Hospital Adityapur (Jharkhand), the respondent who had applied for appointment to the post of ECG (Technician) was appointed as ECG (Technician) in the ESI Model Hospital Gurgaon. The offer of appointment stipulated that the respondent would be posted in any of the hospitals/units in NCR/Delhi. Pursuant to a request made by the respondent and some others for transfer on mutual basis, two employees including the respondent posted in Gurgaon were transferred from Gurgaon to Delhi whereas two e...
Dr. Amrit Srinivasan Vs. Ashok Srinivasan and Orthers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application filed by the defendant No.1, under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of his written statement. 2. The plaintiff filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and for possession against defendant No.1 only, seeking prayer to declare the plaintiff to be the co-owner of Flat No.A-701, Manas Vihar Apartment, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091, with consequential relief of joint possession. The permanent injunction was also sought by the plaintiff for restraining the defendant from, in any manner, alienating, encumbering, transferring and/or creating third party interest in the above said flat and also in land measuring 1000 Sq. Yards bearing Khasra No.31/98th share in Khasra Nos.1631/2 Min (1-6), 1629/1 Min (1-5), 1633/1 Min (0-5), 1632 Min (0-7), 1629/2 Min (0-8) and 1633/2 Min (0-2) situated in Vill. Aya Nagar, Tehsil Hauz Khas Mehrauli, New Delhi. 3. The ...
Shri Krishan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 21.09.2010 and 16.11.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby OA No. 2341/2009 and RA No. 295/2010 in OA No. 2341/2009 respectively were dismissed. The petitioners are working as Cooks and Helpers in the Signaling and Telecommunication Training Centre, Ghaziabad. The Mess is managed by a Managing Committee chaired by the principal of the Centre and the emoluments to the petitioners are paid by the Secretary of the Managing Committee. Claiming to be railway employees, the petitioners filed OA No. 2341/2009, seeking regularization of their service in conformity with the provisions applicable to the employees of the non-statutory canteens of the Railways. The OA was contested on the ground that Signaling and Telecommunication Training Centre, where the applicants were working, was a Private Establishment to serve food to Trainee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »