Delhi Court March 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.
Varuna Overseas P. Ltd. and Others Vs. Al-mustaneer Establishment and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. We would be constrained to pen a slightly lengthy judgment for the reason the impugned judgment dated February 13, 1998, spanning 136 pages is wandering in the woods and the exit route is not clearly discernible. 2. We begin by noting that the plaintiff, „M/s.Al Mustaneer Establishment for Trade‟, a company registered in Saudi Arabia, filed a suit in which 19 defendants were impleaded; being, „Varuna Overseas Pvt. Ltd.‟(formerly known as Dhar General Overseas Pvt. Ltd.) as defendant No.1; Ms.Suman Bansi Dhar, Mr.Ajay Shridhar Shriram, Mr.B.P.Khandelwal and Mr.Prem Prakash, impleaded as defendants No.2 to 4 and 19 respectively, statedly the Directors of defendant No.1; Sh.Ravi Shankar Upadhaya, the Export Executive of defendant No.1, impleaded as defendant No.5; M/s.Kupal Material and Metals Pvt. Ltd., impleaded as defendant No.6 and Sh.Kuldeep Singh Sahni, Sh.Tejinder Singh Sahni, Sh.Kirti H.Shah, Ms.Surender Kaur, Ms.Ravinder Kaur, Ms.D...
Urmil Joshi and Others Vs. Smt. Raj Batra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Indermeet Kaur, J. Oral: 1. Order impugned is the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2011; the eviction petition filed by the landlady Smt. Raj Batra seeking eviction of her tenant Urmil Joshi from the suit premises i.e. first floor of the property bearing No.A-54, Lajpat Nagar -IV, New Delhi as depicted in red colour in the site plan (filed in the Trial Court). The application seeking leave to defend had been dismissed. 2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement. Contention is that the petitioner is the landlady; she has inherited this property from her father Ladha Ram Batra after his death; she is the sole owner of the suit property. Premises had been rented out to the tenant by her father at a monthly rental of ` 200/-; the family of the petitioner comprised of herself and her one married daughter. Petitioner is a resident of London; her daughter is also a resident of Manchester, U.K.. The family of her...
Sunny Jaglan Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Suresh Kait, J. Oral: 1. Vide instant the petition, the petitioner has sought to set aside the order dated 12.08.2011 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge - IV, SE, Saket Courts, New Delhi admitting the respondent No.2 on regular bail in case FIR No.346/2010 under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at police station Hauz Khas, New Delhi on the complaint of petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially respondent No.2 moved an anticipatory bail application which was rejected even upto the Apex Court. Thereafter, on 09.08.2011, respondent No.2 surrendered before the Court and sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved an application for bail which was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge by impugned order just after four days of his judicial custody. 3. Facts in brief of the case are that when the petitioner reached Pancsheel, Chirag Delhi Flyover, then one red colour Maruti Swift car driven by respondent No.2 ...
Parvesh Chand Vs. Santosh Kumari and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Indermeet Kaur, J. 1. Petitioner is the tenant before this court. He is aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.01.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) vide which the eviction petition filed by the landlady, Santosh Kumari and Another seeking eviction of her tenant from the disputed premises i.e. premises bearing No. G-99, New Seelam Pur, Shahdara, Delhi had been decreed in favour of the landlady. Vide the same order, two eviction petitions filed by the respondent No. 2 (Krishan Kumar), at his request, had also been permitted to be withdrawn by him. 2. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); contention was that the petitioner is the landlord/owner of the premises; the premises had been let out to respondent No. 1 vide an oral agreement sometime in the year 1985 for a residential purpose at the rent of Rs.300/- per month which was exclusive of electricity charge. Contention of the petiti...
Bhagwan Dass and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Suresh Kait, J. Oral: Crl.M.A.No.2724/2012(exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. No.774/2012 1. Issue notice. 2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. 3. Mr.K.K. Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 4. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR No. 344/2005 dated 01.09.2005 under Sections 308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, New Delhi against the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No.2 as well as the petitioners are known to each other since long and on some petty issue some altercation took place between them due to which respondent No.2 received injuries. In the MLC of respondent No.2, the doctor has opined the injury to be „simple in nature caused with blunt weapon‟. 6. It is further submitted th...
Vijay Kumar Kapoor Vs. Anita Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
EA Nos. 668-669 of 2011and E.A. No. 5 of 2012 1. EA No. 668 of 2011 is an application by M/s. Yusuf Engineering Company Private Limited (‘YECPL’) under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for setting aside the sale/auction of the property bearing No. A-24, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi - 110020, arising out of the order dated 30th September 2011 passed by this Court. EA No. 669 of 2011 is by YECPL seeking stay of further proceedings in respect of the said auction. EA No.5 of 2012 under Order XXI Rules 94, 95 and 96 CPC has been filed by is by Mr. Manish Katyal, auction purchaser, seeking confirmation of the sale, for issuance a sale certificate and for handed over the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the property in question by the Court Commissioner. 2. The background to these applications is that Execution Petition No. 135 of 2010 has been filed by the Decree Holder (‘DH’), Mr. Vijay Kumar Kapoor, fo...
M/S Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. Mcd and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
1. A public notice was issued on 13.06.2009 by R-1/MCD, inviting tenders from the reputed/specialized watch and ward agencies/contractors having capacity to provide required number of uniformed trained manpower for security services for the hospitals to protect its assets and to regulate public in OPD/Indoor etc. The petitioner claims that this was in breach of the Circular dated 09.05.2006 stipulating that all the tenders after 30.09.2006 would be processed only through the e-tendering process. 2. The tender floated had two stages - the technical bid and the price bid. It is only on qualifying the technical bid, was the price bid liable to be opened. The technical bids were opened on 15.07.2009 and four bidders qualified including the petitioner and R-3 (M/s Prehari Protection System Private Limited). The price bids were opened on 10.08.2009 and evaluated by the Price Evaluation Committee. On 24.08.2009, the MCD asked the technically qualified bidders to provide the complete bif...
AshwIn Kumar Gandhi and Another Vs. Sanjay Mishra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. Oral: 1. The instant appeal lays a challenge to the order dated May 02, 2006 disposing of IA No.11698/2002 filed by the appellants under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Leave to defend was granted to the appellants to defend the suit with respect to the rate at which interest could be claimed on the sum of Rs.29,22,000/- which was decreed along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date when the suit was filed till realization. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, the suit was disposed of directing that on the earnest money paid i.e. Rs.3,21,000/- the respondent would be entitled to interest @9% per annum from December 9, 2000 till the suit was filed on August 9, 2002. 3. Lest it may sound jarring, as to how come the summary suit was decreed in sum of Rs.29,22,000/- and interest awarded @9% per annum from December 9, 2000 till the suit was filed on August 9, 2002 and yet leave to defend was granted on the issue of interest, we would be constrai...
P.K. Udgata and Others Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary and An ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. By this common order, we propose to dispose the OAs No. 1563/2011, 1564/2011, 1565/2011 and OA 2116/2011, as they involve identical issues of facts and law. The applicants are represented by the learned counsels Shri Mahavir Singh, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh and Satpal Singh, and the respondents by Shri R.N. Singh. As the lead case, the OA 1563/2011 is being taken; the references in the Order pertain to this OA, unless otherwise specified. Most of the applicants in these OAs have been promoted as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Gr-I on regular basis w.e.f. 21.5.2009. The ad hoc promotions on this post had taken place earlier at different points of time during the years 2006-2008. The applicants are aggrieved at their non-promotion on regular basis right at the time when the ad hoc promotions were made, as the regular vacancies were available and applicants were eligible for the regular promotion. Challenging delay on the part of the responde...
Surender Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. Aggrieved by the grant of financial up-gradation in the order dated 15.09.2010 of the respondent authority whereby the applicant has been given higher grade pay of Rs. 2800/- w.e.f. 22.07.2010, the present application has been made with a prayer to set aside this order and to grant the grade pay of Rs.4600/- to him under the ACP/MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and also interest on the delayed payment. The O.A. was dismissed on 11.07.2011 on the ground that the applicant did not fulfill the conditions for grant of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme and that he was declared unfit by the Screening Committee for grant of ACP benefits on completion of required number of years of service as Head Constable. 2. The applicant has challenged this order before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6315/2011, in which on 30.08.2011 the Hon’ble Court permitted the applicant to file an application for review of this order and r...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »