Delhi Court April 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.
Gail (India) Ltd. Vs. Surya Roshini Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. This is an appellate challenge to the award dated April 19, 2007 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator insofar claim in sum of `61,72,728/- on account of the stated price difference between the costs of the pipe line actually laid and what was required to be laid has been declined. 2. The appellant, Gas Authority of India Ltd.(GAIL) had an agreement with National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) to supply natural gas at its power plant in village Mujheri, district Faridabad, Haryana, and for which, from the main pipeline already laid by GAIL from Bijapur to Dadri, a tap had to be provided at the said main line by GAIL at village Chainsa wherefrom the respondent/contractor, Surya Roshni Ltd. Had to lay down a 14 KM spur pipe-line of 14 inch diameter connecting the point of tap with the plant of NTPC in village Mujheri. This was as per a contract entered into between GAIL and Surya Roshni Ltd. The tender documents, gave in detail the chemical composition of the s...
Punjab National Bank Vs. M/S Bijlee Construction
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
JUDGMENT 11.04.2012 1. The Punjab National Bank (‘PNB’), by this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (‘Act’), challenges an Award dated 28th November 2005 passed by the sole Arbitration in the disputes between PNB and the Respondent M/s Bijlee Construction arising out of the award of the electrical work for the construction of RTC Building at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) by PNB in favour of the Respondent by a letter dated 10th February 1997. 2. Pursuant to the award of the above work, a formal contract was entered into between the parties on 3rd March 1997. The sole Arbitrator, to whom the disputes were referred for arbitration, passed the impugned Award dated 28th November 2005 allowing the Respondent’s Claim Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and partly allowing Claim No.17 relating to interest. The learned Arbitrator granted the Respondent simple interest at 12% per annum on the amounts awarded under Claim Nos.1, 5 and 8 from 1st Janua...
Lovely Shoes Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) C.M. APPL. 5838/2012 (for exemption) For the reasons mentioned in the application, C.M. Appl. 5838/2012 is allowed. LPA 248/2012, C.M. APPL. 5837/2012 (for stay) 1. The Appeal impugns the judgment and order of the learned Single LPA 248/2012, C.M. Appl. 5837/2012 and 5838/2012 Page 2 Judge, dated 7.2.2012, disposing of W.P. (C)-4474/2007. That proceeding was preferred by the respondent - Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC), who was aggrieved by a judgment of the learned Appellant Authority i.e. Additional District Judge, dated 14.05.2007, which allowed the appellant’s appeal against an order of eviction. 2. The facts necessary for the purpose of this judgment are that the appellant M/s Lovely Shoes was a licensee in the Ashoka Hotel owned by ITDC w.e.f. 1996. The first period of license ended in 2001 and was not renewed. Apparently, the parties were in negotiations on account of high rates of license fee claimed by the ITDC. Thereafter, the...
L.N. Chaturvedi Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. The instant petition being filed under Section 397 Cr. P.C., while challenging the impugned order dated 05.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the Criminal Appeal No.108/2010 preferred by petitioner was dismissed. 2. Further, the impugned judgment dated 29.06.02010 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and order on sentence dated 26.07.2010 has also been challenged. 3. The facts in brief are that towards the partial discharge of liability, the petitioner issued the cheque bearing No.173787 dated 31.08.2008 drawn on Canara Bank, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The said cheque, on presentation was dishonoured on 08.09.2008 by the banker of the petitioner on account of „Insufficient Funds‟. The petitioner kept on avoiding the payment of the cheque and ultimately, resulted into issuance of legal demand notice which w...
Naib Subedar R.M. Bandyopadhyay Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of CO 2 Assam Riffles‟award of punishment of severe reprimand dated 26th April, 2008 and another punishment of severe reprimand dated 21st August, 2008, also by CO 2 Assam Riffles. 2. Relevant facts to comprehend the disputes raised by the petitioner are that he was enrolled in the Army on 19th December, 1984 as a Graduate direct recruit Havaldar Instructor in Education Corps, AEC Education Instructors. He was deputed to various training institutes and units to impart education instructions to ORs in the Army and given them an opportunity to improve their educational qualifications. 3. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Naib/Subedar on 1st February, 2008. According to the petitioner, under the medical regulations, he and his wife are entitled to free medical treatment in the military hospitals. In the year 1999, it was diagnosed that the petitioner and his wife are suffering from infertility, and are, therefore, req...
Sanjay Aggarwal Vs. G.S. Tayal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J 1. This petition is filed under section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of criminal complaint No. 80/1 of 2005 under section 406/420 IPC and also summoning order dated 18th April 2009 of the ACMM, Rohini District Courts, Delhi. 2. Facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this petition are these: 3. Four complaints under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’) read with section 415 and 420 IPC were filed by G.S. Tayal, his wife Munni Tayal and his sons Kapil Kumar Tayal and Devendra Kumar Tayal against the petitioners Sanjay Aggarwal, his brother Ajay Aggarwal and their firm M/s Sanjay Steel Tube Company. These complaints were filed in the year 2005. The summoning orders were passed against the aforesaid accused persons under section 138 of the Act. The complainants filed applications for dropping allegations of sections 415 and 420 IPC stating that they have filed separate complaints against the accused persons under section 420 IPC. Vid...
Rajendra Shanker and Another Vs. Davendra Shanker and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) CM No.6328/2012 (exemption) and CM No.6329/2012 (delay) in RFA(OS) No.34/2012; CM No.6368/2012 (exemption) and CM No.6369/2012 (delay) in FAO(OS) No.147/2012; and CM No.6374/2012 (exemption) and CM No.6375/2012 (delay) in FAO(OS) No.148/2012 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. RFA(OS) Nos.15/2012 and RFA(OS) No.34/2012; and FAO(OS) Nos.64/2012, 65/2012, 147/2012 and 148/2012 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 1. Late Shri Damodar Das Mathur who died on February 07, 1995 and late Dr.R.D.Mathur who died on October 28, 1995 were real brothers. Whereas Dr.R.D.Mathur died issueless, Shri Damodar Das Mathur was blessed with two sons named Rajendra Shanker and Davendra Shanker. 2. With respect to property bearing Municipal No.104, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003, registered owner whereof was late Shri Damodar Das Mathur, a will was set up by Devendra Shanker, stated to have been executed by Damodar Das Mathur on April 12, 1994. He set up another will stated to have ...
Mohd Suleman and Others Vs. Delhi Agriculture Marketing Board and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 17th February, 2011 of the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No.757/2011 preferred by the three appellants. The said writ petition was preferred seeking a direction to the respondents Delhi Agriculture Marketing Board (DAMB) and Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) to allot alternative shops to the appellants in the Subzi Mandi, Okhla or Gazipur in lieu of their shops in Phool Mandi, Darya Ganj. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellants had earlier also filed WP(C) No.9894/2009 for the same relief and which was withdrawn by them on 21st December, 2009 after apologizing for wrong and incorrect averments made in that writ petition. Though it was the contention of the appellants that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn for technical grounds, the learned Single Judge has in the impugned order observed that the appellants having withdrawn the earlier writ petition, even if on technical ...
Vijay Bajaj Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide the instant petition; the petitioner has sought to quash the FIR No.33/2009, registered at police station Bharat Nagar, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 against him, also sought to quash the consequential proceedings pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi. 2. The petitioner herein is the brother-in-law of respondent No.2, and is resident of Lucknow, (UP). On 31.05.2008, petitioner alongwith other family members visited the house of the respondent No.2 for marriage discussions of the petitioner’s brother namely Pramod Kumar Bajaj @ Parmod Bajaj @ P. K. Bajaj - pursuant to the matrimonial advertisement published on 27.04.2008 wherein the brother of the petitioner did furnish his matrimonial status as ‘widowed’. Therefore, on 28.12.2008, the brother of the petitioner got married to respondent No.2 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. 3. After the marriage, respondent No....
Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava and Others Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. These three bail applications under Section 439 Cr.PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC have been preferred by petitioners Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava, Lallan Ojha and Hemant Gandhi for grant of bail in respect of criminal case registered against them under Sections 7,8,10, 12,13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B IPC in case number RC-AC 120/2A. All these bail applications are being disposed of by this common order as they are interconnected and the stand of CBI in all these applications is common. 2. Briefly stating the facts are that Hemant Gandhi was acting as a middleman for accused Dr. A.K. Srivastava and Lallan Ojha, who were respectively posted as Commissioner and Superintendent of Central Excise at the relevant time. The allegations are that they were involved in obtaining illegal gratification by corrupt and illegal means from the businessmen. Further the allegations are that they had conspired to conduct an unauthor...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »