Delhi Court April 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.
Dr. Kavita Chaudhri Vs. Ms. Eveneet Singh and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J: 1. By this execution petition filed under Order XXI, the decree holder seeks execution of the orders dated 20.12.2010 and 29.4.2011 passed by this Court in CS(OS) No. 505/2010 and CS(OS) No.1307/2010 by issuance of warrants of possession in respect of one room in possession of judgment debtor as shown in red colour in the site plan forming part of the property bearing No. D-32, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi. 2. Before dealing with the merits of the present petition and the opposition thereto by the judgment debtor No.1, it is necessary to give a brief background which led to the passing of the said two orders. A civil suit i.e. CS(OS) No. 505/2010 was filed by Dr. Kavita Chaudhri to seek a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against her son, the defendant no.2 herein and defendant No.1, her daughter-inlaw directing them to vacate the premises under their occupation forming part of property bearing No. D-32, South Extension Part II, New Delhi and restra...
Debjyoti Gupta Vs. Indiabulls Securities Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) is directed against the Award dated 25th January 2006 passed by the learned Arbitrator (‘Respondent No.2’) holding that the claims of the Petitioner in respect of Rs.10,000 and Rs.1 lakh deposited in client’s account were barred by limitation as they were raised after the period of six months prescribed by the bye-laws of the National Stock Exchange (‘NSE’). It was further held that the Arbitral Tribunal set up under the bye-laws of the NSE lacked jurisdiction to deal with the claim of the Petitioner with regard to non-compliance of instructions given by him on 17th June 2005 for transfer of 4114 shares as it was an off-market transaction. 2. Respondent No.1, Indiabulls Securities Limited (‘ISL’) appointed the Petitioner as Remisier on 1st February 2002. A client account with ID No.10839 was opened by the Petitioner on 7th March 2002 with ...
M/S. A.R. Khanna and Sons Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
IA No. 12089 of 2010 1. These are the objections by the Delhi Development Authority (`DDA’) under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (`Act’) against an Award dated 19th June 2009 of the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between DDA and M/s A.R. Khanna and Sons arising out of the award of work of construction of 144 M.I.G. dwelling units at Ashok Vihar Phase-I, S Block by the DDA in favour of the Plaintiff. The learned Arbitrator by the impugned Award awarded an aggregate sum of Rs. 12,13,484 in favour of the Plaintiff together with pre-suit interest @ 14% per annum, pendente lite interest at 12% per annum and future interest at 10% per annum. 2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Vivekanand, learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Ms. Geeta Mehrotra, learned counsel for DDA. 3. DDA invited tenders for the work in 1982. The revised offer of the Plaintiff was accepted by the DDA and the work was awarded on 20th April 1982. The date of commencement of the work...
Samarjit Singh Chattha Vs. Fashion Flare and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral) CM No.7435/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. FAO (OS) No.177/2012 1. A suit was laid by respondent No.1 as original plaintiff against respondents 2 and 3 as original defendants for specific performance of a Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 24.12.2009 for sale of immovable property bearing flat No.84-D, Entire 1st floor, Malcha Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi for an apparent consideration of `12.51 crore. It is the say of the original plaintiff that a sum of `1.21 crore was paid to the original defendants but the amount is disputed by the original defendants who claimed only `1,08,50,000.00 was received. It is, however, not disputed that as per the said Receipt-cum-Agreement the balance payment was to be made on or before 27.7.2010. 2. The original defendants prior to this crucial date claim to have entered into an agreement to sell with the appellant on 7.1.2010 which culminated into a sale deed executed on 28.4.2010. The controversy in the ap...
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Vs. Cairn En ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
ORDER 1. The Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (‘MOPNG’) has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging an Award dated 18th January 2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in terms of Para 34.3 of the Production Sharing Contract (‘PSC’) entered into between the Petitioner, The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (‘ONGC’) the Respondent No.3, Videocon Industries Limited (‘VIL’), Command Petroleum (India) Pty. Ltd. [which was subsequently substituted by Cairn Energy India Pty. Limited (Respondent No.1 herein)] and Ravva Oil (Singapore) Pte. Limited (Respondent No.2 herein). 2. In terms of the said PSC executed on 28th October 1994, the Consortium of the aforementioned companies was granted an exploration licence and mining lease to explore and produce the hydrocarbon resources owned by the Petitioner. The relevant clauses of t...
Dilip Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (herein after referred to as „the Tribunal‟), whereby OA No.2203/11, filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition can be summarized as under:- The petitioner holds a Bachelor‟s Degree Course in Mental Retardation from Osmania University. He also holds a certificate in the Rehabilitation Education Programme and is registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India. He claims to be well experienced in the field of rehabilitation of the disabled. He has been running a project for the disabled persons and is a director in Mother Home (Special School). The petitioner is also running a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in consultation with the Rehabilitation Council of India for rehabilitation of disabled persons. Vide notification dated 04.02.2009, Secretary, Social...
Lt. Col Ln Bhargava (Retd.) Vs. the Union of India Through the Secreta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
ORAL: M. L. Chauhan: 1. This is a third round of litigation. Earlier the applicant has filed OA-2565/2010, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9.8.2010 with liberty to him to file fresh OA. Thereafter the applicant filed another OA, being OA-790/2011, thereby inter alia praying for the payment of pension and gratuity and also for the revision of pay scale. This Tribunal vide order dated 15.11.2011 rejected the OA being not maintainable, as the applicant has sought for multiple reliefs. However, the applicant was given liberty to file separate applications for separate cause of action. 2. Now the applicant has filed the instant OA confining his relief regarding payment of pension and gratuity and for quashing the order dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure A-1) whereby his representation dated 3.10.2007 was rejected. Vide this impugned order, the attention of the applicant was also drawn to earlier letter dated 24.5.2005 whereby he was informed that late Smt. Neena Bhargava had tende...
B.B. Sood Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, Northern Rai ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 11.5.2011 (page 14) whereby his request to consider his representation against the adverse entries in the ACRs has been rejected on the ground that he had not made any representation against the remarks communicated to him in spite of giving reminders. He has further sought direction to the respondents to reassess the marks of the applicant in respect of record of service after ignoring the ACR for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 for his promotion to the post of AEN (Group ‘B’) under 70% quota initiated vide letter dated 10.10.2007 with all consequential benefits. He has further sought that the impugned adverse and downgrading of the ACR for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 may be quashed for all purposes by ignoring the same for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that selection for the post of Assistant Engineer was initiated by the responden...
Honda Motor Cycles and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd Vs. C.C.E, Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.9.2011 passed by Commissioner (Adjudication), New Delhi by which the adjudicating authority has disallowed the cenvat credit availed by the appellants and ordered recovery of inadmissible cenvat credit amounting to Rs.50,65,946/- from the appellants under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority also ordered recovery of interest on wrongly availed cenvat credit and imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of two wheelers falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was availing cenvat credit facilities in respect of tool kits and medical kits sold along with two wheelers. During the cour...
Commissioner of Central, Ludhiana Vs. M/S. Renny Steel Castings (P) Lt ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri Ashwini Jain, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Sudhir Malhotra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. As per facts on record the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officer on 3.9.2001, who conducted stock verification and found certain shortages in the inputs and excess in the final products. However, a separate show cause notice stand issued for the same which is not the subject matter of present appeals. 3. It is seen that some informer provided 5 photo copies of the sale invoice issued by respondents M/s. Renny Steel Casting Pvt. Ltd. Proceedings alleging clandestine removal were initiated against the said respondents, on the basis of said photo copies, resulting in confirmation of demand of duty of Rs.1,54,784/- and imposition...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »