Delhi Court May 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.
Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd Vs. Amer Sports Malaysia Sdn Bhd and Anot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. Two interim applications being I.A. No.820/2012, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, and I.A. No.3347/2012, under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC filed by defendant No.1 are pending. However, both parties have made their submissions in I.A. No.3347/2012 for return of plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against two defendants, namely, Amer Sports Malaysia SDN BHD, Kuala Lumpur and Wilson Sporting Goods Co., USA. 3. The main prayer in the suit as well as in the interim application is that the plaintiff is seeking a stay on the letter dated 23.12.2011 of the defendant No.1 and further restrain defendant No.2 from entering into the Indian Territory either through their franchise or by themselves in violation of the Agreement dated 01.04.2010 between plaintiff and defendants inter se. 4. By order dated 13.01.2012, an interim order was passed, directing the defendants to ma...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Bhagat Ram Mittal and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.13203/2010 These are Cross Objections filed by Respondent No.1. It may be registered as an Appeal. MAC.APP. 473/2007 and MAC APP.518/2012 1. The Appellant National Insurance Company Limited in MAC APP.473/2007 seeks exoneration from its liability to pay the compensation of Rs.1,79,774/- awarded in favour of the First Respondent Bhagat Ram Mittal, the Appellant in Cross Appeal, who suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 31.01.2005. 2. Bhagat Ram Mittal, the First Respondent in MAC APP.473/2007 and Appellant in MAC APP. 518/2012 seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate. 3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that the Appellant successfully proved that Respondent No.2 Jabbar Singh driver of vehicle No.DL-IRF-9097 did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, yet instead of exonerating it from its liability, the Claims Tribunal onl...
Ram Shree Vs. Sanjeev Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. Impugned judgment dated 03.03.2011 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) had reversed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller dated 13.04.2010 in eviction proceedings filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). 2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlady-Smt. Ram Shree against her tenant-Sanjeev Jain under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRCA; contention being that in spite of the legal notice (Ex. PW1/2) dated 15.10.2008 wherein arrears of rent had been demanded from January 2007 up to October 2008; contention being that no rent had been tendered; present eviction petition had accordingly been filed. 3. The defence in the written statement was that the rent receipts were issued by the landlord sometime for two months, sometime for three months, some time for four months and sometime for 6 months; rent was being paid in advance by the tenant; there was never a time w...
Jaguar Overseas Limited and Others Vs. Klj Resources Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. This application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to amend the suit for the purpose of placing on record certain events and developments that occurred after filing of the instant suit. 2. Originally three plaintiffs namely Jaguar Overseas Limited, Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd. and Discovery Enterprises Private Limited filed the instant suit for specific performance of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.04.2005 (hereinafter referred to as the MoU) which was executed between them and defendant KLJ Resources Limited. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were transposed as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in terms of order dated 8.7.2011 passed in I.A. No.10258/2011 filed by the plaintiffs as they had arrived at an amicable settlement with the defendant. They did not press their relief for specific performance any more. Amended memo of parties was duly filed. 3. In terms of the said MoU, the defendant No.1 agreed to lease out 13000 sq. ft...
Kure Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
ORDER 1. Reference petition under Section 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking compensation granted in pursuance to Award No. 36 of the of the year 1981-82 in respect of acquired land measuring 31 bighas 4 biswas, situated in Village-Badli, Delhi has been answered vide impugned judgment of 24th December, 1986 whereby compensation amount in respect of 9 bighas and 2 biswas of land has been awarded to respondent- Jai Singh, who was I.P. No. 1 before the Reference Court and compensation amount in respect of the acquired land i.e. 8 bighas and 6 biswas has been granted to the appellant herein, who was IP No. 2 before the Reference Court. 2. The challenge to the impugned order in this appeal is on the ground that the Reference Court ignores the revenue record i.e. Ex.K-IX and Ex.K-X which clearly shows that the appellant was the tenant during pre-consolidation period on the land measuring 142 bighas and 18 biswas under respondent No.2 and his brother Dilip Singh and bhumidari righ...
D.T.C. Vs. Raj Pal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
ORDER P.K. BHASIN, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner (DTC) challenging the Award dated 1st October, 2004 of the Labour Court whereby the removal of the respondent, who was employed with it as a driver, from its service had been held to be illegal, unjustified and his re-instatement with full back wages was ordered subject to his being found medically fit for the post of driver otherwise he was to be given some other light duty. 2. An industrial dispute was raised by the workman (respondent herein) against the termination of his services by the management of DTC which was referred vide order dated 11-12-1992, by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for adjudication with the following term of reference: “Whether the services of Sh. Raj Pal have been terminated illegally and/or justifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this in respect?” 3. The statement of claim was filed ...
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Gurvinder Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.7,74,368/- awarded for the death of Jaspreet Singh who died in a motor accident which occurred on 19.08.2009. 2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) evidence was led to show that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No.DL-1P-8506 by Respondent No.1 Kishan Pal. Evidence was also led that the deceased was a Matriculate and was working as a Mechanic with his uncle PW-2 Parvinder Singh. 3. The Claims Tribunal reached the finding that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the earlier said bus by Kishan Pal, Respondent No.3 herein. The Claims Tribunal declined to believe PW-2’s version that the deceased was a Mechanic or that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, took the minimum wages of a Matriculate, added 50% towards inflation, deducted one-third towards personal and ...
Rachna Bhadra Vs. Arun Bhadra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
VEENA BIRBAL, J. 1. This is an appeal challenging the order dated 3rd October, 2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka in SMA Case No.2/2011. 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:- A petition u/s 28(1) of Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) was filed by the appellant as well as respondent stating therein they got married to each other on 19th December, 1992 and their marriage was registered under Section 13 of the Act. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and a female child, namely, Roshni was born from their wedlock, who is presently of 17 years of age. On 6th July, 2011, parties had filed a divorce petition seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce which was registered as SMA 18/2011 before the Family Court at Saket Courts. The said divorce petition was dismissed as withdrawn and liberty was given to them to file fresh petition before appropriate co...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Madan Lal and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
(ORAL) 1. The petitioner-workman is aggrieved by the order dated 17th February, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby its application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(‘the Act of 1947’ in short) seeking approval of its action taken to remove the respondent no.1, who was employed with as a conductor, from its service because of his having committed a serious act of misconduct was rejected. 2. The respondent-workman was charge-sheeted on the allegations that while performing his duty as a conductor on 09-07-1991 on bus no.DLP-9038 he had not issued tickets to six passengers after collecting money from them and that was detected when the checking team of DTC entered his bus for checking and those six passengers had informed them that they had paid the money to the conductor(respondent herein) but he had not issued them the tickets. When the checking officials wanted to record the statements of those passengers the respondent created a scene ...
Suraj Praksh Sharma Vs. Shakuntala Rani Diwan Thr. Lr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-09-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the Trial Court dated 1.3.2004 dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff as an abuse of process of law and being not maintainable. 2. (i) At the outset, before proceeding to refer to the detailed facts of the present case, though it will lead to repetition, I must state generally certain facts as to the number of litigations by which the appellant/plaintiff/tenant has tried to stall/set aside the eviction decree passed against him. Against the appellant/plaintiff a decree of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller as the appellant/plaintiff failed to pay the rent and his defence was struck off. The order of the Rent Controller was challenged in appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal wherein the appellant/plaintiff claimed title to the property by means of the documents dated 10.9.1997 executed in his favour being the agreement to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »