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.
M/S.. Ssangyong Corporation Vs. the State Trading Corporation of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of monies paid under a mistake to the appellant/defendant. The mistake on the basis of which amounts were found to be payable to the respondent/plaintiff was that in the Charter Party Agreement, the benefits of certain charges, being the despatch charges, were to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff calculated on “All Time Saved” basis (in short “ATS‟) and not “Work Time Saved” basis (in short “WTS‟) and on which latter basis the payments due were calculated. ‘ATS’ unit is a larger unit than the ‘WTS’ unit, and therefore when ‘ATS’ basis is taken there would be a higher amount of despatch charges payable to the respondent/plaintiff by the appellant/defendant instead when the despatch charges...
Chandra Estate Ltd. Vs. Tej Properties and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Appellant, a Limited Company, entered into an agreement to sell (Ex.PW-1/2) dated 01.01.1983 with respondent No.1, a Private Limited Company for sale of property bearing Municipal No.23 Plot No.172 Jor Bagh, New Delhi comprising a lease-hold tenure in the land and a building constructed thereon at a sale price of Rs.41,50,000/- acknowledging having received Rs.50,000/- on the date of the agreement towards sale consideration, also recording that by means of cheques the appellant had paid to respondent No.1 a total sum of Rs.11 lakhs towards earnest money-cum-part sale consideration on September 02, 1982 and November 08, 1982. It stands recorded in the agreement that respondent No.1 had obtained a loan in sum of Rs.20 lakhs from Punjab and Sind Bank and by way of equitable mortgage had pledged the title deed of the property with the bank and that as on the date of the agreement the amount outstanding and payable to the bank was Rs.24,50,000/-. The agreement recor...
Union of India and Others Vs. Gunwant Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.01.2004 in OA No. 1459/2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The plea before the Tribunal which had been raised by the respondent was with regard to his non consideration for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer which was a Group “A”post having a pre-revised scale of Rs 8000-11,500/-. The question was with regard to qualifications which the respondent possessed as a Foreman to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. 2. Before the Tribunal the parties have concentrated their arguments with regard to the interpretation to place Note 3 of the relevant Recruitment Rules. The Recruitment Rules essentially provided that when juniors were considered to be eligible and qualified for consideration for promotion, person senior to such junior would have relaxed eligibility conditions. The said Note 3 reads as under:- (b) (i) Chief ...
Ramesh Singh Vs. Satbir and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.87,800/- awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 20.01.1993. 2. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to Santom Hospital where he underwent surgery under general anesthesia and his left leg was kept in POP. He suffered multiple fractures of lower fibula and fracture of upper and lower fibula-right knee. He remained admitted in the hospital for 14 days. He took about four months to recover from the injuries and suffered permanent disability in respect of his left lower limb because of stiff knee with a stiff left ankle and shortening of left leg by half an inch. The Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation, which is tabulated hereunder: Sl. No.Compensation under various headsAwarded by the Claims Tribunal1.Medical ExpensesRs.24,000/-2.Loss of IncomeRs. 7,800/-3.Conveyance ExpensesRs. 15,000/-4.Pain and SufferingRs. 5,000/-5.DisabilityRs. 30,0...
Jeewa Anand Vs. Director of Education and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Vide the instant petition petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to immediately issue a letter of appointment to the petitioner for the post of Waterman, more particularly in terms of the directions of the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2. 2. Also sought direction that since the respondent no. 2 had illegally, unlawfully and unauthorizedly not appointed the petitioner to the post of the Waterman despite the directives of the respondent no. 1. 3. Petitioner has also sought his entitlement to all his emoluments from the said date of 20.08.2005 including his seniority. 4. The brief facts of the instant petition are that in the year 2003, respondent no.2 invited application for various posts including Waterman in general category as the respondent no. 2 is aided, recognized and public school working under the supervision and guidelines of the respondent no. 1. Being eligible, the petitioner also applied for the said post. ...
Azim Khan Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. Oral) 1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Section 401/397 Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned order passed by the learned ASJ on 10.04.2012 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 374(3) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 02.11.2011 convicting the petitioner under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC and order on sentence dated 08.11.2011, was dismissed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 06.10.2000 at about 4.00 P.M. the petitioner was driving a bus bearing registration No.DL1P 8226 on the Aurobindo Marg near the AIIMS Chowk Crossing. At the relevant time, a two-wheeler scooter bearing registration No.DAI 8333 was driven on the same road by one Raj Kumar Puri with his wife, Smt. Kanta Puri travelling with him as pillion rider. It was alleged that the petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and after jumping the redlight signal, he hit against the scooter moving ahead the bus which resulted in causing de...
Khoday India Ltd. and Another Vs. Astra Netcom India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. We shall be referring to the appellant as ‘Khoday’and to the respondent as ‘Astra’. The two were bound as per agreement dated November 13, 2000, when Khoday was known as ‘M/s Khodayss Systems Ltd.' and the respondent was known as “Astra Netcom (P) Ltd. The agreement was extended by another agreement dated January 05, 2001, incorporating change of name of the companies. Undisputedly, the jurial relationship between the parties was governed by the agreement dated November 13, 2000. 2. The agreement envisaged Khoday setting up a business venture to provide Call Centre Services to clients world over and for which technical know-how had to be provided by Astra. 3. Scope of work of Astra stands detailed in the agreement and the reciprocal obligation of Khoday to pay remuneration also stands adumbrated in the agreement. The various stages at which payment had to be made stand listed. 4. A dispute arose between the parties which led ...
Azhar Ahmed Vs. Gajinder Sawhney and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
ORDER P.K.BHASIN, J. 1. The petitioner had filed this revision petition under Section 25(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958(‘the Rent Act’ in short) since the Additional Rent Controller(‘the Controller’ in short) vide its judgment dated 26th November, 2002 in Eviction Petition No. E-6 of 1997 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act,1958 had passed an order for his eviction from house no. G-55, Nizamuddin(West), New Delhi(‘premises in dispute’), which premises according to the petitioner’s case he was occupying not as a tenant of the respondents but under an agreement to sell dated 30th May,1981 executed in his favour by the respondents’ father who was its owner. 2. The respondents, had filed the eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of their bona fide requirement of the premises in dispute in occupation of the petitioner. Eviction petition was filed by the respondents on the grounds that the premises in dispute were gi...
Bagga Bros Vs. D.D.A. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The challenge in appeal is to the decision dated December 05, 2005 of the learned Single Judge rejecting challenge by the appellant to the award dated March 31, 1993 pronounced by the learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. Appellant's counter claim has been rejected by the learned Arbitrator and DDA's claim has been decreed in sum of Rs.3,83,123/-. Claim by DDA was under five heads. The first claim, in sum of Rs.81,631/- was to realize the forfeited security amount and the learned Arbitrator has awarded the same. Claim No.2 was the price difference at which DDA had re awarded the contract, vis--vis the price offered by the appellant. As against Rs.4,26,114/- claimed the learned Arbitrator has allowed Rs.2,84,774/-. Claim No.3 pertaining to pre-suit and pendente lite interest has been declined. Post award interest @11% per annum (simple) has been allowed. Claim No.4 in sum of Rs.5,000/- toward cost of arbitration proceedings has been allowed. Claim No.5 in sum of Rs.17,468...
Hawa Singh Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2012
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC read with Section 27 of the PC Act, 1988 seeking discharge in CC No. 09/2006 (RC No.DAI-2004-A-0046/DLI). 2. The petitioner challenged the validity of sanction Ex.PW4/A and filed an application before learned Special Judge seeking discharge on the ground of invalidity of the sanction. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2011 which is impugned before this Court. 3. Vide impugned order, learned Special Judge held that the sanction order did not suffer from any infirmity or non-application of mind by the authority to grant sanction for prosecution. Sanction was held to be valid and application of the accused was dismissed. 4. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was facing trial in the above noted case and during pendency of the trial, he filed an application seeking discharge on the ground of invalidity of the sanction which has been dismissed by learned Special Judge vide impugned order dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »