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.
Xtraa Cleancities Ltd. Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The Adjudicating Authority constituted under Section 21 of the Special Economic Zones, Act, 2005 r/w Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 has vide order dated 21st December, 2011 imposed penalty of `66.30 crores on the petitioner Company and also suspended the Importer Exporter Code No.4606000066 of the petitioner Company, a Unit in Vishakhapatnam SEZ. The petitioner Company appealed against the said order to the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade Act. 2. That the petitioner Company prior to imposition of the penalty aforesaid entered into an agreement for purchase on High Seas, of Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) for a total sale consideration of `72 crores. The petitioner Company claims to have been unable to pay the said sale consideration and was thus unable to have the said imported goods released which are claimed to be incurring demurrage. The petitioner Company further claims that the foreign seller of t...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Honeywell Automation India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
JUDGMENT 1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) by the Petitioner Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (‘IOCL’) is to an Award dated 19th April 2010 of the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between it and the Respondent Honeywell Automation India Ltd. [earlier known as Tata Honeywell Ltd. (‘THL’)] arising out of a Work Order dated 26th July 1999 in terms of which THL had to undertake the work of design, manufacturing, testing, supply, installation, commissioning and maintenance of Terminal Automation System works at the Jalandhar Terminal of IOCL. 2. The stipulated date of commencement of the work was 10th August 1999. The stipulated date of mechanical completion was 9th May 2000 and the stipulated date for system commissioning was 9th August 2000. Thus the total period of completion of the work was 12 months. 3. According to the Respondent, the execution and mechanical completion of the work got...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Aditi JaIn and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. These four Appeals arise out of a judgment dated 19.07.2010 passed by the Claims Tribunal whereby four Claim Petitions bearing Suit No.101/2007 (MAC APP.793/2010), Suit No.93/2007 (MAC APP.790/2010), Suit No.100/2007 (MAC APP.788/2010) and Suit No.114/2007 (MAC APP.786/2010) were disposed of. 2. In the accident involving a blueline bus No.DL-1P-1259 and a car No.DL-2CH-1438, the Appellants lost their entire family. Two minor girls Ms. Aditi Jain and Ms. Ridhima Jain were left to fend for themselves in the company of their aged grandmother Smt. Kusum Lata Jain. Kusum Lata Jain lost her husband Mam Chand Jain, her son Arun Kumar Jain, her daughter-in-law Renu Jain and her grandson Master Vardhan Jain. Aditi Jain and Ridhima Jain lost their grandfather Mam Chand Jain, aged 65 years, their father Arun Kumar Jain, their mother Ranu Jain and their younger brother Master Vardhan Jain. 3. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-i Vs. Joint Secretary(Revisionar ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-2012
SANJIV KHANNA, J. 1. These writ petitions have been preferred by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I impugning orders passed by the Government of India under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944(Act, for short). The said orders are authored by Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been authorized to pass orders under the said Section in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction. Respondent No. 2 to the present writ petitions are the private parties, who have succeeded in the revision petition before the Joint Secretary, Government of India. 2. We are not required to deal with the individual facts in each of the writ petitions as the controversy and issue raised is legal. Facts relevant for the present decision may however be noticed. The respondent No. 2 assesses are manufacturer exporters of stainless steel utensils (not trader or merchant exporters) and had made applications for rebate/refund of the Countervailing Duty or additional duty (hereinafter referred as ...
Dharmender Kumar Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has sought a direction to the respondent to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. 4.5.2001. He has further sought a direction to the respondent to grant the applicant all the consequential benefits and seniority attached to the post of Laboratory Attendant Grade-II w.e.f. 4.5.2001. 2. The brief facts as stated by the applicant are he was appointed as Laboratory Attendant Grade-II under sports quota in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as AIIMS) on 4.5.2001 on ad hoc basis. The post of Laboratory Attendant Grade-II is a Group ‘C’ post and is a 100% direct recruitment post. The applicant is fully qualified and fulfills the requirement of the post of Laboratory Attendant Grade-II as per the Recruitment Rules of the respondent institute. The applicant had requested to be considered under sports quota but his request was declined on the false ground that the applicant has not won any national o...
Guptajee Charitable Trust and Others Vs. Bharat Carpets Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
A.K. SIKRI (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The respondent Bharat Carpets Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as „the company‟) is a company under liquidation. Provisional winding up order was passed on 23.8.1984 in CP No.50 of 1984 and final winding up order was passed on 18.5.1987. Official Liquidator was appointed who has seized all the assets and records of the company. Liquidation proceedings are still pending. There have been certain attempts to revive/rehabilitate the company and scheme under Section 391 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) is pending before the Company Court which has been filed by M/s. UCC Builders Pvt. Ltd./Respondent No.2 and M/s. Maharani Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd./Respondent No.3 herein. All the appellants are the propounder/ex management of the company. They claimed that process of rehabilitation under Section 391 of the Act does not offer any compromise or arrangement to the creditors and members of the company. However, n...
M/S. Lalit Associates Vs. Reckkit and Benkiser (India) Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. Oral: 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 24.4.2004 dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff and also the counter claim filed by the respondent/defendant. Whereas the appellant/plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.3,07,228/-, the respondent/defendant made counter claim of Rs. 4,71,822/-. 2. Both the suit as well as counter claim have been dismissed by the Court as being barred by limitation. Following are the observations of the Court under the issue No.1 as to whether the suit of the plaintiff is within time:- “Issue No.1 6. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. This suit was filed by pltf. on 5.3.03. A perusal of the plaint shows that distributorship of the pltf. was terminated in the year 1998. The documents filed by parties in this case show that goods were last sent to defendant only in the year 1998. The l...
Satender Kumar JaIn Vs. Mcd and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J. Oral: 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for calling upon the respondent No.1/MCD to reinstall the statue of Shaheed Bhagat Singh in the MCD park near Mata Mandir, Roop Nagar, Delhi, allegedly removed by the respondent No.3 in collusion with the officials of the respondents No.1 and 2. 2. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated 23.5.2011 and it was directed that till the next date of hearing, status quo be maintained by MCD with regard to installation of any statue in the park in question described by the petitioner as “Shaheed Bhagat Singh Park”. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/MCD has questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition as it is contended that he is neither residing in, nor working in the area in question, nor has he shown how he has a particular interest in the area in question. 4. Upon a pointed query addressed to the learned counsel for the petit...
Wg. Crd. (Retd.) V.A. Joshi and Others Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
A.K. Sikri, ACJ. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners challenged the vires of the amendment to Clause 6 of Section M of Schedule II of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 published in GSR No.11 (E) dated 10.1.2011. The operative portion of the said amendment with which the petitioners feel aggrieved reads as under: “3. In Schedule II of the said rules, - (i) in Sections B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, N, U, V, W, X, Y and Z, for paragraph 2, the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely:- “2. Validity - The licence shall be valid for a period as specified in rule 39C.” (ii) in Sections J and M, in paragraph 6, after the second and third proviso, respectively, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- ‘Provided also that on attainment of the age of sixty-five years, such privileges shall be restricted to that of Private Pilot‘s Licence (Aeroplanes).” 2. By the aforesaid amendment, the respondents have restricted the privileges...
Jasbir Singh Vs. Kishan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
INDERMEET KAUR, J. Oral: 1. Impugned judgment is dated 02.02.2012. The application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been dismissed. The eviction petition filed by the landlord Kishan Lal seeking eviction of his tenant Jasbir Singh from the disputed premises i.e. a shop forming a part of property No. A-7/52, Main Road, Lal Quarter, Krishan Nagar, Delhi under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed. 2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement; the petitioner claims himself to be owner of the suit premises. His contention is that he has two sons namely Rajat Arora and Deepak; younger son Rajat Arora is running his readymade garment shop if the rear portion of the suit property; Deepak who has non-speaking terms with his younger brother is aged 40 years; he is unemployed; present premises are required by the petitioner for his elder son Deepak to run his business as De...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »