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.
Managing Committee Naval Public School Vs. Neera Chopra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal in appeal No.41 of 2003 whereby the tribunal has held that the foundation in the present case is totally illegal and non est. There cannot be any superstructure in the absence of a foundation. All proceedings conducted by the respondent school (petitioner herein) on the basis of the charge-sheet which did not exist in the eyes of law are illegal and without any authority of law. 2. It is, further, recorded that the inquiry report, show-cause notice relating to proposed penalty and finally the impugned orders removing the appellant (respondent herein)from the service are hence illegal and the same were set aside. The Learned tribunal also directed, the petitioner (respondent herein) to be reinstated in service with 50% of the back-wages and all other consequential benefits. 3. Mrs. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Advocate a...
Cvcigp Ii Client Rosehill Limited and Others Vs. Sanjay JaIn and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
G.S. SISTANI, J. ORAL: IA.No.3411/2012 (EXEMPTION) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. O.M.P. 172/2012 3. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim relief. 4. Facts of the case, as stated in this petition, are that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are companies incorporated under the laws of Mauritius. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are private equity investors and are part of the Citi Venture Capital International, a business unit of Citigroup. Petitioner no.3 to 6 are the trust funds existing and registered under the laws of India. All the petitioners are shareholders of respondent no.4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the promoters and principal shareholders of respondent nos.3 and 4 and directly or indirectly own, control and manage respondent nos.3 and 4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are designated Chairman and Vice Chairman of both Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent no.3 is a public limited company incorporated in ...
Mmtc of India Ltd. Vs. Interore Fertichem Resources Sa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
1. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that on 25.05.1999 the appellant and respondent entered into a contract where under the respondent agreed to supply 25000 MT of bulk urea to the appellant @US$87.45 PMT. As per the terms of the contract, the respondent was required to charter a vessel for shipment of the requisite quantity of urea, the respondent was responsible for fulfillment of the conditions of Charter Party at the loading port and the appellant and its nominees were responsible for the fulfillment of conditions of Charter Party at the discharging port. The important terms of the contract entered into between the parties read as under:” “XI WHARFAGE/DEMMURAGE If any wharfage/demurrage results at the port of discharge due to negligence of the Sellers or their nominee including negligence of sending correct document in time connected with the shipment of material under this contract and if in consequence thereof, clearance of the con...
M/S. Sangeeta Jewels Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain
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 23.1.2001 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff filed under Order 37 CPC on a dishonoured cheque by dismissing the leave to defend application. It was pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that the dishonoured cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- was towards the repayment of a cash loan which was granted to the appellants/defendants. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff pleaded that he gave a loan totalling to Rs.3,00,000/- to the appellants/defendants in three parts, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- on 3.10.1994, Rs.1,00,000/- on 8.10.1994 and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.10.1994. The loan was given in cash, and the appellants/defendants had issued receipts for the same. It was pleaded that the receipts were given back by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellants/defendants w...
Agrbandhu Footwears P.Ltd. Vs. Dayanand Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
Indermeet Kaur, J. Oral: 1. The impugned judgment is dated 26.03.2008 vide which the application filed by the defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) seeking a setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 05.12.005 had been dismissed. 2. Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code. The defendant had appeared and was represented through his counsel; power of attorney was filed; contention of the defendant was that he misunderstood the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code and was not aware of the fact that the memo of appearance is required to be filed within the stipulated period of 10 days; after his appearance on 30.08.2005, matter was adjourned for 27.09.2005. The contention of the defendant was that the date was wrongly noted in his diary as 28.09.2005. 3. Record shows that the summons were sent to the defendant by ordinary pr...
Orient Clothing Company Private Limited Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.1, i.e. the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Karol Bagh Branch and State Bank of India Overseas Branch, i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 respectively to accept the restructuring of the petitioner’s dues as per the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) Package stated to have been submitted by the petitioner under the parameters of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines, on the ground that they are binding on respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner also seeks a declaration to the effect that the letter dated 06.01.2012 issued by respondent No. 1 is null and void on the ground that the same is mala fide, arbitrary, unfair and an abuse of power. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the notices dated 25.01.2012 under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›