Delhi Court July 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.
Union of India Vs. Niko Resources Ltd and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Introduction 1. O.M.P. No.192 of 2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) has been filed by Union of India (‘UOI’) through the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (‘MoPNG’) challenging the majority Award dated 23rd December 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in the disputes between MoPNG, Respondent No.1 Niko Resources Ltd. (‘Niko’), Canada and Respondent No.2 Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited (‘GSPC’) arising out of a Production Sharing Contract (‘PSC’) dated 23rd September 1994 entered into between the President of India (referred to as ‘Government’ in the PSC) on the one hand and GSPC and Niko on the other hand for the exploration, development and marketing of petroleum resources from the Hazira Field in Gujarat, identified in the PSC as the Contract Area. 2. O.M.P. No.944 of 2011 has been filed by Niko under Section 9 of the Act praying for a directio...
Union of India and Others Vs. Yateendra Singh Jafa
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 25th July, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi quashing the charge-sheet dated 12th August, 2004 and the suspension order dated 24th November, 2003, as well as the subsequent proceedings initiated against the respondent and directing the petitioners to promote the respondent to the grade of DGP from the date his immediate junior Sh. Singarabal was promoted w.e.f. 22nd March, 2002 if found fit by the Selection Committee, with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts as to comprehend the disputes are that the respondent is an officer of the Indian Police Service of 1967 batch of the Maharashtra Cadre. He was on central deputation and was, therefore, posted in the BSF as IG, Srinagar from 1991-92. On the intervening night of 23rd -24th March, 1992, a raid was conducted by the 116thBn BSF in the house of one Mohd. Maqbool in Srinagar. In the said operation some terrorists ...
R.P.G. Transmissions Ltd. (Now Known as Kec International Limited) Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Instant petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi while setting aside the order dated 20.10.2000 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 company had entered into an lease agreement with the company named „Sakura Seimitsu India Limited‟(hereinafter referred to as SAKURA) on 27.09.1995 tilted as Lease Agreement for equipment. 3. In compliance of the said lease agreement, respondent No.2 being the managing director and acting on behalf of Sakura issued and delivered post dated cheques for the payment of rental amount and other charges as agreed between the parties, in the said agreement. 4. The complainant/petitioner present two of the cheques issued by the respondent No.2 bearing No.805261 and 805317 dated 27.06.1993 drawn on Punjab National Bank, New Delhi towards lease rentals for an amount of Rs. 6,37,812/- and Rs. 31,89...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.R. Murgeshan and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
G.P. Mittal, J. 1. The Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.04.2006 and 04.08.2007 whereby a compensation of `1,86,000/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 09.07.1988. While awarding the compensation, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) opined that the Appellant’s liability was limited to `50,000/-. However, it ordered the Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation and recover the excess compensation from Respondents No.2 and 3 (the driver and owner) of the bus involved in the accident. 2. On 09.07.1988 at about 5:30 P.M., the First Respondent suffered serious injuries while boarding a bus near Virat Cinema. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of bus No.DEP-4614 by its driver, the Second Respondent. The bus was owned by the Third Respondent. The Claims Tribunal found that the F...
Manjit Singh Vs. Punjab and Sindh Bank and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has sought to setting aside the order dated 29.07.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority thereby and thus, quashing / setting aside chargesheet dated 25.01.1992, show cause notice dated 17.02.2007 and order of punishment dated 18.02.2008 with all consequential benefits to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 25.01.1992, petitioner was working as Manager of the Bank at Connaught Circus, New Delhi. He was placed under suspension and was served with a charge-sheet dated 21.01.1992, followed by another chargesheet dated 03.06.1992, wherein after holding mock departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from the service vide order dated 02.05.1995, against which the Appeal was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.09.1996. 3. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a C.W.P. No. 1739/1997, which was allowed by this Court vide final order and judgment dated 13.05.2003. Th...
Prem Devi and Others Vs. Jagdish Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
G.P. Mittal, J. 1. The Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.07.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Claim Petition preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) was dismissed on the ground that the negligence on the part of the First Respondent, driver of the bus No.DEP-7727 was not established. 2. At the time of filing of the Appeal, a submission was made by the learned counsel for the Appellants that they (the Appellants) would move an application for additional evidence so as to examine the Investigating Officer (IO) and to produce some documents to show the circumstantial evidence regarding the negligence of the driver (the First Respondent). No such application was moved. At the time of hearing of the Appeal, a statement was made by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Appeal may be converted to one under Section 163-A of the Act and the compensation may be awarded on the basis of the struc...
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
A.K. PATHAK, J. 1. By this order I shall dispose of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("Code", for short) whereby plaintiff has prayed that the defendants be restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling or offering for sale "Tulsi Saada Pan Masala" or any other product using the advertising slogan and campaign "Swad Badi Cheez Hai" or any other slogan or campaign which may be complete imitation of the slogan and campaign of the plaintiff, that is, "Shauq Badi CS (OS) No. 865/2012 Page 1 of 19 Cheez Hai" so as to result in acts of infringement of copyright, passing off, unfair competition and dilution. 2. Plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction regarding acts of infringement of copyright, passing off, unfair competition, dilution, rendition of accounts/damages, delivery up etc., against the defendants. 3. Plaintiff as well as defendants are engaged in the similar trade. Plaintiff is engaged in manuf...
Beerwati @ Beermati and Others Vs. Hukam Chand and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
G.P. Mittal, J. 1. These two Cross-Appeals (FAO No.394/1999 and FAO No.494/1999) arise out of a judgment dated 21.05.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby the Insurer’s plea of limited liability to the extent of `50,000/- was rejected while awarding a compensation of Rs.2,07,000/-. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants in FAO No.394/1999 (who are the legal representatives of deceased Mohinder Singh) shall be referred to as the Claimants and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(who is the Appellant in the Cross-Appeal FAO No.494/1999) shall be referred to as the Insurer. 3. A Claim Petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act) was preferred by the Claimants alleging that on 14.06.1980 the deceased Mohinder Singh was driving his car No.7497 from Mehrauli to his house in Nangal Devat. At about 8:30 pm, a bus No.DEP 2322 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Hukam Chand came from the opposite dir...
All India Itdc Workers Union (Regd) and Others Vs. B.K. Sinha and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
G.P. Mittal, J. 1. A Petition (Writ Petition (C) No.6707/2000) was preferred by the Petitioners alleging inter alia that they were employed as Cashier-cum-Sales Assistant on contractual basis by the Respondent Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) on the Duty Free Shops at Indira Gandhi International Airport at Delhi. The Respondent ITDC was running Duty Free Shops at Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai and Trivandrum Airports as well. It was averred that the activities of the Duty Free trade carried out by the Respondent ITDC was of regular and perennial nature, yet the Petitioners were employed on contract basis from various dates as mentioned in para 4(iii) of the Petition and the contract of employment was being extended from time to time. It was pleaded that the ITDC’s action in not treating the Petitioners as regular employees was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. They made the following prayer...
M/S. Jalpac India Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought quashing of the letter No. DO:XXIV:GA:485:04 dated 7th October, 2004 issued by the respondent, partially repudiating the claim of the petitioner under the Marine Policy No.042400/21/03/00111 and has also sought directions to the respondent, to forthwith settle the claim of the petitioner as per the petitioner’s letter of claim dated 23rd February, 2004 and direct the respondent to pay the amount due to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a limited company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of metalized and coated films and papers. On 13th May, 2002 the petitioner agreed to purchase one vacuum metallizer (Machinery) from M/s Valmet General Limited, England for a total value of GBP 644,575. The consideration was payable in installments duly covered under irrevocable bank guarantees/letter of credit. Twenty per cent of the value of the machinery was paid by the petitioner as down payment, after which 12 installments of GBP 25,783 were ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »