Delhi Court August 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mass Global Investment Company and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
V.K. SHALI, J. IA No.4049/2010 1. This order shall dispose of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC’), by virtue of which the plaintiff had originally prayed for passing an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from encashing Advance Payment Guarantee-1, Advance Payment Guarantee-2 and the Performance Bank Guarantee from the Defendant No.2. It was also prayed that the defendant no.2 be restrained from making any payment to the defendant no.1 in pursuance to the said Guarantees. 2. The matter had come up for hearing on 27.3.2010 when the Court had recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the defendant no.1 that it shall maintain status quo vis--vis all the three Bank Guarantees. It was also observed that the said order shall be applicable qua the defendant no.2 also. This status quo order was to continue till the next date of hearing unless otherwise o...
Atul Bhalla Vs. Anil Bhalla and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. 1. We had heard arguments on admission of the above two captioned appeals on August 28, 2012 and while doing so the record of Probate Case No.4/2004 and CS(OS) No.273/2002 had been summoned and perused by us. 2. CS(OS) No.273/2002 filed by the appellant, seeking partition of property bearing Municipal No.7, Southern Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated November 22, 2010 and Probate Case No.4/2004 filed by respondent No.1, Anil Bhalla, has been allowed granting probate of the will Ex.PW-1/2, dated October 22, 1989 executed by the mother of the parties, late Smt.Chander Kanta Bhalla. 3. At the outset it may be noted that during arguments for admission of the two appeals, learned counsel for the appellant had made a feverish attempt to question the probate being granted by urging that the respondent No.1 had failed to discharge the onus to prove the due execution of the will Ex.PW-1/2, but failed to point out an...
Kaushlendra Kumar Vs. Dsssb and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. The petitioner in the instant petition is 100 % visually disabled and belongs to ‘Other Backward Caste’ (OBC), “Ahir”. He applied for the post of Post Graduate Teacher- Hindi (male) under Post Code 134/07 with the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. He submitted all the specified documents with his application, including his educational certificates, handicap certificate and OBC certificate, issued as per the guidelines of the Central Government, which states that he belongs to the aforesaid category. 2. He appeared initially for written examination (Objective) for the aforesaid post held on 08.06.2008 conducted by the respondent No.1- Board. Thereafter, on the same day, he appeared for the second and final written competitive examination (Descriptive). The result of the first, objective type examination was declared and the petitioner was shortlisted along with twelve other candidates. 3. The respondents chose to select the ...
Raghubir Singh Vs. Director General of Police and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Having joined CRPF as a Constable in the year 1994, the petitioner was attached to the 55th Battalion of CRPF as on June 17, 1997, and was a part of Platoon No.8 of the Battalion, which was posted at Gorisagar Police Station for election duty. 2. It is not in dispute that on June 17, 1997, the petitioner was assigned sentry duty at the back gate of Gorisagar Police Station. At around 19:40 hours, the sound of two gunshots were heard, accompanied almost immediately by cries for help from the petitioner, who was at the rear of the police station. On hearing the shots being fired, the entire platoon was alerted and HC Shiv Janam Singh was the first to arrive at the spot where the petitioner was found lying injured. Same was witnessed thereafter by Ct.G.Narasimhlu. The petitioner was found to be unconscious, in a wounded condition, with blood oozing from his chest. He was immediately administered first aid, following which, he was taken by some Unit Platoon Members...
Navendu Vs. Amarjit S. Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. The defendant, who is the owner of the property bearing number Q-12-B, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110 014, entered into an agreement dated 17.11.2008 to sell the first floor of the above referred property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.69,50,000/- and received a part consideration of Rs.20 lac from his on the same day. The balance amount was agreed to be paid within two months i.e. by 17.01.2009, at the time of registration of the sale deed, and the defendant was to handover possession of the property to the plaintiff at that time. It is alleged that despite requests made by the plaintiff from time to time, defendant refused to produce the original documents of title of the aforesaid property for perusal of the representative of the bank from which the plaintiff intended to take a loan. It is further alleged that the plaintiff arranged the entire balance payment required for completing the transaction and vide notice dated 13.01.2009 called upon the def...
M/S. Alkarma Vs. M/S. Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
1. M/s. Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana and Co. (‘MHB’) has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘1940 Act’) in IA No. 8382 of 2000 to an Award dated 31st August 1999, passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the Plaintiff, M/s Alkarma (‘ALK’) and MHB arising out of an agreement dated 24th November 1988 and supplementary agreements dated 13th May 1990 and 22nd June 1993 between the parties concerning the execution of Aluminium works in the Twin Tower Project of the Standing Conference on Public Enterprises (‘SCOPE’) at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Background Facts 2. SCOPE invited tenders for construction of a twin-tower office complex at Plot No. 2, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Delhi. SCOPE appointed Bhardwaj Bhardwaj and Associates (P) Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Architects’) to prepare the drawings, specifications and schedule of quantities. Larsen and Toubro (‘LandT’) were awa...
Shri Bishamber Nath Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Pithily stated the factual matrix concerning the writ petition is that in the year 1984 the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Commandant in CRPF and posted at Group Centre-I, CRPF, Ajmer where he was performing the duties of Accounts Officer. At that time, Additional DIGP S.P.Sharma, Insp.(M) D.H.Karamchandani and SI(M) Ram Gopal Sharma were working as Head of Office, Head Clerk (Budget) and Cashier respectively. Whereas the petitioner was the in-charge of Accounts Section, Insp.(M) D.H.Karamchandani was responsible for the proper functioning of cash section of the Group Centre. SI Ram Gopal Sharma used to work under the supervision of the petitioner and Insp.(M)D.H. Karamchandani. 2. In the year 1984, SI(M) Ram Gopal Sharma, the cashier, is stated to have had embezzled money at the Group Centre-I. A Court of Inquiry was convened to inquire into the alleged embezzlement committed by SI(M) Ram Gopal Sharma, which Court of Inquiry submitted its repo...
State of Haryana and Others Vs. Global Educational and Social Trust an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The common question for adjudication in all these proceedings is, the validity of the requirement (in Clause 3(ii)(b) of Statute 24 of Guru Gobind Singh Inderprastha University (GGSIPU) of a „No-Objection Certificate‟(NOC) from the concerned State Government, for affiliation with GGSIPU. The contention of the Colleges/Institutions parties to these proceedings and having their campuses, though in the National Capital Region (NCR) but in the States of Haryana or Uttar Pradesh, and seeking affiliation with GGSIPU, is that no such NOC from the Governments of the States of Haryana or Uttar Pradesh can be insisted upon by GGSIPU. Alternatively, they contend that the said State Governments cannot withhold such NOC and seek mandamus for issuance thereof. Of course, the States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh and GGSIPU contend such NOC to be essential; the State Governments also cite their own local laws to contend that they are justified in refusing such NOC...
Hotel Diplomat Vs. Folio Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
V.K.JAIN, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 49,56,195/-. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 2 represented that defendant No. 1 was a company incorporated under Companies Act and she was its Chief Executive officer in-charge and responsible for day-to-day conduct of its business. In January, 2000, defendant No. 2 contacted the plaintiffs to seek some rooms for running her office. She also represented that US $200 million were being transferred as per the order of Folic holding Inc to Citibank, New York for credit to Citibank, N.A., New Delhi and the payment will be made on disbursements of this amount after receipt of payment by Citibank, New Delhi. Accordingly, rooms bearing No. 203, 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 114, 3 and 5 in Hotel Diplomat were occupied by defendant No. 2 for staying there as also for running her office. The bills amounting to Rs 54,83,521/- were raised by the plaintiff for occupation of the above-referred rooms. The defendant made payment of Rs 11,8...
M/S. Gurmukh Singh and Co. and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
1. These are two petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) directed against the impugned Award dated 20th April 2005 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the dispute between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) and M/s Gurumukh Singh and Co. (‘GSC’) arising out of a work order dated 4th July 1989 awarded to GSC by the MCD for the work of construction of a multi-level car and scooter parking at Church Mission Road, Delhi. 2. GSC has filed OMP No. 196 of 2005 seeking setting aside of the Award to the extent that GSC’s Claim Nos. 14, 18, 19 and 20 have been rejected. On the other hand, MCD has filed OMP No. 297 of 2005 to the extent that the impugned Award has allowed the remaining claims of GSC and has rejected the counter claims of MCD. 3. In terms of the contract, the work was to be completed within 24 months from 13th July 1989. It was a lump sum contract for the sum of Rs. 3,91,00,000. Although the dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »