Delhi Court August 2012 Judgments

Karan Promotors (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. the Great Eastern Shipping Co ...

Court: Delhi

Manmohan Singh, J. 1. RFA(OS) No.32/2009 arises from the judgment and decree dated 4th March, 2009 passed in CS(OS) No.408/2000 whereby the suit of Karan Promotors Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of Rs.42,66,771/- against the Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Great Eastern”) was dismissed and similarly, second RFA(OS) No.18/2011 filed by the same company as well as its Managing Director Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta against the dismissal of their suit for recovery of Rs.1,13,95,591/- being CS(OS) No.1181/1998 against M/s Ericsson Communications Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Ericsson”). 2. Since most of the facts are same in both appeals, therefore, the same are being decided by common judgment. 3. The case of the appellants (the appellants here include earlier company/firm operated by Vinod Kumar Gupta) before the Court below was that : (a) It had been doing the business of liaison and property consultants. The respondent/Great Eastern ...

Gopal Goyal Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

P.K. Bhasin, J. This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to one Gopal Goyal, who is wanted in a criminal case for his having abetted the commission of suicide by a 23 years old girl on 5th August,2012. The crime of abetment of suicide by the deceased is alleged to have been committed by Gopal Goyal Kanda in association with one lady. This Gopal Goyal Kanda is being claimed by the police to be a high flying man having different businesses being run by a Group of Companies known as ‘MDLR Group’. One of his Companies owns ‘MDLR Airlines’ and he had recruited the deceased as an air hostess in the year 2006 and within a short period of time he had made her a Director in another Company of his Group which is into the hotel business. The lady who is alleged to have assisted Gopal Goyal Kanda in the commission of the aforesaid crime and who also working in one of his Group Companies as a R...

N.S. Padmanabhan Vs. Edcil (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(4)LLN207

Suresh Kait, J. 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the charge sheet/memorandum dated 14.05.2012, as being arbitrary, unreasonable, in excess of jurisdiction and being violative of Article 14 as well as Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr. P. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned charge sheet has been issued on the very same set of facts/allegations, on which the Competent Authority had already sought for clarification from the petitioner and having considered the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner, the Competent Authority i.e. CMD of the respondent corporation was pleased to close the matter vide its order dated 14.07.2009, having found no substance in the allegations made therein against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel has further submitted that the very same issue has now sought to be opened by the impugned charge sheet without even whispering about the earl...

Oil India Limited. Vs. Essar Oil Limited

Court: Delhi

Introduction 1. Oil India Limited (‘OIL’) has in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenged the majority Award dated 6th August 2004 of the three member Arbitral Tribunal (‘AT’) that adjudicated the disputes between OIL and the Respondent Essar Oil Limited (‘EOL’) arising out of a contract dated 8th May 1995 entered into between the parties for drilling of offshore wells on turnkey basis offshore Saurashtra Coast, Gujarat and offshore North East Coast (‘NEC’), Orissa for the purpose of exploration of oil and/or gas. Background Facts 2. OIL issued Notice Inviting Tender (‘NIT’) dated 19th July 1993 for setting of four Offshore Exploratory Oil/Gas Wells, three Wells at Saurashtra Offshore of the West Coast of Gujarat and one Well in NEC, Offshore of Orissa (drilled with self-propelled floater including all supporting services for the exploration of oil and/or gas o...

Dtc Vs. Surender Kumar

Court: Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. A batch of writ petitions including the instant writ petition were disposed of vide judgment dated August 10, 2010. The dispute pertained to the claim by employees of DTC, who had sought voluntary retirement, to be paid pension. 2. The origin of the claim was traced in the decision to employees of DTC having filed a petition in the Supreme Court praying that DTC be directed to frame and bring into operation a pension scheme. DTC gave an assurance to the Supreme Court that it would be introducing a pension scheme for its employees, including retired employees, and pursuant thereto on November 27, 1992 DTC notified a pension scheme, to be operated by Life Insurance Corporation of India. 3. The scheme contemplated that as regards the serving employees if they gave no option, they would be deemed to have opted for the pension scheme and as regards the retired employees they had to give specific option. In other words serving employees had to give specific options t...

Kishan Lal and Others Vs. Abdul Rehman and Others

Court: Delhi

G.P. Mittal, J. 1. These five Appeals (MAC.APP.321/2004, MAC. APP.322/2004, MAC.APP.323/2004, MAC. APP.324/2004 and MAC. APP.325/2004) for enhancement of compensation arise out of a judgment dated 31.03.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.2,63,064/-, Rs.2,63,064/-, Rs.2,16,552/-, Rs.3,12,832/- and Rs.4,35,000/- respectively was granted for the death of Dulari, Sushma Rani Arora, Sardar Mohan Singh, Pushpa @ Pushpender Kaur and Kaushalya Devi respectively. MAC. Appeals No.180/2005, 187/2005, 192/2005, 267/2005 and 182/2005 were preferred by the Respondent U.P. State Road Transport Corporation(UPSRTC) challenging the judgment on the ground that negligence on the part of the driver was not proved and that the compensation awarded was exorbitant and excessive. All the Appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 23.03.2007 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Responde...

Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority ...

Court: Delhi

1. On 1st June, 2005, first petitioner had applied for conversion of a commercial plot bearing No.12, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject premises) from leasehold to freehold. Thereupon, respondent had raised a demand vide impugned Communication of 5th August, 2010 (Annexure P-17) of unearned increase and had called upon the first petitioner to pay the misuse charges, as indicated in the aforesaid impugned demand letter (Annexure P-17). Respondent's notice of 13th January, 2011 (Annexure P-20) calling upon the first petitioner to pay the amount of unearned increase and the misuse charges is also impugned in this petition. 2. The second petitioner in its Representation of 6th September, 2010 (Annexure P-18) had requested the respondent to withdraw the impugned demand and to process the conversion of the subject premises from leasehold to freehold by pointing out that the second petitioner was the wholly owned subsidiary of the first petitioner and that ...

Bhagirath Choudri (Deceased) Through Lr Vs. Delhi Development Authorit ...

Court: Delhi

1. Allotment of an MIG Flat at the cost prevalent in March, 2004 under the 'Tail End Priority Policy' is sought by the petitioner in this petition. 2. Respondent- DDA vide its Communication of 10th October, 1990 (Annexure P-4) had cancelled the allotment of flat No. 686, Block/Pocket GH-14 G-17 in Paschim Vihar, Delhi (henceforth referred to as the 'flat in question'), while permitting the petitioner to pay the cancellation charges within a fortnight so that petitioner's registration in respect of the flat in question is kept intact while keeping the petitioner's seniority at the 'Tail End’. In pursuance to the aforesaid Communication, the petitioner had deposited the cancellation charges. In the explanation for the delay in depositing the cancellation charges, the petitioner had urged the respondent-DDA to allot an alternate flat to the petitioner in next draw of lots instead of at 'Tail End’. In this regard, Representations/ Reminders were sent by the petitioner in Decemb...

Sunair Hotels Ltd. Vs. B.C. Gupta and Others

Court: Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Company against the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Company Law Board, New Delhi(‘CLB’ in short) in the Company Petition No.35 of 2010 under Sections 397, 398, 399 read with Sections 111-A, 401, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act,1956(‘the Act of 1956’ in short) which was filed by respondents no.1 to 20 herein alleging mismanagement of the affairs of the appellant Company and acts of oppression of the minority group of its share-holders (B.C. Gupta Group) by the other Group (S.P. Gupta Group ) which had fraudulently become the majority Group. By order dated 29.11.2011 the CLB had allowed an application filed by the respondents no. 1 to 20 herein under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1906 for amendment of their petition. 2. The relevant facts which were pleaded by respondents no.1-20 in their petition before the CLB may first be noticed. It was alleged by the petitioners that they were the share-ho...

Metal Mining India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uoi and Another

Court: Delhi

Rajiv Shakdher, J. Oral: WP(C) No. 8621/2011 and CM No. 19495/2011 (Stay) WP(C) No. 8622/2011 and CM No. 19497/2011 (Stay) WP(C) No. 8623/2011 and CM No. 19499/2011 (Stay) WP(C) No. 8624/2011 and CM No. 19501/2011 (Stay) WP(C) No. 8625/2011 and CM No. 19503/2011 (Stay) WP(C) No. 8626/2011 and CM No. 19505/2011 (Stay) 1. By virtue of the captioned writ petitions challenge is laid by the petitioner to an interim order dated 15.09.2011 passed by respondent no. 1. The challenge is laid in the background of the following facts: 2. The petitioner had applied for a Reconnaissance Permit (in short RP) with respondent no. 2 for establishing gold, copper, led, zinc, nickel and associated minerals. The application was made; pursuant thereto on 03.09.2004 the petitioner was granted a RP in respect of the aforementioned minerals for an area admeasuring 207 sq. kms. in the Dungarpur and Banswara Districts in the State of Rajasthan as well as for an area admeasuring 654.7 sq. kms., in the North Jagpu...