Delhi Court January 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 3 of about 92 results (0.021 seconds)Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.07.2015 delivered by a learned single judge of this court in CS (OS) 2065/2015. By virtue of the impugned judgment the learned single judge has dismissed a suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. The said dismissal of the suit was in limine, without requiring the presence of the defendants / respondents. 2. The suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking an injunction against the defendants, alleging infringement of its trademark "AMRAPALI". The appellant / plaintiff, as alleged in the plaint, carries on the business of building, developing, colonising and promoting residential, commercial and industrial buildings, cinema houses, amusement parks, hotels and deals in all kinds of immovable properties. It is further alleged that the appellant / plaintiff (Ultra Home Construction Private Limited) is the flags...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sreenivas Vs. M/s. Felex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal required to be noted (as set out in the pleadings of parties) are that Lakshmi Cement and Ceramics Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Lakshmi Industries') held a mining lease to mine Lime Stone, Dolomite and Manganese over a parcel of land admeasuring 600 acres in survey Nos.9, 42, 43, 100 and 102 of Ittigehalli Village, Mathudo Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, Karnataka. 2. On September 23, 2004 an agreement was entered into between Lakshmi Industries and V.Sreenivas (hereinafter referred to as the Sreenivas') whereby Lakshmi Industries agreed to transfer 200 acres out of 600 acres of aforesaid land for a sum of Rs. 1,62,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Two Lakhs only). 3. However, the aforesaid agreement dated September 23, 2004 could not fructify since Sreenivas could not arrange the sale consideration. 4. M/s.Felex Enterprises Pvt...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Sharma Vs. Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Others
Court: Delhi
WP(C) 7574/2015 and CM No. 14574/2015 (interim directions) PREFATORY FACTS 1. The petitioner, who falls in the category of Other Backward Classes (OBC) seeks admission in the M. Phil Programme of Centre for Social Health and Public Medicine, offered by respondent no.1 i.e. Jawahar Lal University (hereinafter referred to as JNU ?), qua academic year 2015-2016. 1.1 Admittedly, the petitioner sat in the entrance exam held for this purpose, by JNU and, in the exam so held, stood second in the merit list drawn up for the OBC category. The petitioner was, however, denied admission to the M. Phil Programme for the reason that he had failed to secure the minimum, prescribed, eligibility marks in the Master's degree obtained by him. Qua the Centre for Social Medicine and Public Health, the JNU, has pegged the minimum eligibility marks at 55%, whereas the petitioner has secured 50% marks in his Master's degree, which incidentally, as indicated above, is a degree he has obtained from JNU. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Nepal Singh Vs. State, NCT of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( ˜Cr.P.C.'), petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No.132/2015 registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Sections 406/409/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( ˜IPC'). 2. The aforesaid case was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2, who stated therein that the petitioner is the founder member of Shiksha Vihar Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short Society'), having registered office at 123-A, Aakanksha Apartment, Abhay Khand-III, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The said Society was registered in the year 1982. Since then, office of the Society had been located at R-61, Vikas Marg, Delhi, till the year 2000 and thereafter till 2005-2006 remained at Babarpur, Shahdra, Delhi. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner has misappropriated the funds of the Society to the tune of crores of r...
Tag this Judgment!Justice for All Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. This petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction that no private unaided school in Delhi which has been allotted land by the Delhi Development Authority shall enhance the fee without the prior sanction of the Director of Education. 2. It is pleaded in the petition: i) that as per Master Plan 2021 an allottee of land for the purpose of establishing an educational institution is under an obligation not to increase the tuition fees without prior sanction from the Director of Education (DoE) as held in Modern School vs. Union of India and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 583. ii) that the unaided educational institutions in Delhi have failed to comply with the same and have been enhancing the fees without taking the prior permission of the DoE and thus indulging in profiteering and commercialization of school education. 3. The petitioner therefore, seeks a direction to the Director of Education (DoE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi to ensure compliance of terms of...
Tag this Judgment!Mount Kailash Residents Association Vs. Mount Kailash Tower III Avasiy ...
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Record of the suit has been perused. 2. The grievance of the appellant is to the order dated April 28, 2015 disposing of OA 100/2015 filed by the appellant. 3. The inchoately worded order which terminates by observing that the appeal is disposed of in the above terms needs to be understood with reference to the contents of the impugned order. 4. Challenge in OA 100/2014 was to an order dated May 29, 2014 passed by the learned Joint Registrar disposing of IA No.11451/2013 filed by Kailash Tower Welfare Association (Tower “ I), East of Kailash praying therein to be impleaded as a defendant in a suit filed by Mount Kailash Resident Association, Pocket-A, Flat No. 61 to 120. 5. Pleading in the suit that the residents of Flat No. 61 to 120 in Pocket-A, Mount Kailash, New Delhi had approached DDA for allotment of parking in the parking space at a Convenient Shopping Centre nearby; pleading further and that an in-pri...
Tag this Judgment!CBSE Vs. Mount Carmel School Society and Others
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.08.2010 in W.P.(C) No.8710/2007. 2. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)/the respondent No.2 in the writ petition is the appellant before us. 3. The controversy in issue relates to continuation of the respondent No.2 herein as Principal of the Senior Secondary School run by the respondent No.1 beyond the age of 60 years. 4. As per Rule 110(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the Principal of a recognized private school, whether aided or not, is entitled to hold office until he attains the age of 60 years. Though the respondent No.2 herein attained the age of 60 years on 30.08.2001, the respondent No.1 by resolution dated 11.08.2001 granted extension of 5 years in recognition of her contribution as a founder Principal and vast experience of 29 years of teaching and administration. However, CBSE treated the said extension as an irregularity and on that ground rejected the application of th...
Tag this Judgment!Yodh Raj and Others Vs. Narain Kumar and Sons (Huf)
Court: Delhi
1. These are revision petitions filed by the two petitioners against the rejection of their leave to defend application in Eviction Petition No.E-2/2015 and E-3/2015 in cases titled Narain Kumar and Sons (HUF) v. M/s. Satya Prakash and Sons (Firms) and Narain Kumar and Sons (HUF) v. Yodhraj respectively. 2. The facts in both the cases are almost similar except in the Eviction Petition No.E-2/2015, the shop in question is bearing No.1/1115 while as in E-3/2015 it is bearing No.1/1114, Bara Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. Therefore, both these revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as averred in the Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, are that the respondent/landlord is an HUF consisting of Narain Kumar (Karta) and Smt. Uma Kumari and Smt. Sunita Kumari, who are the wife and the daughter-in-law respectively of Karta Narain Kumar. So far as Sushil Kumar and Smt. Sangeeta Mehta ar...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. National Highways Authority of India Vs. M/s. BSC-RBM-PATI Joint ...
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of two separate orders passed in two different objection petitions under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ?) impugning the award dated 04.03.2014. Both the appellant and the respondent filed objections under Section 34 of Act. The objections filed by the appellant to the impugned award were registered as OMP No. 1394/2014 whereas the objections filed by the respondent were registered as OMP No. 1392/2014. It appears that both the objections were not clubbed together and were taken up separately and disposed of by two learned single Judges of this court on different dates. FAO (OS) 483/2015 impugns order dated 23.05.2015 in OMP 1392/2014. FAO (OS) 55/2015 impugns order dated 12.11.2014 in OMP 1394/2014. FAO (OS) 483/2015 2. The dispute pertains to a contract awarded by the appellant to the respondent dated 14th October, 1996 for four laning including strengthening of existing ...
Tag this Judgment!Federation of Residents Welfare Associations, Vasant Kunj Vs. Union of ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. Review Petition No.618/2015 andCM No.32464/2015 (for condonation of 84 days delay in filing the review petition) 1. This review petition filed by Shri Narender Malik, Shri Suresh and Shri Bishambher Dayal all claiming to be residents of village Masoodpur seeks review of the order dated 3rd December, 2003 disposing of this petition with a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to take possession of land at Kishangarh from Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and to make necessary arrangements to use as the crematorium and directing closure of the cremation ground at Masoodpur Village, Sector B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Consequently, direction in the Review Petition is also sought to the respondents Union of India (UOI), DDA and MCD not to interfere or cause hindrance in the peaceful use of the cremation ground at Masoodpur village. 2. Even though review of the order dated 3rd December, 2003 is sought after a period of more than 12 years but the applicat...
Tag this Judgment!