Delhi Court January 2016 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.
M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corpor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
IA No.17710/2014 (u/S 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) 1. The present application is filed by the defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the disputes as stated in the present plaint to arbitration by appointing an arbitrator/arbitrators. 2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,60,19,069/-. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are that the defendant company placed two orders on the plaintiff i.e. (a) Purchase Order and (b) Work Order. The purchase order dated 08.05.2002 was for design and engineering charges, supply of equipment for Namrup-II and III, spares, testing charges, etc. for a net value of Rs.14,81,94,697/-. Certain amendments were made in the purchase order. 3. The work order dated 08.05.2002 was for unloading, handling, storage, assembly and erection at site, commissioning, etc. of the Urea handling system for Namrup-II and Namrup-III. The total contract price was Rs.1,16,52,500/-. The two orders...
M/s. MS Shoes East Ltd. Vs. Anand Khandelwal A+
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
IA No.7591/2006 and IA No.9204/2007 1. The plaintiff has filed the present two applications. IA No.7591/2006 is filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of defendants No.2 to 10, namely, Mr.Ajay Khandelwal as defendant No.2, Mrs. Vijay Prabha Khandelwal as defendant No.3, Mrs. Deepika Khandelwal as defendant No.4, Mr.Madan Lal Gupta as defendant No.5, Ram Charitable Trust as defendant No.6, Miss Mausumi Bhattacherjee as defendant No.7, Mr.Mahesh Sharma as defendant No.8, Mr.Satya Prakash Khandelwal as defendant No.9 and Arjun Industries as defendant No.10. 2. IA No.9204/2007 is filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. 3. The facts giving rise to these two applications are common. Hence, the same are being disposed of by a common order. 4. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of Rs.2,34,44,300/- against the defendant. The plaint is short and bereft of details. It is the contention of the plaintiff in the plaint that the plaintiff entered ...
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) Vs. Madhu Bala Nath
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The present appeal impugns the order dated 02.07.2015 whereby the application of the defendant/appellant under Order XVIII Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code') for permitting the recording of the statement of a witness through video conferencing was rejected. 2. The application was filed by the appellant for permission to record the testimony of the sole appellant's witness through audio and video link on the ground that the sole witness is based at London and is unable to travel to Delhi for her cross-examination. It was contended that the appellant is a charitable organization and is not in a position to afford the substantial expenditure required to be incurred for travel and stay of the sole witness to Delhi and further the presence of the said witness was necessary for various official commitments as she is the Head of the Human Resource which entails numerous responsibilities and the sole witness being female ...
Shikha Misra and Another Vs. S. Krishnamurthy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. This Regular First Appeal arises out of Judgment dated 23.04.2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has decided the preliminary issues framed in the suit in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. 2. The appellants/plaintiffs had filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell of immovable property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, assigning or mortgaging or creating any third party rights in the property allegedly agreed to be sold by the respondent/defendant. 3. The case set up by the appellants was that the appellant No.1 was a tenant, by virtue of an agreement dated 25.02.1987, of one Ms Manjula Krishnamurthy wife of the respondent, in Flat No. 128, Pocket “B, SFS DDA Flats, East of Kailash, New Delhi, w.e.f. January, 1987 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. 4. On Independence Day of 1989, it is alleged that Ms Manjula Krishnamurthy told the appellants that she wanted to sell the flat to the appell...
Ashfaque Ansari Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. This petition is filed challenging the amendment to the Second Schedule to Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short IMCC Act, 1970) vide Notification dated 25.06.2010 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, and also to quash the orders dated 01.05.2014 passed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, and consequently, to direct the respondents to grant registration to the petitioner's qualification of GAMS (Graduate in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) obtained in the year 2012. 2. The petitioner who hails from the State of Bihar, joined GAMS course conducted by the Respondent No. 7 College in the Academic Session 1996-97. While he was undergoing the said course, a dispute arose regarding the validity of the GAMS degree conferred by the State faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, established under Section 17 of the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine A...
Cartier International AG and Others Vs. Gaurav Bhatia and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking inter alia permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, damages etc. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants are operating an e-commerce website where they are offering counterfeit products bearing the trademarks and logos of various luxury brands, including those of the plaintiffs, for sale. The defendants are ex-parte. The plaintiffs have produced the evidence by way of affidavit of Pankaj Pahuja as PW-1. The same was tendered in evidence as PW-1/A. 2. PW-1 has deposed that it has been signed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Mr. Flavio Mascetti in his capacity of the constituted, attorney of the plaintiff Companies. He identified the signatures of Mr. Flavio Mascetti on the plaint at the points marked 'C and 'D'. It is submitted that Mr. Flavio Mascetti is authorized to sign and verify the plaint by virtue of Powers of Attorney executed in his favor by plaintiffs which may be exhibited as Ex. ...
Engineers India Limited Vs. Tema India Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 07.07.2015, whereby the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') against the award dated 22.10.2012 passed by the sole Arbitrator, has been allowed and the award has been set aside. 2. The appellant “ Engineers India Limited (EIL) had placed on the respondent “ TEMA India Limited (TEMA) a purchase order dated 27.02.2008 for supply of nine heat exchangers “ high pressure (screw plug/breach lock). The EIL was procuring the said equipment for Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited ( CPCL ?). The delivery period stipulated was 17 months from the date of purchase order and delivery was expected to be completed on or before 26.07.2009. 3. A clause for Price Reduction Schedule (PRS) for delay in delivery was stipulated in the purchase order. As per the PRS, as a consequence of delay in delivery, price was to be reduc...
Campaign for People Participation in Development Planning Vs. Lt. Gove ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The petitioner, which claims to be a voluntary organization incorporated and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, filed this petition by way of Public Interest Litigation with the following prayers: (a) To direct the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi/respondent No.1 to immediately constitute the Fifth Finance Commission of Delhi in terms of Article 243-Y read with Article 234-I of the Constitution of India. (b) To direct the implementation of the report of the Fourth Finance Commission of Delhi by laying the said report before the Legislative Assembly of Delhi forthwith and by distributing the consolidated fund of NCT of Delhi amongst the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 - Municipal Corporations, i.e., SDMC, EDMC and NDMC. (c) To direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Finance Commission of India to implement and enforce the provisions of Part IX-A of the Constitution of India to ensure financial ...
As vs. Sns
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as HMA') assails the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2009 passed in HMA 741/06 by Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi, whereby the learned ADJ allowed the petition preferred by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA, granting a decree of dissolution of marriage in his favour and against the appellant-wife. 2. The parties were married on 17.06.1984 at Varanasi, U.P. No issue was born out of the wedlock. The respondent alleged that the appellant treated him with cruelty, and deserted him on 12.09.1999. She had denied sexual relations on one pretext or the other after 13.06.1997. It was further alleged that the appellant suffered from psychological and physical deformities, and used to pick quarrels with the respondent. She created ugly scenes several times in the presence of family members and friends of the respondent. She was suffering from tubercular endometritis...
Haryana Shakti College of Education Vs. Directorate of Higher Educatio ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The present appeal as well as the writ petition are filed by Haryana Shakti College of Education, a college established by Haryana Shakti Education Society. 2. While LPA No.707/2013 has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.09.2013 in W.P.(C) No.4009/2013, the subsequent order dated 10.09.2013 passed by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in terms of the directions of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4009/2013 has been assailed in W.P.(C) No.6365/2013. 3. Since parties are common and common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in both the matters, we have heard the matters together and decided by this common order. 4. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are as under: (i) Haryana Shakti Education Society (for short the Society') has been running a school under the name of Haryana Shakti Secondary School from the year 1945 in its own land situated in Kanjhawala village, North West District, Delhi. Since...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »