Delhi Court March 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.
Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Manchanda and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Gita Mittal, J. The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in social life . Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains. - Benjamin Cardozo's The Nature of the Judicial Process [1949, page 141] 1. The appellant before us is aggrieved by and assails the order dated 14th November, 2014 whereby the learned Single Judge, while disposing of Execution Petition No. 405/2014, has held that the petition seeking execution of the order dated 6th November, 2013 accepting the settlement dated 30th October, 2013 and passing a decree, was no...
Dr Mukesh Aghi Vs. Steria Ltd and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) IA 9780/2014 (filed by the applicant-defendant No. 3) 1. By this order, I would decide the application i.e. IA No. 9780/2014 filed by the applicant-defendant No. 3 under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 8 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to return the plaint to the plaintiff on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Some of the relevant facts are, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff impleading the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 with a prayer against defendant Nos. 1 to 5, to award equity shares in defendant No. 5 company to the plaintiff or value equivalent to the appropriate value of equity shares having a face value of Rs. 52,20,000/- per year from 2009 till 2012 on the dates of vesting set out in para 11 of the plaint. In the alternative, he sought a prayer of recovery of Rs. 1,91,40,000/- with interest. 3. Suffice to state, the non-applicant/plaintiff was appointed as Managing Director and Chief E...
TURNER MORRISON LIMITED Vs. Parvati Devi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The petitioner has filed the present petitions under Section 11 read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for the appointment of substitute arbitrator. 2. The details of the earlier litigations and the facts of the present petitions are mentioned in para 1 to 29 of the petitions. 3. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, bearing O.M.P. No. 73/2007 which was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide common judgment dated 23rd September, 2009 passed in two connected petitions bearing OMP No. 73/2007 and OMP No. 117/2007. 4. In Arb.P. 442/2015 Construction Agreement dated 11th December,1995 contained the following arbitration clause :- "10. In the event of any dispute or differences between the parties relating to terms of this Agreement or any part thereof, the same shall be referred to the sole Arbitration of Shri P. V. Kapur, Senior Advocate whose decision shall be final and binding o...
Ajay Singh and Others vs. State ( Govt of Nct of Delhi) and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Ajay Singh, Sh. Chander Veer Singh and Smt. Ginni Devi for quashing of FIR No.301/2006 dated 21.06.2006, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkadooma Courts, Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Poonam on 29.07.2015. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by SI Mahesh Singh. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 29.01.2005 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The accused persons were not satisfied with the cash and dowry articles given in the marriage. The petitioner no.1 wa...
Arvind Dhanvick and Others Vs. Union Of India and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL) 1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 7.2.2014 and review order dated 15.7.2014 whereby Original Application No.3271/2011 and connected applications, and RA No.118/2014 and connected applications have been dismissed. 2. The petitioners, four in number, were working as Statistical Computer in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- in the All India Radio. The next promotional post was Investigator/Statistical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300. The total number of posts of Investigator/Statistical Assistants was 107 and that of Statistical Computer, 31. 3. As per the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission which were accepted on 30th September, 1997 and implemented in the All India Radio with effect from 1st February, 2000, it was decided that the post of Statistical Computer would be a dying cadre for which there would not be any further recruitment. 4. The Audience Research Cadre...
M/S. Overseas Mobiles Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/S. Zte Telecom India Pvt. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrators. 2. The brief facts as per the petition are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is in the business of import and supply of mobile handsets. 2.1. The petitioner entered into a Distribution Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement ) with the respondent on 9th June, 2009 for import and distribution of mobile phones and related accessories. As per the above said agreement the petitioner had imported 97,000/- mobile sets worth Rs. 13,81,13,710/-from the respondent under the Letter of Credit (LC) by making full payment. As per the Agreement dated 9th June, 2009 the petitioner had made total payment in advance of the invoice value of goods imported from respondent from China under letter of credit and as per usual business custom...
Delhi Waqf Board Vs. Shakuntla Devi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
V.K. Shali, J. (Oral) CM APPL.8375/2016 (restoration), CM APPL.8376/2016 (delay), CM APPL.8377/2016 (stay) 1. These are three applications filed by the appellant. First application is for restoration of the appeal, second is seeking condonation of delay of 4386 days delay and the third application is for stay with regard to the maintenance of the status quo of the property bearing Municipal No.5544 to 5546, Masjid Shora Kothi, Paharganj, New Delhi during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for possession in respect of the property bearing Municipal No.5544 to 5546, Masjid Shora Kothi, Paharganj, New Delhi on the allegations that the appellant is a Wakf Board and the property in question belong to the Wakq. It was further alleged that the aforesaid property had been unauthorizedly occupied by the respondents/defendants without any right to remain in possession and therefore a decree of possession be passed...
Ge Capital Services India vs. Vasan Health Care Pvt. Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The abovementioned petitions have been filed before this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for an interim relief of appointment of a Receiver for attachment and taking into possession/custody the collateral security, i.e. medical equipments which were got financed by Vasan Health Care Pvt. Ltd. for Vasan Eye Care Centres. 2. The details of the machinery have been filed along with each of the petitions as annexures. 3. The petitions are pertaining to eleven loan agreements, out of which tenure of 9 loan agreements has already ended. 4. The list of loan agreement numbers along with the OMP numbers, their details and loan terms are given as under: S.No.Case Nos.Loan Agreement No.Loan Term1.OMP (I)(Comm.) 1/2015HSHFSRCEZ0036644417.09.2012 to 17.08.2015 HSHFSRCEZ0036644526.03.2013 to 26.02.2015 HSHFSRCEZ0036644626.03.2013 to 26.02.20152.OMP (I)(Comm.)2/2015HSHFSRCEZ0037029427.12.2013 to 27.11.20153.OMP (I)(Comm.) 3/2015HSHFSRCEZ0036961028.07.2013 to 28...
S.K. Sehgal and Another Vs. Delhi Administration and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The petition i) seeks de-sealing of industrial plot bearing No.92, Block No.S, Functional Industrial Estate for Electronics, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi by quashing of the order dated 30th September, 2003 of eviction with respect thereto, by declaring that Sh. C.B. Mehsram who as Estate Officer passed the said order was not notified under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) and thus the order of eviction and consequential order dated 30th October, 2009 of sealing are illegal and void; ii) impugns the order dated 24th January, 2014 of the respondents Delhi Administration and Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC), and iii) seeks restoration of the lease of the land underneath the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioners. 2. The petition came up first before this court on 1st May, 2015 when on the counsel for the petitioners citing the order dated 31st October, 2012 in W.P.(C)...
Organizing Committe Commonwealth Games, 2010 Vs. Pico Deepali Overlays ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The petitioner namely, Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010 has filed the objections/application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the Act ) for setting aside arbitral award dated 3rd December, 2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Justice R.C. Lahoti (Retd. Chief Justice of India) (Presiding Arbitrator), Justice Sujata Manohar (Retd. Justice of Supreme Court) (Co-Arbitrator) and Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retd. Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court) (Co-Arbitrator). Admitted Facts 2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, having its office at Gate No. 25, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. The petitioner was formed to lead the planning efforts and to manage the operations and successfully deliver the Commonwealth Games 2010, to be held at New Delhi, in accordance with the rights and obligations conferred and imposed upon it by the Host...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »