Delhi Court May 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 4 of about 66 results (0.022 seconds)Jagan Nath Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Vide impugned judgment dated September 25, 2000 Chaman Lal and Jagan Nath, father and son respectively were convicted for murdering Bhagwati Devi, the second wife of Chaman Lal and their children Raj Rani, Geeta, Tara Chand and Gokul Chand. 2. The pieces of evidence relied upon by the learned Trial Court to convict Chaman Lal and Jagan Nath were the dying declaration made by Geeta in the ambulance to Amar Nath, PW-4, testimony of Amar Nath and Karan Singh, PW-3 evidencing strained relations between the convicts and the deceased persons, Chaman Lal and Jagan Nath talking to each other on the night previous to the incident, threat given to Amar Nath by Jagan Nath on the night of the incident, passive and unconcerned attitude of Jagan Nath after he was informed of the incident and the post-mortem reports of the five deceased persons establishing homicidal death. Chaman Lal died during the pendency of his appeal and thus appeal filed by him being Crl.Appeal No.7710/2000 ...
Tag this Judgment!Mithilesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. 1. The petitioners, who are advocates, have filed the present petition claiming to be in public interest seeking a mandamus thereby terminating the extension of lease granted in favour of Indian Hotels Company (IHCL) in respect of Hotel Taj Palace by respondent No.1/DDA and further for issuance of directions to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other competent agency to probe and investigate into the extension of lease granted in favour of IHCL in respect of Hotel Taj Palace, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. 2. The contention of the petitioners in the petition is that lease agreement was executed between DDA and IHCL in respect of the property i.e. Hotel Taj Palace, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi on 01.04.1983 for a period of 30 years. The said lease agreement ended on 31.03.2013 and instead of conducting an auction for running the operation of Hotel Taj Palace, the DDA chose to renew the lease in favour of IHCL for a further period of 25 years w.e.f. 01.04.2...
Tag this Judgment!Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
1. The petition (i) impugns the decision dated 26th December, 2012 of the respondent Department of Telecommunications (DoT) of the Union of India (UOI) refusing to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner no.1 Bharti Airtel Ltd. (petitioners no.2 and 3 are its shareholders and the word petitioner hereafter will mean Bharti Airtel Ltd. only); ii) seeks a direction to the respondent UOI to comply with the understanding and obligations recorded in the petitioner s letters dated 1st August, 2001, 6th November, 2012 and 10th December, 2012; iii) seeks mandamus directing the respondent UOI to refund the sum of Rs.399.92 crores to the petitioner; iv) seeks mandamus directing the respondent UOI to also pay interest on the said amount of Rs.399.92 crores i.e. a total sum of Rs.2495.87 crores to the petitioners with future interest till the date of refund; and, v) alternatively seeks permission for the petitioner to adjust the amount so refundable by the respondent in the future licence fee...
Tag this Judgment!Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corp ...
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J 1. The Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.12331/2015 seeking quashing/waiving off the arbitrary and discriminatory conditions encapsulated in clauses B.2.6(v) and B.2.7(v) and B.2.6(v) of the tender Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. W.P(C) No.791/2016 has been filed seeking a mandamus to the Respondent No. 1 to consider the bid of the Petitioner against the five subject tenders. 2. The Petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of oil and gas drilling, providing drilling services to Eand P Operators in India and overseas. It is stated to have over ten years of drilling experience across the industry and claims to be India s leading and fastest growing drilling company. 3. The Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited, which owns 99.90% of the shares. The share-holding pattern of the Petitioner, as on the date of the filing of the petition, was as under:- Name of the ShareholderNo. of sharesShare capitalShare Holding in %S...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Massey Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the show cause notices dated 12th November, 2015 under Section 13 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) issued by the respondent Financial Intelligence Unit India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance of the Government of India to each of the three petitioners namely Shri Joseph Massey, Shri Shreekant Javalgekar and Shri Jignesh Shah and seeks compensation for causing mental and physical harassment to the petitioners 2. It is the case of the petitioners (i) that the respondent which is a statutory body enacted under the PMLA, vide order dated 4th November, 2015 held the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) to be guilty of failing in several obligations under the PMLA and imposed a total fine of Rs.1,66,00,000/- on NSEL and directed NSEL to register itself as a reporting entity under the PMLA; (ii) that purportedly in pursuance to the aforesaid order, impugned show cause notices were issued t...
Tag this Judgment!HSIL Ltd. Vs. Oracle Ceramic and Another
Court: Delhi
Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the three suits aforesaid against the respective defendants to seek relief of permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, infringement of copyright, against misrepresentation, passing off, unfair competition, dilution and for damages and delivery up, etc. 2. The suits are premised on the registered trademarks claimed by the plaintiff in respect of sanitary ware. The defendants in all the three suits are parties situated in the State of Gujarat and the plaintiff has not claimed that the defendants in the three suits have any presence in Delhi, i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Court, or that any part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff has, in all these suits, invoked Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 to claim jurisdiction in this Court on the premise that the plaintiff carries on business in Delhi/ it is located in Delhi. The plaintiff HSIL Limited is a company registere...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority ...
Court: Delhi
1. Each of the petitions (i) impugns the Circulars dated 24th September, 2007 and 1st August, 2011 of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) with regard to the fixation of licence fee for retail outlets; (ii) impugns the charging of retrospective interest @ 7% per annum on the licence fee; (iii) seeks a direction to the respondent DDA to fix the licence fee for retail outlets for a particular financial year prior to the said financial year and not after the expiry of the same; and (iv) seeks a direction to the respondent DDA to fix the licence fee after consideration of the representations made by the petitioners. 2. Notice of the petitions was issued and subsequently rule nisi was also issued and counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent DDA in each of the petitions and rejoinder whereto has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.166/2013. The counsels were heard on 14th August, 2015 and to enable the counsel for the respondent DDA to respond to the queries ra...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
1. The petition impugns the decision of the respondent Union of India (UOI) through the Land and Development Office (LandDO) communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 1st September, 2015 that the application of the petitioner No.1 Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust and of which the petitioners No.2 to 6 viz. Vibhu Talwar, K.C. Narang, Veena Talwar, Shravan Talwar and Moolchand Healthcare Foundation are trustees, for conversion of leasehold rights in land ad-measuring nine acres at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on which Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute is constructed into freehold cannot be considered for the reason of i) pending litigation between the petitioner No.1 Trust and the LandDO, and, ii) there being no policy for conversion of leasehold into freehold in respect of Hospitals and institutions. 2. On a reading of the paper book, prima facie not finding any case in favour of the petitioners to entertain the writ petition, the senior counsel for the pet...
Tag this Judgment!N Block Welfare Association Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi Vs. MCD and A ...
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. W.P.(C) 1930/2011 and CM Nos.9123/2015 (directions), 9191/2015 (condonation of delay), 28344/2015 (for disposal of petition) 1. The petitioner had filed the present petition in public interest seeking a direction to the respondent/Municipal Corporation of Delhi to demolish in entirety the impugned structure caused by the Municipal Corporation under their Design, Build, Own, Operate, Maintain and Transfer Scheme in the parking area of N Block, Greater Kailash-I Market, New Delhi. 2. On 14.05.2012, this Court passed the following order:- In the public interest litigation, a challenge is laid to the action of the MCD in initially floating a request for proposal in August, 2009 for public private partnership to construct urinals for Commonwealth Games involving a part of the constructed area to be used for commercial purposes. It may be noticed that three persons had filed a writ petition no.4562/2010 being shopkeepers of Greater Kailash-l market challenging the award ...
Tag this Judgment!Kulbir Singh Chandhok and Another Vs. Amardeep Singh Chandhok and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. FAO(OS) 402/2015 and CM Nos. 23228/2015(correction in the statement of counsel for the appellants), 31160/2015(directions) 1. This is a classic case of greed over-shadowing relationship. One brother (the appellant No. 1) is trying to take the advantage of his situation and deprive the other brothers and their family of their rights to the property left behind by their father. Attempts are being made to prolong litigation by one means or the other. Not only is the brother attempting to prolong litigation himself but is also using his son to do so. Attempts have been made not only by way of vague and false averments made in applications but also by resiling from statements recorded before this Court. 2. The appeal impugns order dated 15.07.2015, which order was passed in furtherance to order dated 29.05.2015, whereby it was directed that the appellants and their family members shall not obstruct the children of the family/extended family residing in different portion...
Tag this Judgment!