Court : Delhi
1. By way of this common order, I propose to decide the above mentioned two petitions by Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner in OMP (I)(Comm) No.71/2016 and Mr.Kalanithi Maran, the petitioner in OMP(I)(Comm) No.72/2016 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act ). 2. The Petitioner Kalanithi Maran was a Director and non-executive Chairman of Spicejet Limited- respondent No.1 (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Indira Gandhi International Airport Terminal 1D, New Delhi- 110037 and corporate office at 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon- 122016, Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") which is a public listed company engaged in the business of scheduled airline services, international airline services, etc. under the brand name "Spicejet". 3. The relief claimed in OMP (I) (Comm) 71/2016 reads as under: a. pass an ad-interim ex-parte order restraining Respondent No.1 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th April, 2011 whereby the Commissioner, Employees Compensation has awarded compensation of Rs.3,07,229/- to respondent No.1. 2. The respondent is the mother of Rajesh who was working as a Mistri on the second floor of property bearing No.94, Village Rampur, Delhi on 16th December, 2004 when he suffered an electric shock. Rajesh was taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh for treatment where was he declared brought dead. Rajesh was aged 20 years at the time of accident and was survived by his mother, who filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, against the appellant. 3. The appellant contested the petition on the ground that the appellant had engaged a Contractor, Babu Lal, who in turn had engaged Rajesh to do the construction work in the appellant s property and as such, there was no employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant further plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Deepa Sharma, J. 1. This is a husband s appeal against an order dated 08.03.2016 whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 13.12.2012 was dismissed. The order dated 13.12.2012 was passed on the application of respondent/wife under Section 125 CrPC. The maintenance was fixed at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of petition and the litigation expenses of Rs. 33,000/- were also granted. The main ground of challenge in his application was that he was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings under 125 CrPC as he was never served of the said application. His further contention was that a fraud had been played upon him. The plea before the trial court was that there was no vakalatnama of the counsel who had allegedly appeared before the court and the whole proceeding was a fraud. That he came to know of this order only on 01.11.2013 when the file was inspected. The necessity of inspecting the file arose as he was informed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the above mentioned two petitions filed by the same petitioner on 10th February, 2016 against the respondent. The first petition being O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) No.13/2016 under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and the second being Arb. P. No.136/2016 under Section 11(6) of the Act. 2. Few facts, which are relevant and mentioned in the pleadings, are that the respondent issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing No.CS-0330-364-9 dated 13th June, 2008, inviting tenders/bids regarding construction work of 'Permanent Township package for Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project, Jhajjar, Haryana [3 X 500 MW] (hereinafter referred to as the Contract Work ). 2.1. In furtherance of the aforesaid NIT, the petitioner submitted its tender/bid, upon scrutiny of which, the respondent issued the Letter of Award (LoA) dated 20th May, 2009, awarding the aforesaid Contract Work to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. After serving BSF for about a quarter of century with unblemished service records and 17 rewards to his credit, dismissal from service was something which was least expected by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the verdict returned at the SSFC trial conducted against him and the consequent dismissal from service vide order dated June 05, 2012. The petitioner has further sought quashing of the order in appeal whereby while maintaining the dismissal order, in view of his unblemished service record for more than 24 years, he was granted 50% pension with gratuity which would have been admissible to him under the provisions of Rule 41 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 3. The petitioner had been charged as under:- BSF ACT 1968 U/S 40 AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OF THE FORCE in that he at about 0320 hours on 12 December 2011, when he was performing 2nd shift ACP duty in area between BP No.312/2-S and 314/MP in AOR of BOP Domutha from 0001 hours...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2016 delivered by a learned single Judge of this court, whereby he has taken the view that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit [CS(OS) 2119/2013], which had been filed by the appellant / plaintiff. Consequently, the learned single Judge has directed the return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC ) for presentation before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which, according to the learned single Judge, alone has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge had, however, continued the interim order passed on 18.11.2013 for a period of four weeks and also noted that the transferee court would be at liberty to consider the matter and pass an order as to whether or not to continue the interim order. This interim order was continued by this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. These two review petitions are filed seeking review of the order dated 19.01.2016 in W.P. (C) No.4109/2013. 2. The petitioners in both the review petitions claim to be the societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, working for promoting the right kind of education for children in all schools with prescribed minimum standards. Since they were not parties to the writ petition, these petitions came to be filed along with petitions seeking leave to file the review. 3. The averments in both the review petitions and the grounds of review are verbatim same. 4. We have heard Shri Sunil Gupta, the learned Senior Advocate who appeared for the petitioner in Review Petition No.129/2016 and Shri Amit Sibal, the learned Senior Advocate who appeared for the petitioner in Review Petition No.186/2016. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the Government of NCT of Delhi and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. 5. W.P.(C) No.4109/2013 was a Public Inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IA 18636/2013 1. By this order, I will decide the present application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and the plea of the defendant that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain this suit. 2. The Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from infringing/passing off the trade mark; copyright of the plaintiff, unfair competition; damages and delivery up etc. 3. Suffice to state that the trademark of the plaintiff is Officers Choice , whereas the defendant s is regular choice . 4. According to the plaintiff, the trade mark Officer s Choice was coined and adopted during the year 1988 by the predecessor in rights, title and interest of the plaintiff. As per the demerger, transfer and vesting of the liquor business of M/s. BDA Pvt. Ltd with the plaintiff on a going concern basis vide Composite Scheme of Arrangement duly approved by order of the High Court, Bombay dated 23rd February, 2007, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) against the order dated 09.07.2015 in OMP 693/2013 and the order dated 20.01.2016 in Review Petition No.400/2015. 2. OMP No.693/2013 was a petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the said Act challenging an award dated 02.02.2013. In the order dated 09.07.2015, a learned single Judge had noted the two principle objections which had been taken by the respondent. The first being that the petition under Section 34 of the said Act would not lie in view of the fact that the impugned award was a foreign award. The second objection taken on behalf of the respondent was that even if the petition under Section 34 of the said Act was maintainable, the same would not lie in this court as this court did not have the necessary territorial jurisdiction. When faced with these objections, the learned counsel for the Union o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The petitioner was enrolled with the Border Security Force on August 17, 1990 as a Constable. In the year 2005 he was posted with the 85th Bn. BSF which was assigned the duty to guard the Indo-Pak Border in the State of Rajasthan. 2. On May 16, 2005 the petitioner was assigned duty at Naka Point No.2 of Border Out Post 24 Fwd. The petitioner did not report to duty and around 8:30 PM the absence was reported to the Coy Commander of the Battalion but around 9:30 PM, the petitioner was found near his assigned piquet in an inebriated condition by the Coy Commander Deepak Rana. He reported the matter to the Competent Authority who drew up an offence report, in compliance with Rule 43 read with Rule 44 of the BSF Rules, 1969, listing the following charge against the petitioner: Place and date of offenceOffenceB.O.P. 24-O Forward 85 Bn. BSF. 16.05.2005BSF Act-1968-Section 16 (c) in that he, at Naka Point No.2 of BOP 24-O Fwd on 16.05.05 at about 21:40 hrs when sentry ...
Tag this Judgment!