Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. On December 18, 2015 the Delhi High Court invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up 9 vacancies by direct recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service by holding the Delhi Higher Judicial Examination-2015. The advertisement inviting applications disclosed to the eligible candidates that the examination would be in two successive stages : (i) an objective type with 25% negative marking for selection to the main examination; and (ii) a descriptive examination. Three vacancies were in the general category. Two were reserved for members of the scheduled castes and four were reserved for the members of the scheduled tribes. 2. The objective type (preliminary examination) was conducted on April 03, 2016. There were 125 questions which had to be answered. On April 08, 2016 the Delhi High Court put on its website the model answer keys simultaneously inviting objections, if any, to the model answers uploaded on the website. Many candidates filed objec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Rani Pratibha Rani, J. 1. In the case of arranged marriages where both the spouses are in the age group of 30 plus, honeymoon period is the best time to know, understand and come close to each other. This case is an exception in the sense that just a day after the marriage the parties left for their honeymoon to Shimla and returned with bitter memories and a spoiled honeymoon. 2. Before applying for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, the respondent/husband has shown exceptional patience in dealing with the problem inspite of facing humiliation and scandalous allegations being made against him and his family members. The case is also different in a way that after staying intermittently at the matrimonial home, within less than three months of the marriage, the appellant/wife left for her parental home and despite the respondent/husband repeatedly visiting and persuading her to join him, she served detailed legal notice making various accusations. 3. Before replying the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J. CM No.14004/2016 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CM No.14005/2016 This is an application seeking condonation of 32 days delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons, stated in the application, the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CM No.14047/2016 This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons, stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. LPA 250/2016 1. The Appeal has been filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation impugning order/judgment dated December 03, 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the Award dated December 9, 2009 in ID 251/08/92 passed by the Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi was dismissed. 2. Some of the facts, which are relevant to decide this appeal are, the respondent-Workman was appointed as a sweeper/cleaner w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
P.S. Teji, J. 1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 927/2007, registered under Section 498-A/406/34 of IPC at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. 2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 09.02.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi and from 11.02.2007, respondent No. 2 started living separately. They did not cohabitate with each other since the date of their separation and there is no issue out of his wedlock. On lodging a complaint by respondent No. 2 which was registered as FIR No. 927/2007, the trial began. Even efforts were made by elders and relatives of both the sides to sort out and reconcile the disputes between them but TO no avail. 3. At the time of filing an application for seeking anticipatory bail, both the parties agreed to settle their dispute amicably. Accordingly a settlement according to which the petitioner agree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. Introduction 1. The petitioner, Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter GSCMF ) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act') for setting aside the award dated 15.04.2016 (hereafter the impugned award ) passedby the sole Arbitrator, Dr. G.G. Saxena. By the impugned award, the Arbitrator allowed the counterclaim of the Respondent, National Agriculture Co-operative Marketing Federation (hereafter NAFED ), directing GSCMFto make payment of amount of Rs.1,48,44,000/- after adjusting the claim amount of Rs.27,44,057/- from the counterclaim of Rs.1,75,83,000/-. 2. GSCMF has assailed the award in question primarily on three grounds. First, that NAFED s counter claim was not referred to theArbitrator, therefore, the impugned award in so far as it awards the counter claim in favour of NAFED is without jurisdiction. Secondly, that the counter claim preferred by NAFED was barred by li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J. I.A. No. 15/2016 (under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC) This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint. Vide the said application, the plaintiff seeks to amend the para 14 of the plaint, which relates to Court Fee and jurisdiction in the following manner: (a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of Performer s Right, this relief is valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and requisite fees of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon. (b) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining violation of Right to Receive Royalty (the R3 Right), this relief is valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and requisite fees of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon. (c) For an order for rendition of accounts, relief is valued at Rs.200/- for purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and requisite court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon; the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Ashutosh Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner, a company engaged in the business of supply and installation of modular furniture since 1993 and which had submitted its technical bid in response to the notice inviting e-tenders from eligible specialized agencies/manufacturers of modular furniture for supply and installation of modular workstation in PNB Main Branch in Delhi, is aggrieved by and seeks quashing of the letter dated 08.08.2016 issued by respondent no.2 whereby the technical bid submitted online by it was rejected on the ground of the petitioner not fulfilling the eligibility condition of similar work. In the estimation of the petitioner, the aforesaid decision of rejecting the technical bid is arbitrary, unreasonable and with the sole object of favouring one of the other competitors, the awardee of the contract, which had quoted higher rate than the petitioner. 2. The dispute between the parties is, however, limited to the issue of interpreting the similar work criteria which is an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in IA No.4311/2016 in OMP 294/2014. IA No.4311/2016 was an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the respondent for condonation of delay of 55 days in refiling. The said application was allowed by the learned single Judge by virtue of the impugned order dated 17.02.2016. OMP 294/2014 is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the AandC Act ) for setting aside the arbitralaward dated 10.09.2013. 2. The plea of the appellant before this court is that the learned single Judge ought not to have condoned the delay of 55 days in re-filing the said petition under Section 34 of the AandC Act. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent herein raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal. It was contended on behalf of the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Ashutosh Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner, a company engaged in the business of mining of coal and lignite has questioned the communication dated 29.08.2016 issued by the Respondent, NTPC Limited, intimating that the technocommercial proposal of the petitioner for operation and development of Dulanga Coal mine in the state of Odisha was not acceptable in terms of clause 6.3.2 of the Invitation to Bid (hereinafter referred to as ITB );which in effect disqualifies the petitioner from participating in the price bids opening and the reverse auction qua the bid for development and operation of the aforementioned Coal Block, as unreasonable, arbitrary, contrary to the terms of the tender papers and therefore unsustainable. 2. The respondent, NTPC Ltd, had issued separate invitation for bids for development and operation of three coal mines viz. Dulanga Coal Block, Chatti Bariatu and Talaipalli in the state of Odisha. Online bids were invited on Single Stage Two Envelope Bidding basis (Envelope-1:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The petition impugns the demand of the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) (respondent no.2 is the Chief Engineer (Elect.) of NDMC) of Rs.3,86,967/- towards arrears of electricity charges owed by the earlier consumer / owner of Flat No.4 (2nd Floor), Building No.3, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 2. It is the case of the petitioner: (i) that the petitioner acquired Flat No.4 (2nd Floor), Building No.3, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi in a public auction held by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi and a Sale Certificate with respect thereto was issued in favour of the petitioner; (ii) that the respondent NDMC issued a challan dated 3rd September, 2002 and a notice dated 4th September, 2002 requiring the petitioner to clear the electricity dues of Rs.11,82,428/- of earlier registered consumer of electricity at the said flat; (iii) that the petitioner challenged the said demand by way of W.P.(C) No.6058/2002 and vide interim order...
Tag this Judgment!