Delhi Court September 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.
Oil India Limited Vs. Essar Oil Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. OIL issued a Notice Inviting Tender on July 19, 1993 to drill and set up four Offshore Oil/Gas Wells, three at Saurashtra Offshore and one at Orissa Offshore. The work had to be executed on turnkey basis i.e. drillship, associated equipment, personnel and services were to be provided by the bidder, called as operator under the NIT. In response, ESSAR submitted its bid on December 06, 1993. There was an exchange of correspondence between the parties. Offer being accepted, OIL issued a letter of intent on February 20, 1995, which was followed by a formal agreement executed by the parties on May 08, 1995. As per the agreement the operations had to be completed within one year. Rates were fixed for payment. The three wells Offshore Saurashtra coast at locations L-2, L-3 and L-4 had to be completed first, followed by drilling at the location at L-1; Offshore Orissa. Depth to which the wells had to be drilled was specified. Number of days required for drilling and te...
M/s. Sdb Intrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DDA and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
1. The petition (i) impugns the letter dated 8th September, 1989 of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (respondent no.2 is the Vice Chairman of the DDA) requiring the petitioner to hand over the possession of plot no.5, District Centre, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi with the superstructure standing thereon to the respondent DDA; (ii) impugns the letter dated 30th April, 1999 of the respondent DDA calling upon the petitioner to remove the breaches of the terms and conditions of auction of the aforesaid plot failing which action for cancellation of the bid of the petitioner with respect to the said plot shall be initiated; (iii) seeks a mandamus commanding the respondent DDA to execute the lease deed of the land underneath the aforesaid plot directly in favour of the sub-allottees or alternatively in favour of the petitioner; and, (iv) seeks a mandamus to the respondent DDA to accept the ground rent tendered by the petitioner from time to time. 2. It is inter alia the case ...
Forech India Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
1. This petition was disposed of in terms of order dated 30th November, 2015 as under: 1. The petition impugns the order dated 6th November, 2013 of the respondent No.1 Competition Commission of India (CCI) under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 as well as denial by the respondent No.2 Director General (DG), CCI of information in the form of inspection of documents and evidence against the petitioner sought by the petitioner from the DG, CCI. 2. On enquiry from the senior counsel for the petitioner, as to how the challenge to the order dated 26(1) which is more than two years old i.e. of 6 th November, 2013, is maintainable now, the senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner for the first time learnt of the said order only on receipt of first notice dated 27th May, 2015 from DG, CCI. It is clarified that prior thereto, the petitioner was not investigated at all. 3. The order under Section 26(1) directs the DG, CCI to complete the investigation and submit a r...
Nishi Vs. Jagdish Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated February 24, 2016 whereby the divorce petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent/husband has been allowed thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties. 2. The social and economic status of the parties to this appeal can be inferred from their respective residential addresses. The marriage was arranged through a charitable trust of a mandir. The respondent/husband though an employee (UDC) with MCD, the appellant/wife was doing some private job earning about Rs.6,000 - Rs.7,000 per month and was having amother with no source of income. 3. The appellant/wife entered the matrimonial home nurturing a dream to have separate home for two of them only. The respondent/husband was shouldering the family responsibilities and was not comfortable in having a separate accommodation or bear the unnecessary burden of paying the rent ...
Rajeev Kumar Vs. Vidya Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
Pratibha Rani, J. (Oral) 1. On May 17, 2016 notice was issued in the appeal to the respondent/wife returnable for August 11, 2016. The Process Server reported that since nobody in the house received the notice service was effected by affixation. On August 11, 2016 fresh notice returnable for today was issued by ordinary process and registered A.D. post noting that since there was no order to effect service by affixation, the report pertaining to the order dated May 17, 2016 had to be ignored. 2. Summons sent by ordinary process had been returned by Process Server with the report that father of the respondent/wife refused to receive the notice and therefore, it was affixed. Report from the postal authorities is that the addressee refused to receive the notice. 3. Impugned order shows that after being served the respondent/wife entered appearance but failed to appear thereafter and was proceeded against ex-parte on December 11, 2013, which order was set aside on August 08, 2014 on an app...
Bhupinder Kalra Vs. Paramjit Kaur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 8th October, 2015 [of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-05 (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in CS No.1439/2011 (Unique ID No.02401C0338702011)] of ejectment of the appellant from the shops on first and second floors above the shop bearing no. 4, WZ-296, G-Block, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and for recovery of Rs.4,30,000/- towards arrears of rent and of Rs.30,000/- per month towards damages/use and occupation charges w.e.f. June, 2011 till the delivery of possession. 2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 3rd February, 2016 when on being told that CM(M) No.872/2015 preferred by the appellant against the order in the suit from which this appeal arises closing the right of the appellant to cross examine the witnesses of the respondents/plaintiffs was also pending consideration, the appeal was ordered to be listed along with the said CM(M) No....
Ishwar Singh Decd. Through Lrs. and Others Vs. Suraj Bhan and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/defendants impugning the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 3.1.2012 by which the first appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court. The Trial Court vide its Judgment dated 1.3.2001 had dismissed the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs with respect to the suit land being 1/4th share of land comprised in Khasra no. 57/23/1(2-6), 24(4-10), 25(4-16), 67/1(4-8), 10(4-16), 11(4-16), 68/6(4-9), and 15(4-9) admeasuring 34 bighas and 10 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Lampur, Delhi. As a result of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed. 2. By the suit the respondents/plaintiffs sought declaration of invalidity of the ex parte Mutation Order dated 20.5.1996 of the revenue authority in favour of appellants/defendants ...
Bhola Ram Patel and Others Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. C.M. APPL.27040/2016 in LPA 136/2016 (for clarification of order) C.M. APPL.30483/2016 in LPA 353/2016 (for clarification of order) C.M. APPL.30487/2016 in LPA 256/2016 (for directions) 1. This order will dispose of several applications seeking directions on the one hand and clarifications of the previous judgment of the Court dated 18.05.2016 on the other [hereafter referred to as the main judgment ]. The main judgment had disposed of a batch of LPAs. 2. For the purpose of this order, it is necessary to recapitulate some of the essential facts. The appellants were aggrieved by various judgments and orders of the learned Single Judges rejecting their pleas and had relied upon Sections 3 and 4 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 [hereafter the Act ]. The Court had noticed in the final judgment that the Act was an effort to consolidate the law declared by the Supreme Court with respect to securing and regulating...
Chandra Prabhu Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Lt. Governor and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
Manmohan, J. (Oral) C.M.No.34215/2016 After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to withdraw the present application with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. W.P.(C) 1484/2015 and CM Appls. 31310/2015 and 9933/2016 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the cut-off date to issue alternative plots to paper traders is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the policy/notification dated 15th March, 2000. The petitioners seek the cut-off date as 31st March, 2007 instead of 15th March, 2000. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that as 350 plots are vacant at Ghazipur as of today and 300 odd paper merchants are still operating from Old Delhi, the cut-off date should be extended to 31st March, 2007. 3. Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned additional standi...
Ario Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Gail Gas Limited and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2016
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The petitioner, M/s ARIO Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter ARIO ) has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act'), inter alia, seeking stay of invocation of the bank guarantees issued for securing the mobilization advance - Bank Guarantee No.0188IGPERO07614 (hereinafter the Mobilization BG) - for the sum of Rs.82,12,450/- and for due performance of the Contract - Performance Bank Guarantee No.0188IGPERO07714 (hereinafter the Performance BG) - for the sum of Rs.1,49,31,728/-. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 (hereafter GGL ) submitted that insofar as Performance BG is concerned, itsinvocation will not be pressed till ARIO has had an opportunity to seek relief from the Arbitral Tribunal, which would be constituted shortly. In view of the aforesaid submission, GGL is restrained from invocation of the Performance BG till ARIO s application under Section 17 of the Act -...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »