Delhi Court September 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 3 of about 94 results (0.020 seconds)Sanjay Gambhir Vs. Bdr Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. This appeal by Mr. Sanjay Gambhir under Section 37 (2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( Act ) is directed against the orderdated 18th July, 2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in two applications filed by the Claimants i.e., BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. ( BDR ) in thearbitral proceedings under Section 17 of the Act initiated against the present Appellant apart from the Directors of Renaissance Buildcon Co. Pvt. Ltd. ('Renaissance') 2. The Appellant herein (who was Respondent No. 2 in the arbitral proceedings) is aggrieved to the extent that in the impugned order the learned Arbitrator has directed the Appellant including his legal heirs, assigns, nominees and agents etc. not to deal in any manner or sell, transfer, alienate or part with possession of all and any movable and immovable assets in his power and possession or to which he may be personally entitled. 3. The background to this appeal is that two Memoranda of Understanding ( MOUs ) were entered int...
Tag this Judgment!North Delhi Municipal Corportation Vs. Amrit Mehta and Others
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation/appellant impugning the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 16.2.2012 by which the first appellate court has set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court. Trial Court had by its Judgment dated 31.10.2011 dismissed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs so far as the relief/claim of permanent injunction against dispossession is concerned, but had decreed the suit for recovery of rent of Rs.391.84/- against the appellant/defendant/tenant. As a result of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court appellant/defendant has been restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs of the suit property forming a portion of Municipal no. 2650, Ward no.V, Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006. 2. The facts as pleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs were that the appellant/defendant was a tenant in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M/s. Jayaswals Neco Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellant (UOI) and the respondent (JNL) entered into a contract bearing No.99/Track-II/22/14/8/70248 dated June 18, 1999 in terms of which JNL agreed to supply and the railways agreed to purchase 7 lakh pieces of SGCI inserts. The railways short closed the contract and that gave birth to a dispute between the parties. The contract contained an arbitration clause and, accordingly, the disputes were referred to arbitration. The arbitration proceedings culminated in an award dated October 09, 2002 in favour of JNL; the operative parts of which is reads as under:- 8.1 Claim no. 1 Therefore, the Respondents shall pay to the Claimants the difference between the rate agreed between the parties in their agreement dated 18.6.1999 and the rate as actually paid for 98,219 nos. inserts. 8.2 Claim No. 2 Simple interest of 12% over and above the price differential between the amount due and the amount actually paid from 45 days after the above payment become due till th...
Tag this Judgment!Sagar Sanjeev Dua Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others
Court: Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. W.P.(C) 7750/2016 and CM No.31997/2016(interim relief) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking to challenge the answers of respondent No.1 to question Nos.73,103,124,135,158 of National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2016 and for appointment of an independent expert or panel of experts to examine the contentions of the petitioner and to evaluate whether the answers given by the petitioner to the questions set by the respondent No.1 were correct or the view of the respondent No.1 is correct. 2. Extensive submissions were made on the correctness of the answers given by the petitioners by referring to research material placed on record. Reliance was placed on several articles covering the various questions as well as the textbook of NCERT. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the question paper has been set by experts who have also given their answers. It is contended that as per chapter VII clause 4 of the Information Bulle...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Rathaur and Another Vs. Shashi Bhushan Lal Dass
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 19.9.2015 by which the first appellate court has reversed the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 6.9.2014. Trial Court by its Judgment dated 6.9.2014 had decreed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs filed for damages for malicious prosecution and defamation. The impugned judgment of the first appellate court therefore has resulted in dismissal of the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution and defamation. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed the subject suit seeking damages on account of malicious prosecution and defamation as an FIR was lodged by the respondent/defendant against the appellants/plaintiffs on 27.4.2004. The incident of 27.04.2004 was of an assault by the appellants/plaintiffs, and therefore, there was a registering of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Karmanya Singh Sareen and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
G. Rohini, C.J. 1. The petitioners claim to be the users of WhatsApp , an Internet Messaging Application, provided by the respondent No.2/"WhatsApp Inc.", a company based in USA. 2. The present writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation has been filed with the following prayer: "(a) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ or direction in the nature thereof prohibiting respondents No. 2 to 4 from sharing, in any manner whatsoever, details and data of every kind of the subscribers / users of WhatsApp with any entity including Facebook or its family of companies; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondent 1 and 5 or any other appropriate authority to discharge their executive, statutory and all other obligations in relation to protection and safety of privacy of details / data of every kind of the subscribers / users of WhatsApp all over the territory of India by taking all necessary steps / actions in discharge...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Madan Vs. Sheel Gulati
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Being the owner of property bearing Municipal No.BN-53, Shalimar Bagh (East), Delhi, Sheel Gulati entered into a written agreement to sell Ex.P-1 with Madan Mohan on October 05, 2005, recording therein that for a sale consideration in sum of Rs.2.39 crores the property shall be sold to Madan Mohan. Ex.P-1 records that the bargain was facilitated by a property dealer : Pardesi Properties ; and it is the admitted case of theparties that one Raju was carrying on business as a property dealer under the name and style Pardesi Properties . Ex.P-1 is a printed proforma, inall probability got printed by Raju. It is captioned : earnest money receipt (Bayana Rasid). In the blank spaces in the proforma the name and address of the buyer and the seller as also the property which is the subject matter of the agreement, the total sale consideration, the earnest money received and the balance due have been filled up. The date by which the sale-deed had to be executed is record...
Tag this Judgment!Zillion Inraprojects Pvt Ltd Vs. Alstom Systems India (P) Limited and ...
Court: Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. IA No.11700-01/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 377/2016 3. The petitioner (hereafter 'ZIPL') has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act ), inter alia, praying as under:- "(i) Grant Ad-interim ex-parte Stay and Suspend the enforcement of the letter dated 16.09.2016 issued for the termination of the sub contract until the resolution or adjudication of disputes between the parties by way of mediation or arbitration ; and (ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to maintain status quo at the work sites and permit the petitioner to proceed further with the execution of the project which is of a national importance until the resolution or adjudication of disputes between the parties and; (iii) Restrain the Respondent no. 1 from encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee BG - 1003 dated 14.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.20,000,000/- (Rupees Two Crore...
Tag this Judgment!Mini Appa Kanda Swami @ Mani Vs. Mindra
Court: Delhi
Deepa Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant husband against the order of the Family Court, Rohini, Delhi, dated 12.08.2010 whereby his petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereafter the Act ) was dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the parties got married according to Hindu rites and customs at JJ Colony, Delhi on 06.09.2003 and through the wedlock one male child was born on 01.07.2004. 3. The petition for divorce was filed by the appellant on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the respondent wife was pressurizing him to setup a separate home as she did not want to live in a joint family. The appellant worked as a labourer and it is his contention that owing to limited financial means it was not possible for him to set up a separate independent household. It is further contended that despite several attempts to explain the difficulty of setting up a separate household, the respondent refused to cooperate...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Panwar Vs. V.P.S. Panwar
Court: Delhi
Deepa Sharma, J. 1. In the present appeal the respondent- wife challenges an order dated 13.12.2001 of the Delhi District Court, which dissolved the marriage of the parties on the ground of cruelty. The parties to the dispute were married on 24.12.1975 at Meerut and they were blessed with two children in the year 1976 and 1983. The petitioner/husband at the time of filing of the divorce petition was employed with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as a Commandant. The divorce petition, which was initially filed before the Family Court, Meerut, was transferred to Delhi by an order, dated 28.03.2000 of the Supreme Court. 2. The petitioner/husband alleged that he and his family members were treated with cruelty by his wife (the appellant); she did not like his family members visiting their house, did not like his father to reside with them and that she was abusive towards him and all other family members. The husband alleged further that the wife had humiliated his father on several ...
Tag this Judgment!