Delhi Court September 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 4 of about 94 results (0.024 seconds)Sunil Mohan Buckshee Vs. M.M. Buckshee and Others
Court: Delhi
Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. The present second appeal under section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment dated 04.10.2006 and decree dated 13.11.2006 passed by the First Appellate Court, namely the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in RCA No.62/2005, whereby said first appeal under section 96 CPC preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff has been dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Trial Court, namely the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 208/02/93 affirmed. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of property bearing no. D-394, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The suit had initially been filed against four defendants. Defendant No.1 is the real brother; defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the half brothers, and; defendant No.4 is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, and step mother of defendant Nos 2 and 3. 3. The claim of the plaintiff/ appellant emerging from the record is tha...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Khetwani Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Narendera Khetwani is the petitioner in the above captioned petitions. In Crl.M.C.No.3923/2013 he challenges the order dated July 03, 2013 passed in CC No.82/2010, by which order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued summons to him to appear on August 22, 2013 in a complaint filed by Hema Devi and her husband Narender Prasad alleging that he and one Raju Chetri have committed offences punishable under Section 467/468/471 IPC. In Crl.M.C.No.4834/2014 he challenges the order dated March 03, 2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing an application filed by him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which application he prayed that the concerned SHO be directed to register an FIR against Raju Chetri and one Satyadev. He also challenges the order dated July 08, 2014 whereunder the learned ASJ has dismissed the revision petition filed by him against the order dated March 03, 2014. 2. The relevant facts are that Narender Prasad and Hema Devi were...
Tag this Judgment!Siddharth International Public School Vs. Motor Accident Claim Tribuna ...
Court: Delhi
G. Rohini, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2016 in W.P.(C) No.2699/2016. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. As could be seen from the material available on record, Master Priyanshu, aged about 7 years, was injured in a motor accident and his left leg was amputated below knee. In the petition (MACT No.123/11) for compensation pending before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), NE, Karkardooma Courts, the mother of the injured boy moved an application seeking a direction that the boy be admitted in a school under the 'Economically Weaker Section (EWS Category) stating that he was unable to go to the school as the financial condition of the family was not good. On 18.01.2016, MACT passed an order directing Siddharth International Public School (the writ petitioner/appellant herein), which is nearby to the residence of the injured boy, to consider the adm...
Tag this Judgment!Aditi Upadhyay Vs. Lalit Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction and partition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dated August 27, 2015. 2. Defendants No.1 and 2 are the brothers of the appellant. Defendant No.3 is the sister of the appellant. Defendant No.4 is her mother. The common link would be late Sh.Om Prakash Kumar, the father of the appellant and defendants No.1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.4. It is the case of the appellant that her grandfather Hira Lal was the owner of property bearing municipal No.R-298, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi on which he had constructed a three storyed building. He had four sons, one of whom was late Om Prakash Kumar. During his life time late Sh.Hira Lal desired to partition the property owned by him and desired to give to late Sh.Om Prakash the second floor with roof rights above, but Om Prakash expressed a desire to his father to bequeath said floor in favour of h...
Tag this Judgment!Tendril Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Namedi Leasing and ...
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellants : six in number, instituted CS(OS) No.2281/2006 impleading the nine respondents as defendants Pleading that the decree for declaration and perpetual injunction arose out of malicious acts of defendant No.7 : Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt.Ltd. in selling shares of defendant No.8 : M/s Blue Coast Hotels and Resorts Ltd. held by the plaintiffs and pledged with defendant No.7 as security for inter-corporate deposits made by defendant No.7 with defendant No.9 : M/s Morepen Laboratories Ltd. Defendants No. 5 and 6 were stated to be the entities to whom the shares were sold initially and defendants No.1 to 4 were the entities to whom defendants No.5 and 6 sold the shares. 2. The suit as also IA No.13721/2006 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC), IA No.14158/2006 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC), CCP(O) No.57/2007, IA No.291/2007 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC), IA No.1922/2007 (under Order 12 Rule 12 and 14 CPC), IA No.1389/2008 (under Section 47 CPC) and IA No...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Defence Service of Engineers Association (Govt. Approved) Vs. U ...
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The petitioners in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge two set of rules- i.e. the Military Engineer Services (Army Personnel), Regulations, 1989 hereafter ("the 1989 Regulations") framed under the Army Act, 1950 and notification bearing no. SRO. 4E dated 09.07.1991 ("the 1991 Rules") framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India as well as the notification dated 29.06.2004 issued by Ministry of Defense (MoD)- which amended the 1991 Rules. The petitioner association complains that these impugned regulations and rules violate the fundamental rights- embodied in Articles 14 and 21, of its members, who are members of the Military Engineer Services ("the MES") 2. MES was originally set up with effect from 26.09.1923 during the British rule; it comprised of the Corps of Sappers and Miners (now called Corps of Engineers and Military of Works Services) headed by the Director of Military Works. The service (MES) w...
Tag this Judgment!Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. M/s. Mahavir Internation Pvt Limi ...
Court: Delhi
Vipin Sanghi, J. CRL.L.P. 234/2015 1. Leave granted. Crl. Appeal No. /2016 (to be numbered and registered) 2. Let the appeal be numbered and registered. 3. With the consent of parties, I have heard learned counsels and proceed to judgment. 4. The appellant has preferred the present appeal to assail the judgment dated 02.01.2015 passed by the learned MM-02, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi, whereby the appellant s complaint being CC No.642/1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed, and the respondent accused acquitted. 5. The case of the appellant was that the appellant is a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, sponsored by the Government of India through the Ministry of Textiles. The appellant is looking after the matters relating to export of readymade garments from India to other countries. The appellant administers the Garment Export Policy issued by the Government of India from time to time. The further case of the appellant is that...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Rekhi and Another Vs. Y.D. Puri and Others
Court: Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. By order dated 2nd December, 2015, an application, being I.A. No.4929/2015, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed on behalf of the defendant No.2 Mrs.Raj Puri was partly allowed. The relevant paras 25 and 27 read as under: 25. As far as the admissions made on behalf of defendant No.2 by filing of joint original written statement are concerned, the same cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. The same have to be intact. However, the party cannot be refused to raise new grounds of defence or substitution of a new ground of the defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement while considering the application for amendment and the parties raising the same has to prove it in evidence as per law. It is settled law that while considering the application for amendment, merit cannot be gone into. 27. The defendant No.2, under these circumstances, is not allowed to withdraw the said admissions already made in the original written statement. The same would be kept intact...
Tag this Judgment!Atmiya Chemicals Vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. IA No. 11622/2016 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. O.M.P. (COMM) 420/2016 3. The petitioner (hereafter Atmiya ) has filed the present petition underSection 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act ), inter alia, assailing an award dated 25.05.2016(hereafter the impugned award ) made by the Sole Arbitrator, Justice Mukul Mudgal(Retd.), former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. 4. The impugned award was made in the context of the disputes that had arisen between the parties in respect of transmission charges for supply of Low Pressure Natural Gas (LPNG). On 13.06.2003, the respondent (hereafter GAIL ) had issued a Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) forprospective consumers of LPNG within the isolated Motwan field in Gujarat. Atmiya applied under the said NIA and was qualified as a prospective consumer. In addition, two other applicants were also qualified as prospective con...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Maan Vs. Sanjana Maan
Court: Delhi
Pratibha Rani, J. 1. The appellant/husband has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated April 23, 2016 whereby the petition filed by him under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife has been dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court. 2. The appellant/husband joined Indian Air Force as Corporal in the year 2002. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on December 01, 2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. Both the parties are from rural area of Delhi as can be inferred from their respective addresses given in the petition. The marriage has been consummated. They are issueless. 3. In the petition seeking dissolution of marriage the appellant/husband has quoted numerous incidents to establish that right from the inception the matrimonial journey was not smooth. There were issues not only about doing the household work, the relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law was also not cordial. The...
Tag this Judgment!