Delhi Court September 2016 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2016 Page 5 of about 94 results (0.021 seconds)State Bank of India Vs. The National Commission For Scheduled Castes T ...
Court: Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition by the State Bank of India, is to the recommendation/order of the respondent no. l, forwarded vide letter dated May 13, 2014 recommending the petitioner Bank to consider withdrawal of compulsory retirement of respondent No.2 and initiate de novo enquiry to identify the HR failure, which lead to filing of the complaint. 2. The facts as noted from the writ petition are, the respondent No.2 joined the petitioner Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier on July 20, 1978 and was promoted to JMGS-I on August 01, 1988. It is the case of the petitioner Bank that during the tenure of the respondent No.2 with the petitioner Bank, he committed various acts of misconduct like attending office in a drunken state frequently, misbehaving with the staff, frequently absenting from work, making withdrawals without maintaining sufficient balance in his bank account etc. due to which, the petitioner Bank was constrained to initiate disciplinary action against th...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Shokeen Vs. Raghuvinder Shokeen
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. I.A. No.13535/2015 (under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, moved by respondent no.1 for dismissal of the election petition) in Election Petition No. 1/2015 1. This application has been filed by the respondent under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for dismissing the election petition. Theelection petition has been filed by the petitioner Sh. Manoj Kumar Shokeen praying for issuing of directions for setting aside the election of respondent as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi from the Nangloi Jat Constituency termed as AC-11. Petitioner belongs to Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and the respondent belongs to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Elections were held on 7.2.2015 and results were announced on 10.2.2015, and as per which results the petitioner lost the elections and respondent was declared as elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi. 2. By this application, th...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. The National Commission For Scheduled Castes a ...
Court: Delhi
V. Kameswar Rao, J 1. The challenge in this writ petition by the State Bank of India, is to the recommendation/order/advice dated February 9, 2016 issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, respondent No.1 directing the petitioner Bank to reconsider and re-examine the whole issue of penalty imposed upon the respondent No.2 by the Disciplinary Authority. 2. Some of the relevant facts as noted from the writ petition are, the respondent No.2 was posted at Faridabad Main Branch as Special Assistant on March 1, 2007. While he was working such, a surprise investigation was carried out in the Faridabad Main Branch by an investigating team. The investigating team submitted its report, wherein it inter-alia stated as under:- Later on one Shri Raj Kumar Shubh who was earlier posted at this branch and since transferred to CAC Faridabad at the 1st floor of the same building, entered the room a number of times trying apparently to help the staff to tally the cash ..so according to us a...
Tag this Judgment!Sharma Kalypso Pvt. Ltd Vs. Engineers India Limited and Another
Court: Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. IA No.11582/2016 1. The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The same stands disposed of. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 373/2016 3. The petitioner (hereafter SKPL )has filed the present petition, interalia, praying as under:- "(i) Restrain the respondents from invoking, encashing and receiving the amount under the Bank Guarantees bearing no 2013/44 dated 08.08.2013; (ii) Further direct Branch Manager of Respondent No.2 Bank not to remit any amount to the respondent no.l under the abovementioned Bank guarantees or to issue any pay order/demand draft/RTGS and if any such pay order/demand draft(s) have been issued then the same should not be encashed by the respondent;" 4. Briefly stated, the controversy involved in the present case arises in the following context:- 4.1 The respondent no. 1 (hereafter 'EIL') invited tenders for execution of the interior works for Convention Centre of its new office complex at Gurgaon, Haryana. SKPL was successful in the bidding ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Khushi Ram Behari Lal Vs. P.V Kanakaraj Trading As Kalpatharu Tra ...
Court: Delhi
IA No. 5529/2014 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC) 1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Defendant seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Plaintiff has sought to combine two causes of action i.e., one for passing off of the trademark and the other for infringement of copyright without there being necessary basic averments in the plaint as to how the causes of action for the said reliefs have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 2. It is not in dispute that in the present suit the Plaintiff, having its registered office at 5190, Lahori Gate, Delhi 110006 and its corporate office at 81-B, Central Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110062, is seeking two reliefs against the Defendant located in Karnataka. One is for a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from passing off its trademark with device of Taj Mahal used on the rice sold by it as that of the Plaintiffwhich uses a nearly similar mark on the Basmati rice sold by i...
Tag this Judgment!Gea Egi Contracting / Engineering Co Ltd Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals ...
Court: Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. EA(OS) 713/2015 1. GEA EGI Contracting Engineering Co. Ltd. (hereafter 'GEA'), a company incorporated under the laws of Hungary and having its principal office at Hungary, has filed the present petition to enforce an arbitration award dated 21.08.2014 (hereafter 'the impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal in respect of the disputes between GEA and Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), a Government company incorporated under the laws of India. The seat of arbitration was in Zurich, Switzerland and the arbitration was conducted in accordance with the UNCITRAL Rules. 2. BHEL has filed the aforementioned application (being EA (OS) 713/2015) under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act'), inter alia, objecting to the enforcement of the impugned award principally for two reasons. First, that BHEL has instituted a suit - Suit No. 878/2014 (hereafter 'Noida Suit') - before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gautam Budh Nagar, ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Add Lounge Services Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
1. The petition impugns the order dated 20th November, 2015 of the Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India (respondent No.1) in appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 4 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011 against the communication dated 22nd September, 2015 of the respondent no.2 Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), Ministry of Civil Aviation conveying to the petitioner that in view of the adverse report received from the Central Security Agency, security clearance was being denied to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.9544/2015 impugning the said communication dated 22nd September, 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 8th October, 2015 with liberty to the petitioner to prefer the appeal under Rule 4 supra and by fixing a time schedule for disposal of the said appeal and by deferring the consequence of denial of security clearance to the petitioner till the disposal of the said appeal and in the event of...
Tag this Judgment!TRF Ltd. Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd
Court: Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J. 1. The brief facts in O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) No.65/2015 as per the petitioner are that the petitioner was awarded two separate contracts by Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (respondent herein)- one pertaining to the supply of Wagon Tippler and Side Arm Charger vide Purchase Order dated 6th May, 2014. Another work order dated 26th May, 2014 was issued to the petitioner for erection and commissioning of the Wagon Tippler and Side Arm Purchaser. The value of the aforesaid two contracts was approximately Rs.50.10 crores. As per the terms of contract, the petitioner was required to execute Advance Bank Guarantee of 10% of the total value of the supply contract and separate Bank Guarantee being a Performance Bank Guarantee for 10% of the order value. Accordingly, the petitioner executed two separate Bank Guarantee in favour of the respondent aggregating to a value of Rs.9,64,01,600/-. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the petitioner started dispatching the goods in question to...
Tag this Judgment!Rosa Power Supply Co. Ltd Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J Review Petition No.542/2014. 1. The petitioner filed this petition impugning the four orders, all dated 21st March, 2011 of the respondent no.3 Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, intimating to the petitioner the decision taken in the meeting of the Policy Interpretation Committee held on 15th March, 2011 under the Chairmanship of the Director General of Foreign Trade, of denying Deemed Export Benefits (DEB) if the Bill of Entry is in the name of the project authority , as was in the case of the petitioner and accordingly denying the DEB to the petitioner. The petition also impugns the minutes of the said meeting dated 15th March, 2011 and seeks a direction to the respondents to give the DEB in the sum of Rs.72 crores to the petitioner. 2. Arguments on the petition were heard on 21st July, 2014 and judgment reserved. 3. Vide detailed judgment dated 12th August, 2014, the petition was dismissed. 4. The petitioner seeks review, inter alia pleading that Sp...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. Mona
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellant sought dissolution of the marriage solemnized on December 06, 1996 between him and the respondent, invoking Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The marriage was consummated and on September 29, 1997 the couple were blessed with a daughter whom they named Akanksha . Currently Akanksha is living with her mother. 3. Apparent from the Sections invoked, the appellant alleged being treated with cruelty by his wife and additionally she being incurably of unsound mind or suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such kind that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with his wife. 4. The first instance of mental unsoundness pleaded is that after three weeks of the marriage when the appellant stopped his two wheeler at a petrol pump for fuelling, his wife disappeared when he was in the queue of vehicles and had requested his wife to wait at the corner of the petrol pump. As per the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!