Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2005(1)JKJ241
H. Imtiyaz Hussain, J.1. The present application has been filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Principal Secretary to Government Industries and Commerce Department Srinagar with the prayer that they be allowed to deposit the deficit Court-fee.2. The matter pertains to Land Acquisition proceedings in village Khanpora District Budgam. The reference made in the proceedings to the Learned District Judge Budgam was disposed of by the Learned District Judge on 12.11.2000.Against the judgment and decree passed by the Learned District Judge, State of Jammu and Kashmir has filed an appeal before this Court which stands admitted by order of this court dated 17.03.2004. The State has not paid requisite court fee and in para 8 of the memorandum of Appeal the Appellants have undertaken to pay the requisite court fee on admission of the Appeal. Since no Court fee was paid, the present application has been moved by the State seeking permission to pay the same.3. The non-applicants / respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of IA No.7774/2011 filed by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and IA No.10124/2011 filed under order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of interim order passed on 03.06.2011. 2. The brief factual matrix of the matter can be enunciated as under: a) The Plaintiff no 1 is stated to be a company incorporated under the laws of Korea. The plaintiff No. 2 is stated to be company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Both the plaintiffs collectively stated to be a part of Samsung Group of Companies having 14 listed companies and 285 worldwide operations. b) It is stated that the plaintiffs are engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in electronic goods such colour televisions of all types, home appliances, washing machines, microwaves, air conditions, computers, printers and cartridges etc. c) The plaintiffs have stated to earn revenues for the year 2009 around US$ 172.5 Billion a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: May 31, 2013 + Arb.P.No.95/2013 SCHENKER INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. with Mr.Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. versus SEARIR TRANSPORT SYSTEM ..... Respondent Through Mr.Rakesh K.Gupta, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for appointment of sole Arbitrator. The facts as per the petition read as under:(i) The petitioner and the respondent entered into a Cargo Sales Agency Agreement dated 1 st February, 1999 for facilitating business transactions, pertaining to ocean import, ocean export and air import shipments, wherein the respondent Company was to be acting for the petitioner in the State of Punjab. (ii) The agreement was terminated by mutual consensus vide e-mail dated 12th May, 2011, thereby stating the date of term...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: May 31, 2013 + Arb.P.No.95/2013 SCHENKER INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. with Mr.Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. versus SEARIR TRANSPORT SYSTEM ..... Respondent Through Mr.Rakesh K.Gupta, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for appointment of sole Arbitrator. The facts as per the petition read as under:(i) The petitioner and the respondent entered into a Cargo Sales Agency Agreement dated 1 st February, 1999 for facilitating business transactions, pertaining to ocean import, ocean export and air import shipments, wherein the respondent Company was to be acting for the petitioner in the State of Punjab. (ii) The agreement was terminated by mutual consensus vide e-mail dated 12th May, 2011, thereby stating the date of term...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
E.P.No.1/2020 1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE18H DAY OF FEBRUARY2021BEFORE THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL ELECTION PETITION No.1/2020 BETWEEN: SHRI RAVI SHIVAPPA PADASALAGI @ SAVADI S/O SHIVAPPA PADASALAGI AGED ABOUT42YEARS OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER/SOCIAL WORKER R/AT NO.196, 5TH MAIN2D CROSS, M.S.PALYA ROAD SINGAPURA PARADISE VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU 560 097 PETITIONER (BY SRI CHAITANYA S.G. ADVOCATE) AND:1. SRI IRANNA KADADI S/O BHIMAPPA AGED ABOUT54YEARS R/AT P:KALLOLI TALUK:MUDALAGI (GOKAK) BELAGAVI 591 224 2. SMT.M.K.VISHALAKSHI RETURNING OFFICER SECRETARY (I/C) KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001 RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIVEK S.REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP FOR R2) E.P.No.1/2020 2 THIS ELECTION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION81READ WITH SECTION1001)(d)(iv) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ELECTION IN SO FAR AS THE FIRST RESPOND...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 149(2008)DLT740; 2008(103)DRJ191; (2008)151PLR13
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question the validity of an order dated 6th December, 2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi whereby Misc. Appeal No. 182/2006 arising out of O.A. No. 31/2004 (DRT-II, Delhi) has been dismissed. The petitioners further seek a declaration to the effect that proceedings initiated against them by the respondent bank under the Securitisation Act, 2002 have become void and stand withdrawn with a direction to the bank to de-seal the first floor of property No. R-82/5, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar Illaka, Shahdara, Delhi. The controversy arises in the backdrop of the following facts:2. Upon the failure of the petitioners to liquidate an outstanding debt of Rs. 78,34,862.39, the respondent bank invoked the provisions of Sections 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Ordinance (II) 2002 and called upon the petitioners herein to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on: 13.01.2012 + IA No.17230/2011 and IA No.17646/2011 in CS (OS) No.2683/2011 M/S SHREE GANESHA ENTERPRISES ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. S.K.Bansal, Adv. Versus SANDEEP GULLAH ..... Defendant Through Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Adv. with Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J..1. By this order, I propose to decide the applications filed by the parties, i.e. application bearing I.A. No.17230/2011 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using, advertising or dealing in the impugned trade mark and trade name CITY BANQUETS or any other trade mark which is deceptively similar or identical to the trade mark and trade name CITY BANQUET and CITY PALACE BANQUETS, and another application bearing I.A. No.17646 of 2011 filed CS (OS) No.2683/2011 Page 1 of 20 by the defendant under Order XXXIX, Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2728; 2002(6)KarLJ506
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 23-8-2001 in Rev. P. No. 103/1999-2000 affirming the order dated 29-1-1999 passed in R. A. No. 39/96-97 passed by the 2nd respondent. Further, he sought for a direction to the respondents to enter their names in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and issue RTCs and other records to the petitioners. They also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners for grant of occupancy rights which is available on the record of the 1st respondent.2. The petitioners' late husband one Sri Muninagappa had purchased an agricultural land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 68/1 (old) and New No. 133/1 situated at Kowdenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South (Addl. Taluk), Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, under the registered sale deed dated 22-4-1950. The husban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2008]144CompCas487(Delhi); 2008(103)DRJ249
T.S. Thakur, J.1. M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. is a sick company within the meaning of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter called 'SICA' for short. A scheme for its rehabilitation appears to have been approved under the provisions of the Act by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. By an order dated 21st January, 2003 passed in Appeal No. 301/2000 arising out of BIFR Case No. 22/98, the AAIFR constituted what is described as an Assets Sales Committee for the sale of surplus assets of the sick company by inviting offers through advertisements. The Committee comprised a representative of the IDBI, the operating agency, the Managing Director or Executive Director of a sick company and a representative of the State Bank of India which happens to be the lead bank. The AAIFR also authorized the Assets Sales Committee to formulate the procedure for disposal of the surplus assets and to submit a report on the same to the BIFR who was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 117(2005)DLT216
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present proceedings is an illustration of how the very provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Act) are defeated by filing various proceedings and prevent the natural conclusion of the proceedings initiated under the special Act.The petitioner is a licensee of shop No. 243 in Palika Bazar and proceedings were initiated in 1985 against the petitioner under Section 7(1) of the Act for recovery of license fee and interest. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte and the matter was fixed for evidence of respondent Council herein. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondent Council in which certain interim orders were passed.2. The said interim orders have not been annexed to the present writ petition but from perusal of the order of the Estate Officer dated 5.9.2002 it can be deciphered that interim orders were granted in favor of the petitioner directing stay of dispossession and r...
Tag this Judgment!