Court : Delhi
1. By this order I propose to decide the interim application being IA No.11586/2011 under Order 39 R 1 and 2 CPC seeking inter alia various reliefs including restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 and their agents and servants in any manner dealing with, disposing of, selling, alienating for sale or creating any third party rights and parting with shares of the suit property by passing the injunction orders. 2. The plaintiff has also filed another application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC seeking relief to grant leave to the plaintiff to file suit for damages against the defendants. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 12th July, 2010, Facility Agreement was entered into between defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 whereby defendant No.1 advanced a loan of Rs.250 crores against various securities to the defendant No.3. One of the securities is a pledge of shares of the plaintiff which were to be kept in non-disposal escrow account. The other securities are hypothecation of movable propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 20.12.2011 + CM (M) No. 1588/2010 and CM No. 22286/2010 (stay) NORTH DELHI POWER LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divyam agarwal, Mr. Manish Kr. Jha and Mr. Mohit Bakshi, Advocates. versus SWARNA GUPTA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anshu Mahajan, Mr. Karan Arora and Ms. Seema, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral).1. The order impugned before this court is the order dated 08.09.2010 which is an order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) reversing the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 22.09.2009 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord i.e. Swarna Gupta against the tenant namely Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) on the ground of sub-letting as contained in Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. The impugned judgment reversing this finding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma and another, applicants herein, have assailed the Government of Uttar Pradesh recommendation dated 27.03.2010 (Annexure-A1 Colly), 22.05.2010, 08.09.2010 and Central Government order thereon dated 10.09.2010 (page 46) whereby the Non State Civil Services (NSCS) officers have been denied their rightful induction in the IAS due to cadre review and restructuring. It is the case of the applicants that there were certain directions contained in the judgment of the Lucknow Bench dated 06.09.2010, on the basis of which the Central Government granting an erroneous approval on 10.09.2010 diverted 11 vacancies earmarked for the Non State Civil Services (NSCS) Officers to the State Civil Services (SCS) officers. The applicants have, therefore, approached this Tribunal with following relief(s):- “a. Quash and set aside the letter dated 27.03.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of UP to the DOPT, Government of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J 1. Jagatjit Jaiswal and Karamjit S.Jaiswal are real brothers. They are the sons of late Ladli Prashad Jaiswal and his wife Surjit Jaiswal. On March 03, 2000, Jagatjit Jaiswal and his wife as one group and Karamjit S.Jaiswal and his wife as the other group executed a Memorandum of Family Settlement. 2. The memorandum records that the family of late Ladli Prashad Jaiswal has substantial wealth and assets including direct and indirect holdings in public and private companies and in respect of distribution of the family wealth an oral settlement was arrived in the previous year. The written memorandum further records that a further oral agreement was arrived at between the parties on March 02, 2000, the object whereof was to avoid disputes and litigation amongst the two brothers and their wives so that peace, harmony and goodwill could be maintained. The memorandum records that the executants desired to reduce the terms of the oral settlement into a writing as an aid t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant was working as Superintendent with the Respondent No.2, namely, the National Gallery of Modern Art, Jaipur House, New Delhi. When the respondents were in the process of establishing a branch of the Respondent No. 2 in Bangalore in April/May, 2008, it decided, vide Annexure A-2 letter dated 13.02.2008, to transfer one post of Keeper/Deputy Keeper and one post of Superintendent to Bangalore Branch for a period of two years or till the sanction of the regular staff for that Branch whichever is earlier. Accordingly, one Smt. Rehana Shah holding the post of Keeper/Deputy Keeper was transferred there in order to take charge of the accounting functions of the said branch. Likewise, the applicant was also transferred for a period of two years vide Annexure A-4 letter dated 13.04.2008. He handed over the charge to one Shri Zile Singh, UDC working under him and got relieved from his duty. However, after joining the Branch Office at Bangalore, he was facing serious health problem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. The Constitution makers fervently hoped to usher a society committed to equality, where barriers of race, gender, domicile, descent and the unforgiving marginalization of a large section of the society as a result of the ills of the caste system and the practise of untouchability, would eventually be eliminated. The commitment has remained largely an unrealized promise. The strategy of the State to bridge the social gulf through affirmative action has thrown up constant challenges which Courts are called upon to resolve. This is one such challenge, where the Court has to grapple with the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 read with Article 16, in the context of differing standards of what is the permissible reservation standard applicable on the one hand to residents of states who take up residence in one state, as opposed to residents of states who take up residence in Union territories. This judgment seeks to answer a reference made to the Full Bench, constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :06.3.2013 Judgment delivered on:13.03.2013 CO.APP. 18/2013 REAL LIFESTYLE BROADCASTING PVT LTD..... Appellant Through: Mr.Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Ritin Rai, Mr.Santanam Swaminathan, Ms.Kartika Sharma and Mr.Manu Sanan, Advocates. versus TURNER ASIA PACIFIC VENTURES INC. & ANR. ... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rishi Agarawala and Ms.Malavika Lal, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 Company petition No.20 of 2011 was filed jointly by Real Global Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. (RGB- hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) and Real Lifestyle Broadcasting (RLB-hereinafter referred to as the transferee company/appellant) under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) seeking sanction of a scheme the qua shareholders and creditors of the aforesai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P. (Crl.) No.401/2013 Reserved on :15. h April, 2013 Date of order :03. May, 2013 SAJID ALI ..... Petitioner Through Nemo Versus STATE & ORS. Through .... Respondents Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA GITA MITTAL, J 1.The above criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of a writ for quashing the order dated 15th December, 2012 and 17th January, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioners revision petition for his failure to pay the entire arrears of maintenance as a pre-condition for entertainment of the petition. It is contended that this pre-condition is imposed pursuant to a decision of a learned Single Judge of this court which is also challenged herein. The respondent no.2 before us is the first wife of the present petitioner, while respondent n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
A$~40. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 21.05.2013 15.07.2013 W.P.(C.) No. 883/2010 (Arising out of award dated 24.10.2009 in ID No.06/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus DHEER SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6499/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1292/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6501/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.10/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SUNITA SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6514/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1293/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus NARAYAN JHA Through: ..... ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
A$~40. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: % + 21.05.2013 15.07.2013 W.P.(C.) No. 883/2010 (Arising out of award dated 24.10.2009 in ID No.06/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus DHEER SINGH Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6499/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1292/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6501/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.10/2005) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus SUNITA SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. W.P.(C) 6514/2010 (Arising out of award dated 21.05.2010 in ID No.1293/2004) RAMJAS FOUNDATION Through: .... Petitioner Mr. Sudhendhu P Gautam, Advocate. versus NARAYAN JHA Through: ..... ...
Tag this Judgment!