Court : Delhi
PRAJAPATI SATYA DEV * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:14. h January, 2015 + % FAO3691996 KUSUM SHARMA Through : ..... Appellant Mr. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Mr. Sunil Mittal, Amicus curiae versus MAHINDER KUMAR SHARMA Through : None. ..... Respondent WITH FAO2971997, MAT.APP. 47/2005, MAT.APP. 64/2007, MAT.APP. 33/2010, MAT.APP. 35/2010, MAT.APP. 124/2010 MAT.APP. 36/2012 & MAT.APP. 8/2013 Present: Ms. Vandana Khurana, Advocate for the appellant in FAO2971997 Mr. Devesh Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellant in MAT472005 Ms. Anu Narula, Amicus Curiae in MAT APP. 47/2005 Ms. Anu Narula and Mr. Kunal Aurora, Advocates for the appellant in MAT APP. 64/2005 Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sood, Advocate for the appellant in MAT. APP332010 Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant in MAT. APP352010 Mr. Hasan Kumar with Mr. Osama Suhail & Mr. Samama Suhail, Advocates for the appellant in MAT. APP1242010 Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Ms. Pratibha & Ms. Ritu, Advocates ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order reserved on:17. th November, 2014 Order pronounced on:13. h January, 2015 CONT. CAS (C) 165/2008 MONTREAUX RESORTS P. LTD & ORS....PETITIONERS Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand M. Mishra, Advocate Versus SONIA KHOSLA & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. Little did the framing fathers of the Constitution and the legislators visualize that the privilege and liberty granted to an individual to approach the court of law and to appear for himself and for others either as an attorney or as an advocate could and would be misused and abused to such an extent as has been done by this one individual Mr. Deepak Khosla.2. 32 learned Judges of this High Court (including former and sitting judges), judges of the subordinate courts, the Company Law Board and the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of former judges of this Court and a former judge of the Supreme Court have recu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IA Nos.6207/2014 in C.S.(OS) No.962/2014 Decided on : DECEMBER22 2014 VIKRAM BAKSHI AND ANR Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr.Mukul Rohatgi and Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocates with Mr. Rishi Sood, Advocate for P-1 and P-2. versus MC DONALDS INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr.Harish Salve and Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocates with Mr.Rahul P. Dave, Mr.Varij Sharma, Ms. Shaista Arora and Mr. Sumit Chopra, Advocates for D-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This order shall dispose of IA No.6207/2014 (u/Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC) by virtue of which the plaintiffs have prayed for an ad interim injunction against the arbitration proceedings initiated by defendant No.1 before the London Court of International Arbitration.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff No.1 is an Indian citizen and resides & carries on business within the jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff No.2 is a company incorporated by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IA Nos.6207/2014 in C.S.(OS) No.962/2014 Decided on : DECEMBER22 2014 VIKRAM BAKSHI AND ANR Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr.Mukul Rohatgi and Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocates with Mr. Rishi Sood, Advocate for P-1 and P-2. versus MC DONALDS INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr.Harish Salve and Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocates with Mr.Rahul P. Dave, Mr.Varij Sharma, Ms. Shaista Arora and Mr. Sumit Chopra, Advocates for D-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This order shall dispose of IA No.6207/2014 (u/Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC) by virtue of which the plaintiffs have prayed for an ad interim injunction against the arbitration proceedings initiated by defendant No.1 before the London Court of International Arbitration.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff No.1 is an Indian citizen and resides & carries on business within the jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff No.2 is a company incorporated by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.34680 of 2013 03-12-2014 M/s.Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd.Petitioner The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue) (CT).Hyderabad & Ors.Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sr.A.V.Krishna Koudinya, Learned Senior Counsel for Sr.Ancha Panduranga Rao Counsel for respondents: Sr.P. Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes; ?. Citations: 1) (2005) 142 STC76(SC) 2) (1967) 20 STC290(SC) 3) (2010) 327 ITR456(SC) 4) 1985 (60) STC2135) AIR1957SC6576) AIR1955SC6197) (2005) 1 SCC6048) (2014) 3 SCC5029) (1875) 1 Ch D42610) AIR1936PC25311) AIR1954SC32212) AIR1964SC35813) 1999 (8) SCC26614) 2001 (4) SCC915) 2008 (4) SCC75516) (1995) 1 SCC27417) (1976) 3 SCC54018) AIR1986SC80619) (1979) 2 SCC40920) (1990) 64 Aust LJR32721) (1998) 7 SCC6622) (1993) 3 SCC49923) (2012) 6 SCC43024) (1990) 3 SCC65525) (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC10026) (2004) 6 SCC32527) (2007) 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (C) No.150 OF2006Madras Bar Association Petitioner(s) versus Union of India and another Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3850 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.3862 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.3881 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.3882 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.4051 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.4052 OF2006WRIT PETITION (C) NO.621 OF2007TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.116 OF2006TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.117 OF2006TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.118 OF2006WRIT PETITION (C) NO.697 OF2007JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.The Controversy:1. All the above cases are being disposed of by this common judgment. The issue which arises for consideration before us, in the present bunch of cases, pertains to the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, the NTT Act). Simultaneously, the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 has been assailed, by asserting, that the same vio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.9784 OF201309-09-2014 Venkatrayapuram Industrial Area Township rep., by its Member and Temporary Chairman Sr.K. Rama Seshayya and others . Petitioners Government of A.P.rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department and otheRs.Respondents Counsel for the petitioneRs.Sr.C.V.Mohan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sr.M.R.K.Chakravarthy, Learned Counsel Counsel for respondents: Learned Special Government Pleader for Learned Advocate General; Sr.B.D.Maheswara Reddy; Sr.K. Chidambaram and Sr.Dasari SVversus Prasad. HEAD NOTE: ?.Citations: 1) (2001) 2 SCC1602) (1981) 1 SCC5683) AIR1962SC10444) (2003) 6 SCC2305) (2005) 10 SCC4956) AIR1997SC1125= (1997) 3 SCC2617) AIR1999SC17238) 1995 Suppl (3) SCC6439) (1999) 6 SCC46410) (1999) 6 SCC66711) (1982) 3 SCC235 1982 SCC (L&S) 275 12) 2005(4) Laws (APHC) 106 13) (2002) 1 SCC3314) (1992) 4 SCC30515) (1988) 4 SCC22616) (2000) 7 SCC55217) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Honourable the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench in order to resolve a conflict between the conflicting views which have been expressed by two Division Benches of this Court. In our detailed order dated 24th April, 2014 we noticed that conflict and by consent of parties we formulated the questions which have to be answered by us. They read as under:- (1) Does Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 save the orders of exemption including all terms and conditions thereof passed under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act, namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and all actions taken there-under? (2) Whether, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 apply to the repeal of the Principal Act by the Repealing Act, 1999? (3) Whether in view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
G.S. Patel, J. 1. Is a dispute brought before the Company Law Board invoking the provisions of Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 at all referable to a private tribunal, viz., an arbitral panel for resolution? Does a decision of a foreign court on the question of whether a dispute is covered by an arbitration agreement bind the Company Law Board? These are among the questions of law canvassed in this group of appeals. A. STRUCTURE 2. The following table of contents is intended to serve as a guide to the structure of this judgment. A list of the authorities cited or referred is appended for convenience. A. Structure....................................................................................... 13 B. Summary....................................................................................... 15 C. The factual background................................................................20 I. The Super-Max Group.........................................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The parties entered into an agreement on 30.12.1996 under which the petitioner was to provide services for obtaining statutory clearances from various authorities for setting up a Central India Refinery Project by the respondent. The parties agreed to refer the dispute therein to arbitration. The petitioner made 12 separate claims. The learned Arbitrator has rejected each one of the claims under the impugned award dated 5th March, 2010 which has been challenged in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) essentially as being vitiated by bias and upon the Arbitrator not having considered the evidence led before him and it being against the terms of the contract and various specified laws. It would be appropriate to deal initially with each of the claims separately and then with the general aspects of law vitiating awards. CLAIMS Claim No.1 : Interest on Security Deposit 2. This is for the payment of interest on the delayed refund of the s...
Tag this Judgment!