Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-14-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present three petitions have been preferred by the petitioners KSL and Industries Ltd. (KSL), Jay Bharat Textile and Real Estate Ltd. (Jay Bharat) and Eskay K „n‟it (India) Ltd. (Eskay) under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek the following reliefs: (a) Stay of the letter dated September 14, 2010 issued by respondent, terminating the MOU dated November 14, 2008 entered into between each of the three petitioners and the respondent National Textile Corporation Ltd. (NTCL). (b) A direction to NTCL not to create any third party right/interest in, and not to dispose off any land machinery and/or any fixed assets of the 11 Textile Mills covered by each of the MOUs (5 covered by the MOU with KSL, 4 covered by the MOU with Eskay and 2 covered by the MOU with Jay Bharat) (c) Direct the NTCL to take all such steps that are necessary to preserve the value of the 11 textile Mills and to furnish a full and complete discharge of all i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-29-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.4.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 8451/2009. The brief facts of the case can be summarized as under: The appellant was employed as a Graduate Engineer Trainee with the respondent in February, 1982. On completion of training he was appointed in the category of “NCB Cadre Official Level M”. A charge-sheet dated 21.7.1986 was issued to the appellant and pursuant to the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer, he was removed from the service on 29.1.1987. The appeal filed by him having been dismissed on 29.4.1989, an industrial dispute was raised by him which was referred to the Labour Court. Vide order dated 8.4.1996 an award was passed declaring the domestic inquiry invalid and directing reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages. WP(C) 3724/1996 was filed by the respondent challenging the award passed by the Labour Court. Vide order dated 2.12.2002, this Court r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-24-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of order dated 8th April, 1998 removing him from the service on account of continuously overstaying after joining time from 29th April, 1997 without permission of the competent authority and the order dated 27th February, 1999 dismissing his appeal by the Deputy Inspector General. 2. Brief relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed in the Central Industrial Security Forces i.e. CISF as ASI/Exe (Sports Quota) on 6th June, 1992 and was assigned number 922230059. The petitioner was given a regular posting to CISF Unit, UTPS, Ukai on 18th April, 1997 vide movement order No.E-38014/CISF/ADM/ 97/920 dated 18th April, 1997 with directions to report to his new place of posting i.e. at CISF Unit, UTPS, Ukai, after availing his normal joining time of 10 days. 3. The petitioner was to join his new unit on 29th April, 1997 (forenoon) but he failed to do so and continued overstaying from joining time. 4. The petitioner asserted tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. These two appeals are being decided together as they are directed against the same judgment and order on the point of sentence. The judgment dated 11.11.2008 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge-01, South, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 203/2006 arising out of FIR 225/2003 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarak Pur, under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is under challenge in these appeals. 2. By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2008, the appellants Suresh Pehlwan @ Suresh Basoya, Sushil Choudhary @ Sushil Pehlwan (appellants in Crl. A. No. 72/2009) and Dalip Kumar @ Gudar (appellant in Crl. A. No. 73/2009) have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. Appellant Suresh Pehlwan and Sushil Choudhary have also been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Insofar as the accused Lekhraj is concerned, he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 120B/302/34 IPC. The present appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 11.2012 CRL. A 72/2009 SURESH PEHLWAN @ SURESH BASOYA AND ANR ... Appellants - versus STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent AND + CRL. A 73/2009 DALIP KUMAR @ GUDAR ... Appellant - versus THE STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Ajay Verma For the Respondent : Ms Richa Kapur CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1.These two appeals are being decided together as they are directed against the same judgment and order on the point of sentence. The judgment dated 11.11.2008 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge-01, South, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 203/2006 arising out of FIR 225/2003 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarak Pur, under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is under challenge in these appeals.2. By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 11.11.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 11.2012 CRL. A 72/2009 SURESH PEHLWAN @ SURESH BASOYA AND ANR ... Appellants - versus STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent AND + CRL. A 73/2009 DALIP KUMAR @ GUDAR ... Appellant - versus THE STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Ajay Verma For the Respondent : Ms Richa Kapur CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1.These two appeals are being decided together as they are directed against the same judgment and order on the point of sentence. The judgment dated 11.11.2008 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge-01, South, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 203/2006 arising out of FIR 225/2003 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarak Pur, under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is under challenge in these appeals.2. By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 11.11.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-14-2012
44 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4231/2012 NANDINI BHATNAGAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Bhaduri, Advocate with Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with ASI Narender Singh, PS CWC Nanak Pura, New Delhi. Mr. Atul Aggarwal and Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocates for complainant. Complainant in person. Date of Decision:14. h December, 2012 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J : (Oral) Crl.M.A. 19845/2012 (exemption) in Crl.M.C. 4231/2012 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of. Crl.M.C. 4231/2012 & Crl.M.A. 19844/2012 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner has been directed not to leave the boundary of the NCT of Delhi as well as the NCR and the count...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-13-2012
REVA KHETRAPAL, J 1. The aforementioned suit is filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs.23,73,364.38 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Thirty Eight Only) together with costs and interest thereon premised on a Bank Guarantee issued by the defendants, whereby the defendants unconditionally bound themselves to make the payment as mentioned in the Bank Guarantee to the plaintiff in the event of non-performance of export obligations by a third party. 2. Briefly the facts may be delineated as follows. 3. On 19th April, 1994, M/s. Chittagong Cement Clinkers and Grinding Co. Ltd., South Halisher, Chittagong (hereinafter referred to as “M/s. Chittagong”) entered into an agreement for the supply of 25,000 Metric Ton of cement clinkers with the plaintiff. On the same date, i.e., on 19th April, 1994, M/s. Chittagong entered into another agreement with M/s. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., Hansalaya, 15 Bar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, with the allegations to the effect that the respondent has deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders dated 30.09.2010 and 05.04.2011 passed by the Guardianship Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, passed in Guardian Case No.66/2010 and also the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13.10.2011 in CC No.332/1, and of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 19.10.2011 passed in Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) proceedings. 2. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, they have four sons. The petitioner has preferred a divorce petition against the respondent. 3. The petitioner filed a custody petition before the Guardianship Judge, Saket, New Delhi. In the petition the petitioner stated that he resides with his three elder children at C-87, Anand Niket...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-15-2012
Introduction 1.1 The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) has in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenged the Award dated 13th February 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between it and the Respondent Mittal Processors Pvt. Ltd. Arising out of an agreement dated 23rd February 2005 entered into between MCD and the Respondent for supply of 15,77,535.50 meters of polyester-viscose blend suiting cloth for the purposes of uniform for students studying in MCD Primary Schools. 1.2 MCD also challenges the order dated 10th August 2008 passed by the learned Arbitrator dismissing the MCD’s application for lifting of fresh samples of the cloth supplied by the Respondent from the stores of the MCD in the presence of the Respondent or his representative and for sending it for testing in the IIT, Delhi or any other reputed test laboratory. MCD also challenges another order dated 19th October 2008 pa...
Tag this Judgment!