Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:20. 03.2017 O.M.P. (COMM) 576/2016 and IA No.15795/2016 + PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LIMITED versus IDEB PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : : ........ Petitioner ..... Respondent Mr Puneet Taneja and Ms Shaheen. Mr Neeraj Sharma with Mr Seshagiri Vadnani, Mr. Adhish Rajvanshi & Mr. Ravinder Parsad. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited (hereafter PHHL) has filed the 1. present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the Act) impugning an arbitral award dated 06.09.2016 (hereafter the impugned award) rendered by the Sole Arbitrator, Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.).2. The impugned award was made and published in respect of the disputes raised by the respondent, IDEB Projects Private Limited (hereafter 'IDEB') in connection with the Contract dated 01.09.2004 entered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by 16 petitioners to assail the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, (for short, “the Appellate Tribunal”) whereby the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”), has dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners as being not maintainable. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased small parcels of land carved out of plot No. 8 (NIT), Industrial Area, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as, “the plot”) between the period 1992 to 1995 from the owners. The plot had been allotted to M/s Bharat Rasain Pvt. Ltd. (BRPL) by the Government of India on leasehold basis in the year 1963. The same was registered in favour of BRPL on 28.8.1963. BRPL was wholly owned subsidiary of M/s South India Carbonic Industries ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5912/2005 & CM 16176/2011 (u/s 17B) Reserved on:5. h October, 2012 Decided on:9. h January, 2013 % M/S HINDUSTANT PETROLEUM CORPN ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate. versus N.S.RANE Through ..... Respondent Mr. S.M. Hooda, Advcoate. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1 By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the award dated 14th December, 2004 whereby the Petitioner was directed to regularize the Respondent/workman without back wages.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondent initially filed a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 1st February, 2000 granting opportunity to the Petitioner to raise an industrial dispute. In the order dated 1st February, 2000 this Court clearly noted that the Respondent had produced a certificate in original which showed some corrections. Photocopy whereof was taken on record as Ex. A by this Court. Thus the date of bi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :23. 09.2013 Judgment delivered on:31. 10.2013 % + OMP No.898/2013 THE INDURE PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner versus SIEMENS LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr Prashant Mehta & Ms Priya Pathania, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr C. Mukund and Ms Ekta Bhasin, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) for setting aside the award dated 24.05.2013.2. It must be stated at the very outset that there are several legal submissions raised in the petition, which admittedly had no foundation in the pleadings filed before the learned sole arbitrator. As a matter of fact, even at the stage of arguments, the legal submissions on the basis of which the award is sought to be assailed, were not advanced before the learned arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : February 20, 2017 Judgment Delivered on : February 22, 2017 EFA(OS) 19/2016 ASHOK K CHAUHAN & ORS ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok, Sr.Advocate instructed by Dr.R.M.Sharma, Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Mr.Rajan Chawla, Mr.A.P.Singh, Mr.S.B.Singh, Mr.Gautam Chauhan and Mr.Shyam Singh, Advocates versus FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, USA ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Arvind K.Nigam, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Shyel Trehan, Ms.Manjira Dasgupta and Mr.Mikhil Sharda, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The respondent : Formosa Plastics Corporation, filed EP No.38/1998 for execution of a decree of the Chancery Division of the U.K. High Court. The decree was against appellant No.1, who filed interim applications praying a summary rejection of the execution petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable. These applications were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi21; 8(1972)DLT509
P.S. Safeer, J. (1) This petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated the 6th of November, 1971, made by the Competent Authority under Act 96 of 1956, Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act') whereby permission was granted to the respondent Tinder section 19 of the Act to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioner. (2) The application preferred under section 19 of the Act sought permission to initiate proceedings for the petitioner's eviction from shop No. 5273, Ram Bhawan, Kohlapur Road, Subzimandi, Delhi, on the ground that the petitioner had caused substantial damage by raising unauthorised construction and that he had misused the tenanted premises. The petitioner contested the application and urged that he was a poor man and will create another slum if he were to be evicted. Section 19 of the Act is:- 19.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000(56)DRJ29
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Common question of law arises for consideration in the Appeals and the writ petitions. Common arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the parties, thereforee, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2 L.P.A. 118/89 arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8.9.1989 dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. Like the appellants other petitioners and appellants are seeking direction against the respondents for implementation of the resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 4.12.1970, 25.4.1972, 31.7.1.973, 21.12.1985, 20.2.1989 and 24.10.1989: for quashing of the direction/order dated 8.1.1990 of Lt. Governor, Delhi and dated 223.1990 of the Chief Secretary in his capacity as an officer exercising powers of the Corporation under Section 490(2)(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'). In addition direction is sought for implementation of the judgment of this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?ORDER1. This is a suit for recovery of `84,15,000/-. It has been alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is a company incorporated in Singapore and Sh. D.D. Gupta, who is its Managing Director and Principal Officer, is competent to institute this suit and sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff company. It has been further alleged that vide Sales Contract No. 3371 dated 29th April 1997, the defendant company agreed to purchase Australian Tyson Chick Peas from the plaintiff company on the terms and conditions detailed in the contract. Pursuant thereto the plaintiff company shipped 2000 MT of commodities valued at US$1,85,729.25, vide invoice dated 27th June 1997. As per the terms of the sale contract, the plaintiff drew Bill of Exchange for the invoiced amount. The Bill of Exchange envisaged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. The common questions involved in these proceedings which have been heard together are:- (I) Whether under Section 20(1) of the Comptroller and Auditor Generals(Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 (CAG Act) the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) can be requested to undertake the audit of the accounts of the Distribution Companies (DISCOMs), entrusted with the work of distribution and retail of electricity in Delhi pursuant to the unbundling of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), which are public-private partnerships in which 51% shares are held by private entities and 49% shares are held by a company wholly owned by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). (II) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative, whether the said decision to request such audit is to be of the Administrator, acting on his own, or on the aid and advice of the Council of the Ministers of GNCTD. (III) If the answer to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h July, 2019 Pronounced on :15. October, 2019 FAO(OS) (COMM) 16/2018 UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey and Mr. Anshuman Sinha, Advocates. Versus M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (REGD) Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma and Mr. Sarthak Mannan, Advocates. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S. SISTANI, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 13(3) of the Commercial Courts Act read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The appellant/Union of India has assailed the impugned order dated 22.09.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the objections to the award have been dismissed and the award of the learned Arbitrator dated 26.12.2016 has been upheld.3. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant/petitioner i...
Tag this Judgment!