Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :13. h May, 2019 Date of decision :16. h July, 2019 + O.M.P. 327/2010 S DAYA SINGH & SONS(HUF) AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Through: Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Madhumitta Bora, Mr. Riju Raj Singh Jamwal, Ms. Kanik Sharma & Ms. Sreoshi Chatterjee, Advocates (M-9810353267) versus M/S SOM DATT BUILDERS PVT LTD. .... Defendant Through: Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Ajay Tejpal, Mr. Yashmeet & Ms. Shradha, Advocates (M-9810006861). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.JUDGMENT1 The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by Daya Singh & Sons (HUF) and others (hereinafter owners) against M/s Som Datt Builders Pvt. Ltd. The petition challenges the impugned award dated 13th March, 2010 passed by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal by 2:1 majority. The... Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the son and wife of Late Sh. Daya Singh respectively.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1984(2)Crimes987; 27(1985)DLT356; 1985(8)DRJ322
H.L. Anand, J.1. Brij Lal and Kanta Devi, a married couple, challenged in revision the order of the trial court directing that a charge be framed against them for an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, of abetment of suicide by Durga Devi, mother of Brij Lal. The Victim died of self-immolation and the petitioners we're sent up for trial, on the basis of two dying declarations, on the allegations that the petitioners Were guilty of 'abetting' suicide by 'ill-treatment', 'neglect', 'humiliation'' and even a suggestion that she should 'die by drowning in Yamuna'. It is an unusual case of mother-in-law having been allegedly driven to put an end to her life on account of maltreatment by the son and the daughter-in-law'. It is, in a sense, a case of 'reverse' maltreatment of a mother-in-law in which the son allegedly colluded or actively participated.2. Durga Devi was living with the couple. She was 64 years of age. On February 12, 1983, she committed suicide. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:5. h September, 2012 Date of Decision:18th April, 2013 % + W.P. (C) 4976/2011 INDUS TOWERS LIMITED Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. N Venkataraman, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R. Satish Kumar, Mr. Parivesh Singh and Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Advocates. versus UOI AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddhartha, Advocate on behalf of R-3. Ms Sonia Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel for Service Tax Department/ R-4. Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, proxy for Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate for UOI/R-1. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.This is a writ petition filed by M/s Indus Towers Ltd., (hereinafter referred to either as Indus or as the petitioner) seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi passed on 29.04.2011 on the ground that it is ultravires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 and e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1989Delhi297
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 491/88) the petitioner, Gurbax Bhiryani, is challenging the legality of the order passed under Section 3(1) of the prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The order was passed on 14th September, 1988 by Shri K. L. Verma, a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under the Act, with a view to preventing the petitioner from abetting the export from India, of narcotic drugs. The declaration under Section 10(1) of the Act issued on 30th September, 1988 has been challenged by him in a separate writ petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 625 of 1988). (2) This judgment disposes of both the writ petiticns. (3) At the outset, we may notice that the impugned order is the second order of detention passed against the petitioner. The first order was passed on 24th May, 1988 by the said Shri K. L. Verma under the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.341/2006 + % NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL1t October, 2018 ..... Appellant Ms. Malvika Trivedi and Mr. Pawan Kr. Bansal, Advocates. (9810096538) Through: versus MANOHAR STONE CRUSHING CO. & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 21.12.2005 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.19,04,094/- claimed as damages by the appellant/plaintiff, from the respondent no.1/defendant no.1/seller/supplier of stone dust and stone RFA3412006 Page 1 of 9 grit on account of breach of contract by respondent No.1/defendant no.1 in failing to supply the contracted quantity of stone dust and stone grit.2. The facts of the case are that the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1119; 21(1982)DLT252; 1982(3)DRJ138; 1982RLR321
ORDER1. A complaint under Sections 426, 430 of the Penal Code and under Sections 45 and 48(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was filed on 24th August, 1974, in the court of Magistrate by S. Vershaswami against his landlord P. S. Sundram, petitioner herein, on the allegation that the accused had cut off the supply of electricity and water in the tenanted premises on 5th June, 1974. 2. After recording preliminary evidence under S. 202 of the Criminal P.C. of the complainant, who appeared as PW 1, and three other wittiness on his behalf, the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 15th March, 1975, summoned the accused petitioner herein for an offence under S. 426 I.P.C. only. It was noticed in that order that the complainant did not press for the summoning of the accused under S. 430, I.P.C. and S. 45 of the D.R.C. Act. 3. The case of the complainant is that he was a tenant under the petitioner herein in the first floor of house No. C-25, South Extension Part I. New Delhi, since Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1990CriLJ939; 1990(18)DRJ218
P.K. Babri, J. (1) This criminal revision has been brought against the order dated May 10, 1979, of an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by which he had directed the framing of charges against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135(l)(a) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.(2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had returned to India by Lufthansa Flight No. 645 on January 3, 1974. On arrival at the airport, the petitioner presented himself for Customs clearance and declared that his unaccompanied baggage from Hongkong contained one tape-recorder with two speakers which is yet to arrive and he obtained a landing certificate from the Customs officials. Two packages had arrived at Palam Airport by the same flight in which the petitioner had come and those packages were stated to contain the personal effects of the petitioner.(3) On January 4, 1974, two more packages of the petitioner, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:27. h May, 2015 Decided on:2. d July , 2015 % + CM(M) 167/2014 DCM LIMITED Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Anand and Mr. Arush Khanna, Advocates. versus SHRI JASSA RAM Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. S.P. Aggarwal and Mr. Himanshu Bohara, Advocates. CM(M) 169/2014 DCM LIMITED Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Anand and Mr. Arush Khanna, Advocates. versus KRISHNA DEVI SHARMA (NOW DECEASED) THR LRS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate for LR No.3. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Since identical orders involving identical question of law have been impugned in the present petitions, the two petitions are being decided by a common judgment.2. A brief exposition of facts is that the petitioner DCM Limited owns 52 acres of land at Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj, Delhi (in short the suit property). In the suit property the respondent Jassa Ram is a tenant in shop No.10, Ganesh Line No.6, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:27. h May, 2015 Decided on:2. d July , 2015 % + CM(M) 167/2014 DCM LIMITED Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Anand and Mr. Arush Khanna, Advocates. versus SHRI JASSA RAM Through: + ..... Respondent Mr. S.P. Aggarwal and Mr. Himanshu Bohara, Advocates. CM(M) 169/2014 DCM LIMITED Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Anand and Mr. Arush Khanna, Advocates. versus KRISHNA DEVI SHARMA (NOW DECEASED) THR LRS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate for LR No.3. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Since identical orders involving identical question of law have been impugned in the present petitions, the two petitions are being decided by a common judgment.2. A brief exposition of facts is that the petitioner DCM Limited owns 52 acres of land at Bara Hindu Rao and Kishan Ganj, Delhi (in short the suit property). In the suit property the respondent Jassa Ram is a tenant in shop No.10, Ganesh Line No.6, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi301; 1997(41)DRJ604; (1997)117PLR66
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) These arc batch of writ petitions filed by the manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers engaged in retail trade of tanned, cured and finished skins of animals. Petitioners are also engaged in retail trade of articles made of skin, hereinafter referred to as the 'animal articles'. (2) The petitioners in the above writ petitions had challenged the introduction of provisions of Chapter Va in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act 1986, together with notification issued there under as being vocative of Article 19(1)(g) read with Articles 300 and 300A of the Constitution of India. (3) We are taking up C.W.P. No. 2750/86 and C.W.P. No. 3586/87 as the lead cases. (4) In writ petition No.2750/86, petitioner Nos. 1 to 13 claim themselves to be the dealers, while petitioner Nos. 14 to 25 claim themselves to be manufacturers and petitioner Nos. 26 to 28 as wholesalers in tanned, cured and finished skins. The petitioners claim to have appl...
Tag this Judgment!