Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Delhi Page:3 Sorted by:recent

Sep 10 2014

Efacec Switchgear India Pvt. Ltd Vs. .............

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

$~29 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 384/2014 IN THE MATTER OF EFACEC SWITCHGEAR INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sandeep Bhuraria Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.K. Mallik, Assistant Registrar of Companies for the Regional Director Mr. P.D Tewari, Assistant the Official Liquidator. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER % 10.09.2014 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL) CA No.2044/2014 This is an application by the Official Liquidator seeking condonation of delay in filing the report. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has no objection to the delay being condoned. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the report is condoned. The report is directed to be taken on record. ================================================== CO.PET. 384/2014 1 CO.PET. 384/2014 1. This second motion joint petition has been filed under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation (Scheme) of Efacec Switchgear India (P) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Transferor Company) with Efacec India (P) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Transferee Company) (hereinafter all Companies collectively referred to as Petitioner Companies). A copy of the Scheme has been enclosed with the Petition.2. The registered offices of the Petitioner Companies are situated at New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court.3. The details of the respective dates of incorporation of the ...

Sep 10 2014

North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Mordwaj and Ors.

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:10. h September, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 3857/2013 NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Mrs. Biji Rajesh and Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Advs. Versus MORDWAJ AND ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Rekha Palli and Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the present petition, petitioner has assailed the impugned recovery certificate dated 08.04.2013 whereby an amount of Rs.86,21,464/-, for the period from 09.08.1999 to 31.12.2011, was issued against the petitioner.2. Mr. Gaurang Kanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the reference before the Industrial Tribunal was as under:Whether the workmen working in Horticulture Department to various Zones in category C are entitled to the benefits of ACP Scheme with effect from 09.08.1999 and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?.3. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned recovery certificate is beyond the reference allowed by the Industrial Tribunal. The respondents-claimants were not Choudharys and not in the pay-scale of Rs.4,500/- to 7,000/-.4. Vide award dated 07.02.2008, ld. Tribunal in Para 11 recorded as under:The adoption of the ACP Scheme by the MCD/Management is not been disputed by them. Once, the adoption of the ACP Scheme is not been disputed, the Management is duly bound to implement the same ...

Sep 10 2014

Royal Star Trading Company Vs. Ifci Limited & Anr

  • Decided on : 10-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:10. 09.2014 W.P.(C) 2005/2012 & CM No.16665/2013 ROYAL STAR TRADING COMPANY ..... Petitioner versus IFCI LIMITED & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr Vikram Mehta, Mr Varun Tikmani and Mr Gaurang Panandiker. For the Respondents : Mr P.S. Bindra. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia praying that respondent no.1 be directed to refund a sum of `3,31,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner as a bid amount alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment.2. The controversy to be addressed in the present petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount paid by the petitioner pursuant to its bid in an auction of movable assets, as the seller has failed to deliver the possession of the auctioned assets.3. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent no.1 (IFCI) had taken over possession of certain properties of M/s Parekh Platinum Ltd. (PPL) under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The said assets included plant and machinery which were located at the factory site of PPL. In October 2011, IFCI invited quotation for sale of the movable assets including plant and machinery of PPL on as is where is ...

Sep 04 2014

Dig K.P.S. Raghuvanshi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

  • Decided on : 04-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10726/2009 DIG K.P.S. RAGHUVANSHI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. B.P. Singh and Mr.Parma Nand, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: % ..... Respondents Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Advocate Date of Decision : September 04, 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGMENT : REVA KHETRAPAL, J.1. The Petitioner, a serving Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the Coast Guard, has challenged the recommendations of the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC) for promotion to the rank of Inspector General (IG) held on 23.07.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and conducted on the basis of amended selection policy just a month prior to the holding of Selection Board. The Petitioner also seeks to challenge the actions of the Respondent No.2 (Director General) in endorsing an Annual Confidential Report of the Petitioner covering the period from 1st February, 2008 to 31st January, 2009 despite not having observed the performance of the Petitioner for the mandatory period of 90 days as required under the extant policy, as contained in Coast Guard Order No.4/2005 and other policy instructions regarding writing of confidential reports issued from time to time. following prayers are made in the writ petition:A) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to Respondents and call for records pertaining to Confidential Report on the Petitioner covering the period from 01 Feb 2008 ...

Sep 04 2014

Anwar Ul Haque Vs. State Nct of Delhi

  • Decided on : 04-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: September 01, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: September 04, 2014 % + CRL.A.807 of 2014 ANWAR UL HAQUE Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Represented by: .... Respondent Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Anwar-Ul-Haque is aggrieved by the judgment dated January 29, 2014 convicting him for offence punishable under Sections 419/363/366/376 (2) (f)/377/506 Part-II IPC and the order on sentence dated February 15, 2014 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine of `1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and a fine of `1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and a fine of `1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC; Life Imprisonment and a fine of `5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and a fine of `2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine of `1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part-II IPC. The sentences under Sections 377 and 376 (2) (f) have been directed to run consecutively however, the rest of the sentences would run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief is that ...

Sep 04 2014

Dhananajay Kumar @ Pyare Lal Vs. State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi

  • Decided on : 04-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: September 01, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: September 04, 2014 % + CRL.A. 912/2013 DHANANAJAY KUMAR @ PYARE LAL ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Chetan Anand, Advocate versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Dhananjay Kumar is convicted of the offence of murder of his wife Chanchal whom he married 7-8 months prior to the incident by the impugned judgment dated March 19, 2013 and by the order on sentence dated March 23, 2013 he has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of ` 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for two years.2. Dhananjay Kumar assails the judgment on the ground that there is no eye-witness to the incident. All the witnesses are interested witnesses and relations of the deceased. There are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. The FSL report does not implicate Dhananjay Kumar. The defence of the appellant that he was sleeping at his place and was informed by Munna that his wife has been murdered has not been considered. Dhananjay Kumar never doubted that his wife was having illicit relations with Munna. Dharmender PW6 on whose statement FIR has been registered was not present at home when the factum of death of Chanchal was revealed. In view of the material ...

Sep 04 2014

Nnadi K. Iheanyi Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

  • Decided on : 04-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 1416 of 2010 Reserved on: August 6, 2014 Decision on: September 4, 2014 NNADI K. IHEANYI Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Rahul Tyagi and Mr. V.V.P.Singh, Advocates. versus NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Manchanda and Mr. Rajat Manchanda, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT0409.2014 1. The Appellant challenges the judgment dated 29th September 2010 passed by the Special Judge - NDPS in SC No.N-58/08 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act?) for being found in possession of 292 gms. of heroin as well as the judgment on sentence dated 6th October 2010 whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for ten years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months. The case of the prosecution 2. The case of the Respondent, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB?) is that a secret information was received by them that the Appellant would come from Chandigarh by bus on 5th December 2007 at around 5 am at the Inter State Bus Terminal (ISBT?), Kashmere Gate, Delhi with a huge quantity of heroin in order to deliver it to some Indian at the Exit gate of ISBT. On 5th December 2007, at 3:05 am, the Intelligence Officer (IO?), Manoj Kumar (PW-8) collected the seal of NCB, DZU-1 from the Superintendent and proceeded to the spot with his team comprising four more ...

Sep 04 2014

Cement Corporation of India Ltd Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of Ind ...

  • Decided on : 04-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:4. h September, 2014 % + LPA No.1299/2007 CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD Through: .. Appellant Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv with Mr. Prakash Gautam and Ms. Shabana Ahmed, Advs. Versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. Through: .. Respondents Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advs. CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. This intra court appeal impugns the judgment dated 14th September, 2007 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.637/2005 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was preferred by the appellant impugning the order dated 20th November, 2004 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, exercising the power as an Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act), of dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 25th September, 2003 of the Estate Officer of the respondent no.1 Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) of eviction of the appellant from the first and second floors of property No.10, Darya Ganj, Delhi.2. This appeal came up first on 1st November, 2007 when the counsel for the respondent LIC appearing on advance notice informed that the possession of the property from which the appellant had been ordered to be evicted, had already been taken over by the LIC. This Court vide the order of the said date, directed status quo as of that ...

Sep 04 2014

D.T.C. Vs. Prem Singh & Ors.

  • Decided on : 04-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:04. 09.2014 C.M. No.5914/2014 in W.P.(C) 4703/2003 D.T.C. ..... Petitioner versus PREM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Ms Saroj Bidawat. : Mr Shyam Moorjani and Mr Shantanu Bhardwaj for R-2. AND + C.M. No.10789/2013 in W.P.(C) 18152/2006 MOOLCHAND KHAIRATI RAM HOSPITAL & AYURVEDIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE ..... Petitioner versus GOVT OF NCT & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Raj Birbal, Sr. Advocate with Ms Raavi Birbal with Mr Abhishek Bhardwaj. For the Respondents : Mr Shyam Moorjani and Mr Shantanu Bhardwaj for R-2. CORAM:HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J C.M. No.10789/2013 in W.P.(C) 18152/2006 1. This application has been filed by respondent no.2 (workman), inter alia, praying that the above captioned writ petition be dismissed as the petitioner has failed and neglected to pay the wages as directed by this Court by an order dated 04.03.2010. The petitioners letter dated 02.04.2012 annexed to the present application indicates that the petitioner has stopped paying the wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the reason that respondent no.2 attained the age of 58 years on 12.04.2012, which is the age of superannuation/retirement under the General Service Rules of Employment. C.M. No.5914/2014 in W.P.(C) 4703/ ...

Sep 04 2014

Ndmc Vs. Shiv Kumar & Ors.

  • Decided on : 04-Sep-2014

Court : Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.M.(M) No.1134/2012 & C.M.Nos. 17849/2012 (Stay), 15977/2013 (for permission) 04th September, 2014 % NDMC Through: ......Petitioner Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Govind, Advocate. VERSUS SHIV KUMAR & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 12.1.2012 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with respect to the tenanted premises comprising of three rooms, two temporary sheds, latrine and bathroom on the ground floor of the property bearing no.5289, Hardhian Singh Road, Krishna Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05.2. At the outset, I would like to note that the petitioner is the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and was running an Ayurvedic Dispensary from the tenanted premises, however, petitioner has already been evicted in execution of the impugned judgment and decree i.e the petitioner is no longer in possession of the suit/tenanted premises.3. For eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity, the landlord has to show three aspects. Firstly, there is a relationship of landlord and tenant. Secondly, the landlord ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //