Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: pepsu court of wards act 2008 bk Court: delhi Page 2 of about 350 results (0.104 seconds)

Jul 02 2012 (HC)

Union of India Vs. Niko Resources Ltd and Another

Court : Delhi

..... delay in the majority in pronouncing its award vitiated the award. he placed reliance on the decision of this court in harji engg. works pvt. ltd. v. bharat heavy electricals ltd. 153 (2008) dlt 489. he submitted that the explanation offered regarding the health problems of the two arbitrators, could not ..... by reading into it clauses and provisions that were nonexistent. the majority award was therefore in clear violation of section 28 (3) of the act. 56. the majority award totally overlooked the facts stated in an affidavit dated 30th july 2003 filed by gspc before the arbitral tribunal. in ..... consistent with good petroleum practice. 54. the majority also conveniently overlooked the earlier stand of gspc in the proceedings under section 9 of the act. the gspc had correctly noted in its affidavit in those proceedings that the 36 pipeline was not part of the development plan. it had not ..... would by itself place it in conflict with the public policy of india within the meaning of section 34 (2) (b) (ii) of the act. as will be discussed hereafter, the impugned award sets out comprehensively the facts as pleaded by the parties, the evidence, the submissions of counsel, the ..... on 2nd september 2002. proceedings before the arbitral tribunal 31. on 31st october 2002, niko filed an application under section 32(2) of the act before the arbitral tribunal, seeking termination of the arbitration proceedings against gspc stating that the inter se disputes between niko and gspc had been settled. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2015 (HC)

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Pepsico Ind Vs. Assistant Comm ...

Court : Delhi

..... provisos, as they stood. there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the said act after the amendment introduced by the finance act, 2008. no decision of any high court has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties, wherein the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254 ..... assessee.11. it is evident that the amendment introduced by virtue of the finance act, 2008 had nullified the effect of the decision of the bombay high court in narang overseas (supra). the said provision, after its amendment by virtue of the finance act, 2008, came up for consideration before this court in maruti suzuki (india) limited (supra). the following observations made by a division ..... bench of this court in that case are relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of ..... the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2015 (HC)

Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors

Court : Delhi

..... provisos, as they stood. there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the said act after the amendment introduced by the finance act, 2008. no decision of any high court has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties, wherein the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254 ..... assessee.11. it is evident that the amendment introduced by virtue of the finance act, 2008 had nullified the effect of the decision of the bombay high court in narang overseas (supra). the said provision, after its amendment by virtue of the finance act, 2008, came up for consideration before this court in maruti suzuki (india) limited (supra). the following observations made by a division ..... bench of this court in that case are relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of ..... the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2015 (HC)

Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Pepsico India Holdings) Vs. Deputy Commissione ...

Court : Delhi

..... provisos, as they stood. there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the said act after the amendment introduced by the finance act, 2008. no decision of any high court has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties, wherein the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254 ..... assessee.11. it is evident that the amendment introduced by virtue of the finance act, 2008 had nullified the effect of the decision of the bombay high court in narang overseas (supra). the said provision, after its amendment by virtue of the finance act, 2008, came up for consideration before this court in maruti suzuki (india) limited (supra). the following observations made by a division ..... bench of this court in that case are relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of ..... the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2015 (HC)

Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Merged With Pepsico India Ho Vs. Deputy Commiss ...

Court : Delhi

..... provisos, as they stood. there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the said act after the amendment introduced by the finance act, 2008. no decision of any high court has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties, wherein the constitutional validity of the third proviso to section 254 ..... assessee.11. it is evident that the amendment introduced by virtue of the finance act, 2008 had nullified the effect of the decision of the bombay high court in narang overseas (supra). the said provision, after its amendment by virtue of the finance act, 2008, came up for consideration before this court in maruti suzuki (india) limited (supra). the following observations made by a division ..... bench of this court in that case are relevant: 26. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following conclusion:(i) in view of ..... the third proviso to section 254(2a) of the act substituted by finance act, 2008 with effect from 1st october, 2008, tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2017 (HC)

Trf Ltd. Vs.energo Engineering Projects Ltd. & Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... 2015].; state trading corporation of india limited v. jainsons clothing corporation (1994) 6 scc597 vinitec electronics private limited v. hcl infosystems limited (2008) 1 scc544and the decision of this court dated 6th december, 2016 in arb. p. no.499/2015 in geo miller & co. pvt. ltd. v. bihar urban infrastructure ..... wpos. on 19th april, 2016, trf filed an application being arb.p. no.85/2016 under section 11 of the act. the said petition was dismissed by this court on 19th april, 2016. aggrieved by the said order, trf filed special leave petitions, being slp(c) nos. 14226/ ..... before the at. in the circumstances, it was observed that trf did not have an efficacious remedy under section 17 of the act and therefore, the court had to consider the prayer for interim reliefs on merits and pass an order. the present petitions 20. on remand, the aforementioned ..... and ms. aakashi lodha, advocates. coram: justice s. muralidhar % judgment1702.2017 1. these are five petitions under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 ( act?) filed by trf limited ( trf?) seeking interim reliefs against energo engineering projects limited ( energo?) (respondent no.1) in the circumstances outlined hereunder. background ..... is a trilateral contract which the bank has undertaken to unconditionally and unequivocally abide by the terms of the contract. it is an act of trust with full faith to facilitate free flow of trade and commerce in internal or international trade or business. it creates an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2018 (HC)

Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited vs.malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors

Court : Delhi

..... the scope of his powers under section 8 of the guardian and wards act. these acts cannot bind respondent no.5 and no award could be passed against respondent no.5. omp (efa) (comm) 6/2016 page 109 of 115 127. reference may be had to the judgment of the supreme court in ritesh agarwal vs. securities and exchange board of india (supra). that ..... reported online and was publically available. the petitioner had raised queries on the ongoing fda omp (efa) (comm) 6/2016 page 6 of 115 and doj investigation during february 2008 to may 2008. it is hence pleaded that it is manifest that the petitioner was fully aware about the pending investigations and its ramifications. further, it is stated by the respondent that ..... risk of regulatory liability was not low or immaterial. the arbitral tribunal noted the following subsequent events which as per the respondents could have alerted the petitioner. a. in july 2008, the doj filed a public motion to enforce subpoenas which made serious allegations against ranbaxy and which, daiichi's own witness recognised, could "destroy a company b. on 30 ..... ... respondents no.14 to 19 and respondent no.20 respectively.2. the controversy revolves around a share purchase and share subscription agreement (hereinafter referred to as spssa) dated 11.6.2008 whereby the petitioner agreed to purchase from the respondents their total stake in ranbaxy laboratories limited (hereinafter referred to as ranbaxy?) for a transaction valued at inr198billion (approximately 4.6 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2014 (HC)

Jai Yodhad Vs. State

Court : Delhi

..... delhi 2013 (7) scale407 where the alleged seizure took place at a crowded place yet no independent witness could be associated with the seizure, the apex court inter alia observed as under: 7. .we may note here with profit there is no absolute rule that police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and ..... and caution in evaluating their evidence. rejecting a similar contention in kashmiri lal vs. state of haryana (2013) 6 scc595 the hon?ble supreme court inter alia observed as under: 9. .it is evincible from the evidence on record that the police officials had requested the people present in the ' ..... public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated. the court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care ..... be oblivious to the reluctance of common men to join such raiding parties organized by the police, lest they are compelled to attend police station and courts umpteen times at the cost of considerable inconvenience to them, without any commensurate benefit. hence, no adverse inference on account of failure to join public ..... in the office of acp, narcotic branch, a copy dd no.18a was received in their office and on 9.7.2008, two special reports under section 57 of the ndps act were received in the said office. the photocopy of the report registered is ex.pw5/c whereas the copies of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2017 (HC)

Sushil Arora vs.state

Court : Delhi

..... note that the prosecution had to make out a clear case as to what was the act for which the accused persons had a common intention?.245. in (2008) 17 scc277 nagraja v. state of karnataka, the supreme court has held that the genesis of the crime must be established so far as common intention ..... the report that was prepared in the emergency ward of the hospital. likewise, the death intimation sent to the police was also not produced. the report prepared by the doctor who examined francesco montis ..... wrapping him in a blanket and took him to the hospital. pw6 uma shankar had driven the car and francesco montis was taken to the emergency ward. pw1and other witnesses have stated that on examination of francesco montis, the doctor declared him dead . the prosecution has neither examined the doctor nor produced ..... the mean while information was received vide dd no.17-a, p.s. chanakya puri stating that one person namely ankit s/o unknown r/o35a, ward no.1, mehrauli aged 22 yrs, is admitted with bullet injury at trauma centre, aiims. on this information, inspr. surender rana directed asi nand kishore ..... out that in the subject incident a young person named ankit, son of mr. rajiv minocha, aged about 23 years resident of a house in ward no.4, mehrauli, new delhi had suffered fire arm injuries to which he had succumbed during treatment in the jai prakash narayan apex trauma centre of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2018 (HC)

State Through Cbi vs.sajjan Kumar & Ors

Court : Delhi

..... 293. in considering a situation where there was no evidence of any express agreement between the accused to do or cause to be done an illegal act, the supreme court, in mohammad usman mohammad hussain maniyar v. state of maharashtra (1981) 2 scc443 opined that for an offence under section 120b, the prosecution need ..... prosecutor, closure report was prepared and filed before the metropolitan crl.a. 1099/2013 & connected matters page 87 of 203 magistrate, patiala house courts, new delhi on 31-7-2008. it is further seen that before accepting the closure report, the magistrate issued summons to the complainant i.e. smt jagdish kaur number of ..... not re examine him. it may be recalled that even in the last status report filed by the riot cell (ex. dw15c) dated 31.07.2008 there is a reference to an affidavit of jasbir singh showing the involvement of sajjan kumar apparently this affidavit was filed before the ranganath mishra commission in ..... i.e. the statement dated 23rd may 2006 recorded by the cbi under section 161 cr pc (ex.pw-1/da), the statement dated 10th december 2008 recorded by the mm under section 164 cr pc (ex.pw-1/e), the supplementary statement dated 4th september 2009 (ex.pw-1/db), and the ..... report was sent to her but she did not file any protest petition. the closure report was finally accepted by the learned mm on 31st july 2008.106. mr. sibal submitted that the fir was re-registered with the cbi on 22nd november 2005 whereas the aforementioned closure report was filed on 14th .....

Tag this Judgment!


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