Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: pepsu court of wards act 2008 bk Sorted by: recent Court: delhi Page 1 of about 350 results (0.101 seconds)

May 10 1973 (HC)

Shrimati JaIn Vs. Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [1974]44CompCas228(Delhi); ILR1973Delhi322

..... and noticed before the term 'de facto' directors has been restricted to directors with defective appointment. no case has been cited in which the court has upheld the act of a 'pretended director' without any appointment. in other words, in no case the term 'de facto' director has been applied to a ..... their minds. a similar view was also taken by chopra, j. in fateh chand kad v, hindsons (patiala) ltd. a.i.r. 1956 pepsu 89. (42) without recording evidence it is hardly proper to go into the facts bearing on this contention. the materials on record do not show ..... which the decision to increase the capital was taken, was conducted would be possible only if detailed evidence is led on this question. in these circumstances bk. shiveharan singh vigorously concentrated on the sufficiency of the notice that was issued to the petitioner (and others) concerning the issue of right shares. ..... they were only de facto, did have notice of the alleged defects, and could not have validly allotted those right shares. probably realizing this difficulty bk. shivcharan singh mounted his attack upon the invalidity pertaining to the decision to issue right shares and to the illegality of the notice issued in this ..... informing the company of the restraint order, annexure b to the petition) that the allotment of right shares had been made on 4th december, 1972, bk. shiveharan singh wrote a long letter on the 9th december, 1972 (annexure d) informing yogesh c. gupta about his various legal contentions, also citing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2019 (HC)

Vesta Holding Private Limited & Anr vs.akm Enterprises Private Limite ...

Court : Delhi

..... adjustment of earnest money, interest free security deposit, discount for fit out period shall be paid on the terms as follows: a. after june 15, 2008 upto 15 (fifteen) months from the date of this mou100 (one hundred percent) of the purchase consideration for the unleased area shall be paid to ..... any efforts to find the tenants and would start getting a return on its investment immediately; and, (xviii) akm however vide notice dated 21st august, 2008 sought to unilaterally revoke the mou and forfeit the amount of rs.25 crores received from vesta. hence cs(os) no.1020/2009 was filed, seeking ..... the five brands/anchor tenants named in the mou and as such was not in a position to handover the symbolic possession to vesta by 1st february, 2008; (xi) in view of the same, various tenants / prospective tenants in the mall were also cancelling or threatening to cancel the lease / mous signed ..... terms of the mou, the next installment of purchase consideration of rs.112.04 crores was to be paid by vesta to akm by 1st february, 2008 and was related to the progression of the construction of retail and entertainment areas, including areas leased out to the five brands viz. home centre, debenhams ..... delhi development authority (2015) 4 scc136set aside a judgment of the division bench of this court allowing appeal (by relying on section 74 of the contract act) against the judgment of the single judge of this court ordering refund of earnest money on the ground that the seller had not suffered any loss. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2019 (HC)

Akm Enterprises Private Ltd vs.vesta Holding Private Ltd & Anr

Court : Delhi

..... adjustment of earnest money, interest free security deposit, discount for fit out period shall be paid on the terms as follows: a. after june 15, 2008 upto 15 (fifteen) months from the date of this mou100 (one hundred percent) of the purchase consideration for the unleased area shall be paid to ..... any efforts to find the tenants and would start getting a return on its investment immediately; and, (xviii) akm however vide notice dated 21st august, 2008 sought to unilaterally revoke the mou and forfeit the amount of rs.25 crores received from vesta. hence cs(os) no.1020/2009 was filed, seeking ..... the five brands/anchor tenants named in the mou and as such was not in a position to handover the symbolic possession to vesta by 1st february, 2008; (xi) in view of the same, various tenants / prospective tenants in the mall were also cancelling or threatening to cancel the lease / mous signed ..... terms of the mou, the next installment of purchase consideration of rs.112.04 crores was to be paid by vesta to akm by 1st february, 2008 and was related to the progression of the construction of retail and entertainment areas, including areas leased out to the five brands viz. home centre, debenhams ..... delhi development authority (2015) 4 scc136set aside a judgment of the division bench of this court allowing appeal (by relying on section 74 of the contract act) against the judgment of the single judge of this court ordering refund of earnest money on the ground that the seller had not suffered any loss. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 2019 (HC)

Akash vs.state

Court : Delhi

..... be too technical and in substance if it feels convinced about the trustworthiness of the statement which may inspire confidence such a dying declaration can be acted upon without any corroboration. 26. the apex court in the case of madan @ madhu patekar vs the state of maharashtra reported at air2018sc2007 has taken into consideration its various decisions and culled out the principles ..... , was in a fit state of mind and there was no tutoring or prompting. if the dying declaration creates any suspicion in the mind of court as to its correctness and genuineness, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence [see also: atbir vs. government of nct of delhi, 2010 (9) scc1 paniben vs. state of gujarat, 1992 (2) scc474and panneer ..... /2018 page 10 of 49 8. the evidence of p.w. 1 is found to be discrepant in its material particulars by the high court. we, after going through the evidence, hold that it is quite unsafe to act upon the evidence of p.w. 1 whose testimony is clouded with grave suspicion and serious doubts. for all the aforementioned reasons we ..... selvam vs. state of tamil nadu, 2008 (17) scc190 crl.a. 1106/2018 page 20 of 49 27. reference can also be made to the dicta of the apex court in sampat babso kale .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 2019 (HC)

Satish Kumar vs.khushboo Singh & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... observed in zee entertainment enterprises vs. saregama india ltd. 2019 scc online del 10215 as under:-" 13. the changes brought about by the commercial courts act, 2015 in respect of filing of documents having already been discussed in nitin gupta vs. texmaco infrastructure and holding limited 2019 scc online del 8367 ..... it was further held (i) that both the said judgments are of a date prior to the pronouncement of the supreme court in eastern book company vs. d.b. modak (2008) 1 scc1 laying down (i) that to claim copyright in a compilation, the author must produce the material with exercise ..... united states where trade secrets are treated as property; (v) india?s approach to confidential information has been the same as that of english courts; (vi) indian courts, even in the absence of a contract have protected information received under a duty of confidence; reference is made to john richard brady vs ..... shivam 2011 (47) ptc494 reliance in tech plus media private ltd. was also placed on dr. reckeweg & co. gmbh vs. adven biotech private ltd. 2008 (38) ptc308(del), wherein, dealing with the issue of copyright in a compilation in a brochure, of nomenclature of drugs, the listing of the medicines in ..... warner entertainment company l.p. vs. rpg netcom (2007) 140 dlt758 entertainment network (india) ltd. vs. super cassette industries ltd. (2008) 13 scc30and krishika lulla vs. shyam vithalrao devkatta (2016) 2 scc521 thus unless it can be found that a copyright vests in such a list under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2019 (HC)

Ubv Infrastructures Limited vs.national Highways Authority of India

Court : Delhi

..... 2002, the respondent terminated the contract and took over the plant and machinery lying at the site. in a petition filed under section 9 of the act, this court had appointed a receiver on 06.12.2004, who took symbolic possession of the plant and other stores.6. on termination of the contract, disputes ..... put the machinery under the watch and guard of a government run security agency. reference is also made to the various orders passed by this court with respect to the preservation of the machinery.35. the counter-claim has been rejected by the tribunal after appreciating the terms of the agreement ..... arbitrator had travelled outside his jurisdiction, or that the view taken by him was against the terms of contract. that being the position, the high court had no reason to interfere with the award and substitute its view in place of the interpretation accepted by the arbitrator.44. the legal position in ..... with date of start on 01.12.2003 and completion date as on 31.05.2005. the claimant allowed 2nd agency further time upto 30.04.2008 (about 3 years more ) for completion of the balance works. but the 2nd agency did not complete the work and the claimant foreclosed the contract ..... rejected.38. learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the apex court in the case of indian bank v. godhara nagrik cooperative credit society ltd. & anr.; (2008) 12 scc541and on the judgment of andhra pradesh high court in m/s tech mahindra limited v. venture global engineering llc.; 2014 (3) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2019 (HC)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) vs.maharashtra Knowledge Corporati ...

Court : Delhi

..... finding of the arbitrator. learned counsel, in fact, points out that the petitioner has not even placed the letter dated 10.12.2008 on the record of this court.23. learned counsel contends that the reply filed by the respondent in the earlier petition has also not been placed on record. he ..... o.m.p. (comm) 364/2019 4. present petition has been filed by the petitioner/bsnl under section 34(2) of the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 ( act?) for setting aside the award dated 09.10.2017 and the revised award dated 20.06.2019, passed by the learned arbitrator. however, arguments have been ..... . & ors. (2006) 11 scc181has held as under: 33. it must clearly be understood that when a court is applying the public policy test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. a possible view by the arbitrator on facts has necessarily ..... facility etc. enabling the respondent to avail of the infrastructure from other providers in those cities. thus, in my view, the arbitrator has in fact acted in accordance with the terms of the contract and not contrary thereto. o.m.p. (comm) no.364/2019 page 21 of 29 40. ..... 364/2019 page 1 of 29 5. the facts relevant for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent which is a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956, commenced its business in april 2002, whereby it provides design, development and delivery of innovative e-learning, e-governance and e- empowerment technologies .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2019 (HC)

National Highway Authority of India vs.rayalseema Expressway Private L ...

Court : Delhi

..... , percentage having been picked up from standard data book of morth. it found no infirmity in the award. on a similar reasoning, this court is of the view that tribunal having picked up the percentage for overheads and profits from the standard data book for analysis of rates of ..... profits are taken as 25% and 10% respectively. mr. krishnan is also justified on relying upon the judgment of the division bench of this court in fao (os) 402/2014 national highways authority of india v. hindustan construction company wherein, the division bench has accepted the average overheads for ..... cs-08 provides typical cross section for approach ramps to vup/cup /interchanges/rob. as per clause 2.9 of the 4-laning manual march, 2008, which forms schedule-d of the concession agreement, the claimant / respondent would be permitted to adopt new technologies and materials as per the requirements ..... not a perverse finding of the tribunal. there is no reason for this court to take a different view. more so, noting the position of law, this court, while exercising its power under section 34 of the act does not sit in appeal over the findings by re-assessing and re-appreciating ..... act of 1996 ) by the national highways authority of india is, to an award dated may 02, 2019 whereby the arbitral tribunal has allowed the claims of the respondent herein. omp (comm) 344/2019 page 1 of 58 2. the brief facts, which are necessary for the adjudication of this case is that the petitioner nhai issued a tender in july 2008 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2019 (HC)

Oil Industry Development Board vs.godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd

Court : Delhi

..... the learned counsels for the parties and have examined their respective contentions.20. it is a settled law that under section 34 of the act this court cannot sit as a court of appeal and there are limitations and restrictions to the extent an interference can be made in the award.21. a perusal of the ..... the respondent/eil through out the project and last approved drawings were handed over to clamant on 02.07.2009. from the month of april 2009 on wards, the claimant performed extra items of work and repair work only. o.m.p. no.601/2012 page 17 of 22 the claimants have brought out ..... by the respondent, as according to them the clear work site and project drawings were handed over by them to the claimant progressively from 14.06.2008 to 14.01.2009 and according to the respondent the work should have completed latest by 28.02.2009. according to the respondents the work was ..... records fortified that from the very beginning of the contract, the respondent was delaying the work inasmuch as, the site itself was mobilized only on 15.7.2008 i.e. after a delay of six weeks. learned counsel submits that the petitioner had repeatedly brought to the notice of the respondent, the delay in ..... imposition of penalty, it was taken into account that all the drawings were not handed over in one go to the respondent, but progressively from 14.6.2008 to 14.1.2009. however, even thereafter the respondent should have completed the work latest by 28.2.2009, as per the revised schedule submitted by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 2019 (HC)

M/S Prabhakar Nirman vs.m/s Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd.

Court : Delhi

..... impugned award in support of tcil's case. furthermore, learned counsel submitted that in the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 34 of the 1996 act, this court was not required to reappreciate the evidence placed before the learned arbitrator. according to the learned counsel, the learned arbitrator had rendered the impugned award ..... the termination letters issued by tcil with respect to various road works are dated 11.9.2007, 26.10.2007, 9.4.2008, 29.4.2008, 11.5.2008 and 24.5.2008.11. the non-payment of the outstanding amount after the issuance of the termination letters adverted to above became the trigger for pn ..... . the learned arbitrator makes an acute observation, which is, that the 26th ra bill and 18th ra bill, both of which are dated 18.6.2008, are those ra bills which tcil had raised on the authority and that too after the agreements entered into between tcil and pn were terminated.30. as ..... concerned, the same relate to the amounts claimed by pn with regard to the 26th and 18th ra bills. both these bills are dated 18.6.2008. the learned arbitrator has returned a finding of fact and qua which there is no dispute that pn has been paid monies in respect of package ..... noted hereinabove, the termination of agreements entered into between pn and tcil took place between 11.9.2007 and 24.5.2008. the aforesaid two ra bills, as noted above, are dated 18.6.2008. as correctly observed and found by the learned arbitrator, these ra bills could not have concerned the work executed by .....

Tag this Judgment!


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