Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: Delhi Page 3 of about 50,520 results (0.166 seconds)

Sep 28 2016 (HC)

Ishwar Singh Decd. Through Lrs. and Others Vs. Suraj Bhan and Another

Court : Delhi

valmiki j. mehta, j. 1. this regular second appeal under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (cpc) is filed by the appellants/defendants impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 3.1.2012 by which the first appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court. the trial court vide its judgment dated 1.3.2001 had dismissed the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs with respect to the suit land being 1/4th share of land comprised in khasra no. 57/23/1(2-6), 24(4-10), 25(4-16), 67/1(4-8), 10(4-16), 11(4-16), 68/6(4-9), and 15(4-9) admeasuring 34 bighas and 10 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village lampur, delhi. as a result of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed. 2. by the suit the respondents/plaintiffs sought declaration of invalidity of the ex parte mutation order dated 20.5.1996 of the revenue authority in favour of appellants/defendants which was passed without any notices being issued to the respondents/plaintiffs. by the mutation order the appellants/defendants succeeded in showing the suit land in their names as legal heirs of their father sh. khazan singh. injunction was also prayed in the suit by the respondents/plaintiffs against the appellants/defendants from transferring the suit land to any third person or causing any illegal interference in the peaceful possession of the suit land with the respondents/plaintiffs. 3. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2016 (HC)

Chandra Prabhu Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Lt. Governor and Oth ...

Court : Delhi

manmohan, j. (oral) c.m.no.34215/2016 after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to withdraw the present application with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. with the aforesaid liberty, present application is dismissed as withdrawn. the rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. w.p.(c) 1484/2015 and cm appls. 31310/2015 and 9933/2016 1. by way of the present writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the cut-off date to issue alternative plots to paper traders is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the policy/notification dated 15th march, 2000. the petitioners seek the cut-off date as 31st march, 2007 instead of 15th march, 2000. 2. learned counsel for the petitioners states that as 350 plots are vacant at ghazipur as of today and 300 odd paper merchants are still operating from old delhi, the cut-off date should be extended to 31st march, 2007. 3. mr. gautam narayan, learned additional standing counsel for the gnctd states that vide notification 15th march, 2000, a committee was constituted for shifting of paper market from the walled city. the terms of reference of the committee inter alia was to carry out a comprehensive survey of the dealers/traders/ manufacturers of paper located in the walled city and to finalise eligibility criteria, principles for identifying those who would be entitled to space in the new complex being developed by respondent no. 2. 4. mr. narayan states .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2016 (HC)

Sanjay Gambhir Vs. Bdr Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

1. this appeal by mr. sanjay gambhir under section 37 (2) (b) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 ( act ) is directed against the orderdated 18th july, 2015 passed by the sole arbitrator in two applications filed by the claimants i.e., bdr builders and developers pvt. ltd. ( bdr ) in thearbitral proceedings under section 17 of the act initiated against the present appellant apart from the directors of renaissance buildcon co. pvt. ltd. ('renaissance') 2. the appellant herein (who was respondent no. 2 in the arbitral proceedings) is aggrieved to the extent that in the impugned order the learned arbitrator has directed the appellant including his legal heirs, assigns, nominees and agents etc. not to deal in any manner or sell, transfer, alienate or part with possession of all and any movable and immovable assets in his power and possession or to which he may be personally entitled. 3. the background to this appeal is that two memoranda of understanding ( mous ) were entered into between renaissance and bdr as first and second parties and the appellant herein as third party on 6th and 7th february, 2009. by the first mou dated 6th february, 2009, bdr agreed to advance to renaissance a sum of rs. 3 crores, out of which rs. 35,00,000 was by cheque dated 5th february, 2009 and the balance by way of cash as loan against pledge/mortgage of the property being agricultural land measuring 38 bigha 18 biswa acres 15.366 acres located at village rampur kalan, tehsil rajpura, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2016 (HC)

Ario Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Gail Gas Limited and Another

Court : Delhi

vibhu bakhru, j. 1. the petitioner, m/s ario infrastructure private limited (hereinafter ario ) has filed the present petition under section 9 of the arbitrationand conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the act'), inter alia, seeking stay of invocation of the bank guarantees issued for securing the mobilization advance - bank guarantee no.0188igpero07614 (hereinafter the mobilization bg) - for the sum of rs.82,12,450/- and for due performance of the contract - performance bank guarantee no.0188igpero07714 (hereinafter the performance bg) - for the sum of rs.1,49,31,728/-. 2. at the outset, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 (hereafter ggl ) submitted that insofar as performance bg is concerned, itsinvocation will not be pressed till ario has had an opportunity to seek relief from the arbitral tribunal, which would be constituted shortly. in view of the aforesaid submission, ggl is restrained from invocation of the performance bg till ario s application under section 17 of the act -which the learned counsel for ario states will be filed as soon as the arbitral tribunal is constituted - is disposed of by the arbitral tribunal. this direction is conditional upon ario filing an appropriate application under section 17 of the act within a period of two weeks of the arbitral tribunal being constituted. 3. insofar as the present petition is concerned, the controversy is now limited to invocation of the mobilization bg to the extent of rs.77,32,154/- (as on 02.06.2016). the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2016 (HC)

Bhola Ram Patel and Others Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and Another

Court : Delhi

s. ravindra bhat, j. c.m. appl.27040/2016 in lpa 136/2016 (for clarification of order) c.m. appl.30483/2016 in lpa 353/2016 (for clarification of order) c.m. appl.30487/2016 in lpa 256/2016 (for directions) 1. this order will dispose of several applications seeking directions on the one hand and clarifications of the previous judgment of the court dated 18.05.2016 on the other [hereafter referred to as the main judgment ]. the main judgment had disposed of a batch of lpas. 2. for the purpose of this order, it is necessary to recapitulate some of the essential facts. the appellants were aggrieved by various judgments and orders of the learned single judges rejecting their pleas and had relied upon sections 3 and 4 of the street vendors (protection of livelihood and regulation of street vending) act, 2014 [hereafter the act ]. the court had noticed in the final judgment that the act was an effort to consolidate the law declared by the supreme court with respect to securing and regulating livelihood of urban street vendors in public spaces in cities and towns in india. the final judgment, after considering the submissions and recording analysis of various provisions of the act as well as the government of national capital territory of delhi street vendors (protection of livelihood and regulation of street vending) scheme, 2016 ( the scheme ) stated as follows: 17. a combined reading of sections 3 and 4 would show that one, a street vendor is one who is entitled - after due .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2016 (HC)

Union of India Vs. M/s. Jayaswals Neco Ltd.

Court : Delhi

pradeep nandrajog, j. 1. the appellant (uoi) and the respondent (jnl) entered into a contract bearing no.99/track-ii/22/14/8/70248 dated june 18, 1999 in terms of which jnl agreed to supply and the railways agreed to purchase 7 lakh pieces of sgci inserts. the railways short closed the contract and that gave birth to a dispute between the parties. the contract contained an arbitration clause and, accordingly, the disputes were referred to arbitration. the arbitration proceedings culminated in an award dated october 09, 2002 in favour of jnl; the operative parts of which is reads as under:- 8.1 claim no. 1 therefore, the respondents shall pay to the claimants the difference between the rate agreed between the parties in their agreement dated 18.6.1999 and the rate as actually paid for 98,219 nos. inserts. 8.2 claim no. 2 simple interest of 12% over and above the price differential between the amount due and the amount actually paid from 45 days after the above payment become due till the date of declaration of the award is considered to be reasonable and is, therefore, allowed. xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11. respondents are directed to arrange payment of this award as stated within a period of 90 days from the publication of this award, failing which interest @ 18% shall be payable by the respondents to the claimant till the payment of this arbitration award. 2. challenge to the award by the railways failed before the learned single judge of this court, the division bench as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2016 (HC)

North Delhi Municipal Corportation Vs. Amrit Mehta and Others

Court : Delhi

valmiki j. mehta, j. 1. this regular second appeal under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (cpc) is filed by the north delhi municipal corporation/appellant impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 16.2.2012 by which the first appellate court has set aside the judgment of the trial court. trial court had by its judgment dated 31.10.2011 dismissed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs so far as the relief/claim of permanent injunction against dispossession is concerned, but had decreed the suit for recovery of rent of rs.391.84/- against the appellant/defendant/tenant. as a result of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court appellant/defendant has been restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs of the suit property forming a portion of municipal no. 2650, ward no.v, roshan pura, nai sarak, delhi-110006. 2. the facts as pleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs were that the appellant/defendant was a tenant in the suit property which was shown in red colour in the site plan filed. it was pleaded that the earlier owners sold the suit property to the respondents/plaintiffs by a registered sale deed dated 17.4.1997/ex.pw1/1. on purchase of the property the earlier owner issued a letter of attornment dated 1.5.1997 to the appellant/defendant. the entire property, of which the suit/tenanted property formed a part, was in a dilapidated state and the appellant/defendant who had been running the school in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2016 (HC)

Sagar Sanjeev Dua Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others

Court : Delhi

sanjeev sachdeva, j. w.p.(c) 7750/2016 and cm no.31997/2016(interim relief) 1. the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking to challenge the answers of respondent no.1 to question nos.73,103,124,135,158 of national eligibility cum entrance test (neet) 2016 and for appointment of an independent expert or panel of experts to examine the contentions of the petitioner and to evaluate whether the answers given by the petitioner to the questions set by the respondent no.1 were correct or the view of the respondent no.1 is correct. 2. extensive submissions were made on the correctness of the answers given by the petitioners by referring to research material placed on record. reliance was placed on several articles covering the various questions as well as the textbook of ncert. 3. learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the question paper has been set by experts who have also given their answers. it is contended that as per chapter vii clause 4 of the information bulletin of neet-2016, there is no provision for reassessment/re-evaluation of answer-sheets. 4. it is, however, contended that once the answer key is made public, objections are invited from students. the objections once received are placed before the experts, who after examining the various answers give their view. it is contended that several objections were received by the respondents including objections raised by the petitioner. the experts, after examining the objections, accepted some of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2016 (HC)

Mohan Madan Vs. Sheel Gulati

Court : Delhi

pradeep nandrajog, j. 1. being the owner of property bearing municipal no.bn-53, shalimar bagh (east), delhi, sheel gulati entered into a written agreement to sell ex.p-1 with madan mohan on october 05, 2005, recording therein that for a sale consideration in sum of rs.2.39 crores the property shall be sold to madan mohan. ex.p-1 records that the bargain was facilitated by a property dealer : pardesi properties ; and it is the admitted case of theparties that one raju was carrying on business as a property dealer under the name and style pardesi properties . ex.p-1 is a printed proforma, inall probability got printed by raju. it is captioned : earnest money receipt (bayana rasid). in the blank spaces in the proforma the name and address of the buyer and the seller as also the property which is the subject matter of the agreement, the total sale consideration, the earnest money received and the balance due have been filled up. the date by which the sale-deed had to be executed is recorded as april 20, 2006. at the bottom of the document, in hand it is written that the balance sale consideration shall be paid in three installments : (i) rs.50 lacs on january 20, 2006; (ii) rs.25 lacs on february 20, 2006; and by implication the balance when the sale-deed would be executed. 2. in hand it is recorded that earnest money-cum-part sale consideration in sum of rs.25 lacs has been received. to quote, ex.p-1 records : bayana rupay : 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lacs only) . 3. it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2016 (HC)

Deepak Rathaur and Another Vs. Shashi Bhushan Lal Dass

Court : Delhi

valmiki j. mehta, j. 1. this regular second appeal filed under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (cpc) impugns the judgment of the first appellate court dated 19.9.2015 by which the first appellate court has reversed the judgment of the trial court dated 6.9.2014. trial court by its judgment dated 6.9.2014 had decreed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs filed for damages for malicious prosecution and defamation. the impugned judgment of the first appellate court therefore has resulted in dismissal of the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution and defamation. 2. the facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed the subject suit seeking damages on account of malicious prosecution and defamation as an fir was lodged by the respondent/defendant against the appellants/plaintiffs on 27.4.2004. the incident of 27.04.2004 was of an assault by the appellants/plaintiffs, and therefore, there was a registering of a state case under sections 308/325/34 of the indian penal code, 1860 (ipc). the criminal case however resulted in acquittal of the appellants/plaintiffs in terms of the judgment of the additional sessions judge dated 6.8.2007/ex.pw1/7. the fir in question was lodged by the respondent/defendant stating that he was sitting on a bench in the park when the accused sh. suraj bhan and sh. satbir came and an altercation started between them. when the respondent/defendant tried to report the matter to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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