Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: delhi Page 1 of about 50,520 results (0.275 seconds)

Oct 07 2016 (HC)

Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Rosmerta HSRP Ventures Private Limited

Court : Delhi

1. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( Act ) filed by the Appellant, Government of NCT of Delhi ( GNCTD ) against an interim order dated 21st May, 2016 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal ( AT ) in an application under Section 17 of the Act filed by the Respondent, Rosmerta HSRP Ventures Private Limited ( RHVPL ). 2. The background to the present appeal is that pursuant to the notification dated 28th March, 2001 issued by the GNCTD under Section 41 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ( MV Act ) read with Rule 50 of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, the Petitioner entered into a Concession Agreement ( CA ) with the Respondent for a term of 15 years on 25th April, 2012 for execution of the High Security Registration Plates ( HSRP ) project. According to the Appellant, several complaints were received by it regarding violations and irregularities committed by the Respondent in the execution of the HSRP project. On 10th March, 2014 a show cause notice...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2016 (HC)

Private Investment Powai Ltd Vs. Supreme Housing And Hospitality Pvt L ...

Court : Delhi

Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia, praying for certain interim measures of protection including directing the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.1,88,60,96,559/- in this Court for securing the petitioner s claim. 2. The petitioner states that certain disputes have arisen in respect of an agreement dated 19.03.2015 captioned as Share Purchase Agreement . In terms of which the petitioner claims that it is entitled for consideration of a sum of Rs.1,62,00,00,000/- for sale of part of the Investor Securities . It is the petitioner s case that the respondents have failed and neglected to perform the said agreement. 3. The petitioner has also alleged that its affirmative rights in respect of the management and affairs of the company have also been violated. In the aforesaid context, this Court had passed an order dated, 27.05.2016, inter alia, directing as under:- 9. Till the next date o...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2016 (HC)

Sharda Rani Chawla and Others Vs. Dr. P.K. Chawla and Others

Court : Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Late Bhim Sain Chawla was the owner of property bearing municipal No.C-4/171, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and on his demise on October 02, 1969 his wife Manorama Rani Chawla and four sons : Pramod Kumar Chawla, Satish Chawla, Naresh Chawla and Vinod Kumar Chawla inherited the property as his legal heirs. Succession was by intestacy. Manorama Rani Chawla died on July 07, 1999 and willed her undivided share in the property to her four sons as per will dated April 03, 1979, in respect of which the learned Single Judge has correctly opined that he need not decide on the validity of the will for the reason whether succession to the estate of Manorama Rani Chawla was testamentary or by intestacy it made no difference because under either mode of succession the four sons would equally acquire her 1/5th share in the property. Thus, the four brothers became joint owners of the property each having 1/4th undivided share thereon. 2. The appellants are the suc...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2016 (HC)

M/s. P.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Bhagwati Lecto Veget ...

Court : Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The appellants are the plaintiffs. The respondents are the defendants. Suit is on an action for passing off of the trademarks India Salaam and Al Habib . The rival trademark is Al Salaam . Under the competingtrademarks same goods i.e. rice is being sold. 2. As per the plaintiffs the trademark India Salaam was adopted and put into use in the year 1985 by plaintiff No.2 who was carrying on business under the name and style M/s P.K.Enterprises, which trading name by him was changed to M/s Sun Rise Agro India, which was later on converted into a company M/s P.K.Agro Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. and thereafter name changed to M/s P.K.Overseas Pvt.Ltd. That with the consent of plaintiff No.2, the plaintiff No.1 has also been permitted to use the trademark India Salaam i.e. said trademarkis used both by plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 for sale of rice. As per the plaintiffs since the year 2009 they conceived of and adopted the trademark Al Habib for rice and registration of...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2016 (HC)

Anu Seth Vs. Sunil Seth

Court : Delhi

Rani Pratibha Rani, J. 1. In the case of arranged marriages where both the spouses are in the age group of 30 plus, honeymoon period is the best time to know, understand and come close to each other. This case is an exception in the sense that just a day after the marriage the parties left for their honeymoon to Shimla and returned with bitter memories and a spoiled honeymoon. 2. Before applying for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, the respondent/husband has shown exceptional patience in dealing with the problem inspite of facing humiliation and scandalous allegations being made against him and his family members. The case is also different in a way that after staying intermittently at the matrimonial home, within less than three months of the marriage, the appellant/wife left for her parental home and despite the respondent/husband repeatedly visiting and persuading her to join him, she served detailed legal notice making various accusations. 3. Before replying the le...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2016 (HC)

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Rajender Kumar

Court : Delhi

V. Kameswar Rao, J. CM No.14004/2016 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CM No.14005/2016 This is an application seeking condonation of 32 days delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons, stated in the application, the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CM No.14047/2016 This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons, stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. LPA 250/2016 1. The Appeal has been filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation impugning order/judgment dated December 03, 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the Award dated December 9, 2009 in ID 251/08/92 passed by the Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi was dismissed. 2. Some of the facts, which are relevant to decide this appeal are, the respondent-Workman was appointed as a sweeper/cleaner w...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2016 (HC)

Sachin and Others Vs. State and Another

Court : Delhi

P.S. Teji, J. 1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 927/2007, registered under Section 498-A/406/34 of IPC at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. 2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 09.02.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi and from 11.02.2007, respondent No. 2 started living separately. They did not cohabitate with each other since the date of their separation and there is no issue out of his wedlock. On lodging a complaint by respondent No. 2 which was registered as FIR No. 927/2007, the trial began. Even efforts were made by elders and relatives of both the sides to sort out and reconcile the disputes between them but TO no avail. 3. At the time of filing an application for seeking anticipatory bail, both the parties agreed to settle their dispute amicably. Accordingly a settlement according to which the petitioner agree...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2016 (HC)

Gujarat State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. National Agri ...

Court : Delhi

Vibhu Bakhru, J. Introduction 1. The petitioner, Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter GSCMF ) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act') for setting aside the award dated 15.04.2016 (hereafter the impugned award ) passedby the sole Arbitrator, Dr. G.G. Saxena. By the impugned award, the Arbitrator allowed the counterclaim of the Respondent, National Agriculture Co-operative Marketing Federation (hereafter NAFED ), directing GSCMFto make payment of amount of Rs.1,48,44,000/- after adjusting the claim amount of Rs.27,44,057/- from the counterclaim of Rs.1,75,83,000/-. 2. GSCMF has assailed the award in question primarily on three grounds. First, that NAFED s counter claim was not referred to theArbitrator, therefore, the impugned award in so far as it awards the counter claim in favour of NAFED is without jurisdiction. Secondly, that the counter claim preferred by NAFED was barred by li...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2016 (HC)

The Indian Singers Rights Association Vs. Night Fever Club and Lounge

Court : Delhi

V. Kameswar Rao, J. I.A. No. 15/2016 (under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC) This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint. Vide the said application, the plaintiff seeks to amend the para 14 of the plaint, which relates to Court Fee and jurisdiction in the following manner: (a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of Performer s Right, this relief is valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and requisite fees of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon. (b) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining violation of Right to Receive Royalty (the R3 Right), this relief is valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and requisite fees of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon. (c) For an order for rendition of accounts, relief is valued at Rs.200/- for purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and requisite court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon; the plaintiff ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2016 (HC)

Harmanprit Singh Sidhu Vs. Arcadia Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd

Court : Delhi

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in IA No.4311/2016 in OMP 294/2014. IA No.4311/2016 was an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the respondent for condonation of delay of 55 days in refiling. The said application was allowed by the learned single Judge by virtue of the impugned order dated 17.02.2016. OMP 294/2014 is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the AandC Act ) for setting aside the arbitralaward dated 10.09.2013. 2. The plea of the appellant before this court is that the learned single Judge ought not to have condoned the delay of 55 days in re-filing the said petition under Section 34 of the AandC Act. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent herein raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal. It was contended on behalf of the respondent ...

Tag this Judgment!


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