Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: delhi Page 2 of about 50,520 results (0.219 seconds)

Sep 30 2016 (HC)

Anil Kumar and Others Vs. Registrar General High Court of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. On December 18, 2015 the Delhi High Court invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up 9 vacancies by direct recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service by holding the Delhi Higher Judicial Examination-2015. The advertisement inviting applications disclosed to the eligible candidates that the examination would be in two successive stages : (i) an objective type with 25% negative marking for selection to the main examination; and (ii) a descriptive examination. Three vacancies were in the general category. Two were reserved for members of the scheduled castes and four were reserved for the members of the scheduled tribes. 2. The objective type (preliminary examination) was conducted on April 03, 2016. There were 125 questions which had to be answered. On April 08, 2016 the Delhi High Court put on its website the model answer keys simultaneously inviting objections, if any, to the model answers uploaded on the website. Many candidates filed objec...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2016 (HC)

Montecarlo Limited Vs. NTPC Limited

Court : Delhi

Ashutosh Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner, a company engaged in the business of mining of coal and lignite has questioned the communication dated 29.08.2016 issued by the Respondent, NTPC Limited, intimating that the technocommercial proposal of the petitioner for operation and development of Dulanga Coal mine in the state of Odisha was not acceptable in terms of clause 6.3.2 of the Invitation to Bid (hereinafter referred to as ITB );which in effect disqualifies the petitioner from participating in the price bids opening and the reverse auction qua the bid for development and operation of the aforementioned Coal Block, as unreasonable, arbitrary, contrary to the terms of the tender papers and therefore unsustainable. 2. The respondent, NTPC Ltd, had issued separate invitation for bids for development and operation of three coal mines viz. Dulanga Coal Block, Chatti Bariatu and Talaipalli in the state of Odisha. Online bids were invited on Single Stage Two Envelope Bidding basis (Envelope-1:...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2016 (HC)

Eurocoustic Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another

Court : Delhi

Ashutosh Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner, a company engaged in the business of supply and installation of modular furniture since 1993 and which had submitted its technical bid in response to the notice inviting e-tenders from eligible specialized agencies/manufacturers of modular furniture for supply and installation of modular workstation in PNB Main Branch in Delhi, is aggrieved by and seeks quashing of the letter dated 08.08.2016 issued by respondent no.2 whereby the technical bid submitted online by it was rejected on the ground of the petitioner not fulfilling the eligibility condition of similar work. In the estimation of the petitioner, the aforesaid decision of rejecting the technical bid is arbitrary, unreasonable and with the sole object of favouring one of the other competitors, the awardee of the contract, which had quoted higher rate than the petitioner. 2. The dispute between the parties is, however, limited to the issue of interpreting the similar work criteria which is an ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2016 (HC)

Nishi Vs. Jagdish Ram

Court : Delhi

Pratibha Rani, J. 1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated February 24, 2016 whereby the divorce petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent/husband has been allowed thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties. 2. The social and economic status of the parties to this appeal can be inferred from their respective residential addresses. The marriage was arranged through a charitable trust of a mandir. The respondent/husband though an employee (UDC) with MCD, the appellant/wife was doing some private job earning about Rs.6,000 - Rs.7,000 per month and was having amother with no source of income. 3. The appellant/wife entered the matrimonial home nurturing a dream to have separate home for two of them only. The respondent/husband was shouldering the family responsibilities and was not comfortable in having a separate accommodation or bear the unnecessary burden of paying the rent ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2016 (HC)

Bhupinder Kalra Vs. Paramjit Kaur and Others

Court : Delhi

1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 8th October, 2015 [of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-05 (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in CS No.1439/2011 (Unique ID No.02401C0338702011)] of ejectment of the appellant from the shops on first and second floors above the shop bearing no. 4, WZ-296, G-Block, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and for recovery of Rs.4,30,000/- towards arrears of rent and of Rs.30,000/- per month towards damages/use and occupation charges w.e.f. June, 2011 till the delivery of possession. 2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 3rd February, 2016 when on being told that CM(M) No.872/2015 preferred by the appellant against the order in the suit from which this appeal arises closing the right of the appellant to cross examine the witnesses of the respondents/plaintiffs was also pending consideration, the appeal was ordered to be listed along with the said CM(M) No....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2016 (HC)

Rajeev Kumar Vs. Vidya Devi

Court : Delhi

Pratibha Rani, J. (Oral) 1. On May 17, 2016 notice was issued in the appeal to the respondent/wife returnable for August 11, 2016. The Process Server reported that since nobody in the house received the notice service was effected by affixation. On August 11, 2016 fresh notice returnable for today was issued by ordinary process and registered A.D. post noting that since there was no order to effect service by affixation, the report pertaining to the order dated May 17, 2016 had to be ignored. 2. Summons sent by ordinary process had been returned by Process Server with the report that father of the respondent/wife refused to receive the notice and therefore, it was affixed. Report from the postal authorities is that the addressee refused to receive the notice. 3. Impugned order shows that after being served the respondent/wife entered appearance but failed to appear thereafter and was proceeded against ex-parte on December 11, 2013, which order was set aside on August 08, 2014 on an app...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2016 (HC)

Oil India Limited Vs. Essar Oil Limited

Court : Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. OIL issued a Notice Inviting Tender on July 19, 1993 to drill and set up four Offshore Oil/Gas Wells, three at Saurashtra Offshore and one at Orissa Offshore. The work had to be executed on turnkey basis i.e. drillship, associated equipment, personnel and services were to be provided by the bidder, called as operator under the NIT. In response, ESSAR submitted its bid on December 06, 1993. There was an exchange of correspondence between the parties. Offer being accepted, OIL issued a letter of intent on February 20, 1995, which was followed by a formal agreement executed by the parties on May 08, 1995. As per the agreement the operations had to be completed within one year. Rates were fixed for payment. The three wells Offshore Saurashtra coast at locations L-2, L-3 and L-4 had to be completed first, followed by drilling at the location at L-1; Offshore Orissa. Depth to which the wells had to be drilled was specified. Number of days required for drilling and te...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2016 (HC)

Forech India Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India and Another

Court : Delhi

1. This petition was disposed of in terms of order dated 30th November, 2015 as under: 1. The petition impugns the order dated 6th November, 2013 of the respondent No.1 Competition Commission of India (CCI) under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 as well as denial by the respondent No.2 Director General (DG), CCI of information in the form of inspection of documents and evidence against the petitioner sought by the petitioner from the DG, CCI. 2. On enquiry from the senior counsel for the petitioner, as to how the challenge to the order dated 26(1) which is more than two years old i.e. of 6 th November, 2013, is maintainable now, the senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner for the first time learnt of the said order only on receipt of first notice dated 27th May, 2015 from DG, CCI. It is clarified that prior thereto, the petitioner was not investigated at all. 3. The order under Section 26(1) directs the DG, CCI to complete the investigation and submit a r...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2016 (HC)

M/s. Vanshika Buildtech Ltd Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and Anothe ...

Court : Delhi

1. The petition impugns the demand of the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) (respondent no.2 is the Chief Engineer (Elect.) of NDMC) of Rs.3,86,967/- towards arrears of electricity charges owed by the earlier consumer / owner of Flat No.4 (2nd Floor), Building No.3, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 2. It is the case of the petitioner: (i) that the petitioner acquired Flat No.4 (2nd Floor), Building No.3, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi in a public auction held by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi and a Sale Certificate with respect thereto was issued in favour of the petitioner; (ii) that the respondent NDMC issued a challan dated 3rd September, 2002 and a notice dated 4th September, 2002 requiring the petitioner to clear the electricity dues of Rs.11,82,428/- of earlier registered consumer of electricity at the said flat; (iii) that the petitioner challenged the said demand by way of W.P.(C) No.6058/2002 and vide interim order...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2016 (HC)

M/s. Sdb Intrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DDA and Another

Court : Delhi

1. The petition (i) impugns the letter dated 8th September, 1989 of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (respondent no.2 is the Vice Chairman of the DDA) requiring the petitioner to hand over the possession of plot no.5, District Centre, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi with the superstructure standing thereon to the respondent DDA; (ii) impugns the letter dated 30th April, 1999 of the respondent DDA calling upon the petitioner to remove the breaches of the terms and conditions of auction of the aforesaid plot failing which action for cancellation of the bid of the petitioner with respect to the said plot shall be initiated; (iii) seeks a mandamus commanding the respondent DDA to execute the lease deed of the land underneath the aforesaid plot directly in favour of the sub-allottees or alternatively in favour of the petitioner; and, (iv) seeks a mandamus to the respondent DDA to accept the ground rent tendered by the petitioner from time to time. 2. It is inter alia the case ...

Tag this Judgment!


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