IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO 113/2005 Date of decision: 19.10.2010 M/S A AND A ACCESSORIES .....
Anjum was never an employee of M/S A& A Management nor had any kind of contractual arrangement with M/S A & A; hence, specifically certifying and accepting that there was never a relationship of employee and employer between Ms.
MEENAKSHI CHANDELA A. .....
A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law right.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA 85/2017 and CM APPL. 2749/2017 M/S A & A ASSOCIATES .....
By the impugned judgment, the trial court has awarded a decree for a sum of Rs.10 lacs in favour of the appellant/plaintiff alongwith pendentelite and future interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit, till realisation. 2.
(C) 11543/2018 & CM APPL. 44675/2018 PARVESH PANDIT A.
A RAM PARVESH .....
versus A A NAYAK CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr.
Meena was married to the appellant (A.
Nagrajan) and a male child was born to her out of this wedlock.
The arbitral awardagainst which objections have been filed was given by a panel of three arbitrators namely Sh.
The measurements are stated to have been taken by the Court Commissioner for a period of about one month in presence of representatives of both the parties.
A spate of litigation ensued between the parties.
A decree of permanent injunction was also prayed for. 5.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 7/2018 A & A DUKAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. versus Satya Infra & Estates Pvt.
.: 1.The plaintiff is a developer in regard to certain properties forming part of properties owned by defendant no.2, a co- operative Society.Defendant no.1 is the member of the defendant no.2 and is presently occupying the premises on the first floor of the building owned by the Society.The plaintiff entered into the Development Agreement with defendant no.2 being Development Agreement dated 28th November, 2005.
Undoubtedly, if defendant no.1 has to shift to the suit flat, he will enter the suit flat when the flat is vacant. 4.As per the terms of the Development Agreement a sum of Rs.77 lakhs was payable to defendant no.2 and the same has been paid.There appears to be no dispute about this part of the transaction. 5.As per the terms of Compensation Agreement and Shifting Agreement, defendant no.1 was entitled to receive Rs.5,01,412/- and out of that Rs.4,26,195.70/- has already been paid to defendant no.1.Learned Counsel for the plaintiff conceded that a sum of Rs.75,216.30/- has remained to be paid.He submitted that plaintiff is prepared to pay to defendant no.1 Rs.75,216.30/-.