Delhi Court September 1997 Judgments

Harbhajan Singh Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)652; 1997CriLJ142; 1998(1)Crimes492; 68(1997)DLT874; 1997(43)DRJ224

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) Rule D.B. (2) The challenge of the petitioner in this case is to the order of detention dated 22nd December, 1994, made by the Commissioner of Police under sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short `the Act'). The petitioner was directed to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police was approved, as required by the Act, by Lt. Governor of Delhi. The approval is dated 30th December, 1994. The order of detention Along with order dated 30th December, 1994 was served on petitioner on 5th December, 1996. (3) The petitioner made a representation dated 30th December, 1996 against the order of detention to the Central Government. The said representation was rejected by the Central Government in terms of its communication dated 3.3.1997 addressed to the petitioner. (4) One of the contentions vehemently urged befor...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. S.N. Pandit and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 68(1997)DLT844

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) This judgment proposes to disposes of Civil Writ Petition 1155/89 (MCD v. S.S. Pandit) also. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the orders of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, who while accepting appeals of the respondents, has inter alias fixed the rateable value of the premises in question on the basis of the land value fixed by the Land & Development Officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as it was not open to the learned Additional District Judge to fix rateable value of the premises in question on the basis of schedule rates of L & D.O. only. (2) The question involved in these cases is the rate of the land at the time when construction was commenced by the respondents for the purpose of determining the rateable value. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Balbir Singh v. M.C.D., : [1985]152ITR388(SC) . Rateable value has to be fixed keeping in view of the stand...

D.M.S.D.B.E.C. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)617; 71(1998)DLT58; 1998(44)DRJ443

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) All these petitions raise similar questions of law and they are being disposed of by this judgment. For convenience only facts of Cwp No.3106/95 are recapitulated. The petitioner Delhi Multi-storied Building Employees Congress, is a registered Trade Union. It has a membership of about 35,000 employees who are employed in various buildings in Delhi. In this petition, 14 petitioners have approached this Court by which they have prayed that the order dated 27.3.1995 issued by respondent No.4 threatening to terminate their services be quashed. The petitioners have further prayed in this petition that respondent No.2 be directed to absorb the petitioners.(2) The members of the petitioner Congress have been employed by respondent No.4 on contract basis for doing the work for respondent No.2, Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ONGC). The Ongc has now decided to terminate the contract with respondent No.4. On termination of the contract, the e...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. A.C. Majumdar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT99

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) This judgment proposes to disposes of Civil Writ Petition 1155/89 M.C.D. v. S.N. Pandit, also. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the orders of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, who while accepting appeals of the respondents, has inter alias filed the rateable value of the premises in question on the basis of the land value fixed by the Land & Development Officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as it was not open to the learned Additional District Judge to fix rateable value of the premises in question on the basis of schedule rates of L. & D.O. only. (2) The question involved in these cases is the rate of the land at the time when construction was commenced by the respondents for the purpose of determining the rateable value. In view of the decision of die Apex Court in Dr. Balbir Singh v. M.C.D., : [1985]152ITR388(SC) , Rateable Value has to be fixed keeping in view the standa...

Anand Prakash Gupta Vs. Vidya Prakash Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)279; 71(1998)DLT509; 1998(44)DRJ556; (1998)118PLR81

K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This order will govern the disposal of IAs No. 2469/94, 2491/94, 2468/94 & 8262/94. (2) is 2469/94 was filed by Brij Mohan Jain, intervener under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure alleging that he had filed is 24/89 sometime in December, 1988. After filing the reply to is 24/89 by the plaintiff, the Court directed both the intervener/applicant and the plaintiff to file their respective affidavits by way of evidence which were filed. Aforesaid is on 14th May, 1993 was adjourned to 10th August, 1993 for arguments. However, on 10th August, 1993, the case was simply renotified for 3.11.1993 by the Court Master. When the case was not found listed on 3.11.1993, on enquiry from the Dealing Assistant in the Registry, it was revealed that the case was postponed to 1.3.1994. However, on 1.3.1994 only S. No. 453/67 was shown in the list. It is further alleged that the Counsel for the applicant immediately on the morning of 1.3.1994 saw the Court file and then he came to know...

Kasturi Lal JaIn Vs. Inder Prakash Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ183; (1998)119PLR41

K.S.Gupta, J. (1) Kasturi Lal Jain-plaintiff filed this suit alleging that plot No. A-82, measuring 412.50 sq. yards situated in the area of Village Malikpur Chhaoni, Zone C-18, in the layout plan of Part-I of Gujran wala Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Delhi is on lease with him and the defendants under the sub-lease of the Society registered at Seriall No. 890 in Additional Book No. 1 Volume No. 2948 on pages 94110 dated March 2, 1973, with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. Plaintiff and the defendants were having disputes in regard to rendition of accounts of a number of partnership firm including M/s. Rolex Metal Industries (India). Under threat, criminal intimidation and pressure exerted by the defendants, plaintiff executed general power of attorney dated September 21, 1981 in favor of defendant No. 1, release deed dated September 19, 1981 and affidavit dated September 21, 1981 so that the partition of immovable properties and disputes in regard to rendition of accounts etc. cou...

New Multan Timber Store and ors. Vs. Rattan Chand Sood

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)837; 68(1997)DLT680; 1997(43)DRJ270

Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) This appeal has arisen out of a judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, dated December 18, 1975 whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated October 20, 1974 passed by a Sub Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of brevity) and decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of possession to the extent of 4.4. bids was of land as shown in the report of the Local Commissioner submitted on September 13, 1970. (2) Brief facts which are necessary in order to facilitate the disposal of the present appeal are being reproduced below. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge which was registered as Suit No. 1561/72 on the allegations that he was the owner and coloniser of a colony known as Raja Garden Colony situated in the revenue estate of Basai Darapur, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. The defendant/appellant(hereinafter ref...

J.K. Dhingra Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant made a petition for compensation to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act for Rs. 5 lacs on account of injury sustained in a road accident involving a motor vehicle. The claim petition was, ultimately, settled before Lok Adalat on 8.4.1989 for Rs. 1,00,000/- which was, admittedly accepted by the claim petitioner. There was no mention about the grant of any interest in the said order. No appeal having been filed, the said order has become final. 2. The petitioner, however, filed claim for the grant of interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation from 10.7.1987, the date of making the claim petition till date of its decision namely 19.4.1989 amounting to Rs. 22,240/-. The complaint was filed before District Forum-I. At one stage, it was dismissed for a default. Later on, it was restored and again dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.12.1994 on the ground that it wa...

Madhu Mehta Vs. District Forum-iv

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This Revision Petition dated 13.8.1997 has arisen out of following facts : 252 complaints by different complainants were instituted against Tirupati Associates and Others. It appears that common question of law and facts were involved. The proceedings were recorded in the complaint titled Madhu Mehta v. Tirupati Associates and Others. On an application made by the complainants. District Forum-I, where the complaints were then pending allowed amendment in the complaint. It further appears that notice was ordered to be issued in the amended complaint to the opposite parties which was returned unserved by the Postal Authorities. It further appears that District Forum observed service of notice by publication in a newspaper. At that stage, the said complaints were transferred from District Forum-I to District Forum-IV(Nand Nagari) on 8.7.1997; District Forum directed publication of the notice in the newspaper and adjourned the case to 11.3.1997. On that date Mr...

Cce Vs. Advance Automation and Process

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(75)LC236Tri(Delhi)

1. This is a Revenue appeal arising from Order-in-Original No. 50/86 dated 21.11.1986 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) discharging the show cause notice issued to the present respondent and another respondent, namely, M/s. Advance Dynamics. The Revenue has filed a common appeal against both these respondents. The second respondent, Advance Dynamics, is not present and the notice of hearing has come back undelivered with postal endorsement "Left".2. We have heard both sides in the matter. Ld. DR submits that the Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company and Respondent No. 2 is a partnership firm. Among them two persons were common. Both the respondents had filed their respective classification list and had also taken the approval and are clearing the goods accordingly. Later, on investigations, it was found that the private limited company has advanced interest free loan to the partnership firm. They are also paying the bills towards telephone charges. However, both ...