Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 7 of about 205 results (0.021 seconds)Raj Pal Bhardwaj Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn., I.P.Estate, New Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)378; 79(1999)DLT241; 1999(49)DRJ707
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be please to: (i) quash the charge sheet dated 29.11.83 and the proceedings recorded thereafter; (ii) hold that any proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge sheet dated 29.11.83 are barred under principles of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and also in view of the acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment of the criminal court dated 3.11.90; (iii) call upon the respondents to pay to the petitioner arrears towards difference in pay for the period of suspension from 27.9.82 to 28.11.84 and further restore to the petitioner the post of Assistant Cashier and the scale of the Assistant Cashier with all consequential increments and other benefits; (iv) call upon the respondents to pay the difference in pay and allowances by virtue of revision of pay scale in the grade of Assistant Cashier from 1.1.86; by issuance of writ of certi...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. International Cooperative Alliance Domus Trus ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)545; 79(1999)DLT1; 1999(50)DRJ364
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This order will dispose of is No. 5583/98 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2) and I.A. No. 6782/98 (Under Order 39 Rule 4).2. The suit was registered on 14th July, 1998 and on that date while issuing summons to the defendants this Court also granted ad interim ex parte injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from selling the property in question to the defendant No. 4. This injunction application has now come up after the service of the defendants for confirmation/vacation of the injunction order. The defendants have filed a written statement and reply to I.A. No. 5583/93 and the plaintiff has filed reply to I.A. No. 6782/98.3. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the property bearing No. 43, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for a sale consideration of Rs. 13.5 crores for the entire plot area measuring 3860 Sq. Yds. Along with all the buildings and structure constructed thereon subject to the defendants obtaining necessary permission under C...
Tag this Judgment!Mangtoo @ Mangoo Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)594
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.C.M. 488/971. The learned Land Acquisition Collector Mr. Ravi Dadhich, SDM, Preet Vihar has produced on record a letter dated 31st July, 1997 addressed to this Court under special reference No. 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In Short the Act). Along with that letter a statement showing the particulars of the parties and the Khasra Numbers, total areas thereof and the share of the appellants have also been mentioned. Copy of the same had been given to Mr. M.L. Lonial, who accepts the position indicated in this statement regarding Khasra numbers and the shares of the appellants mentioned in the same.2. We have gone through the paper book which shows that before the learned Additional District Judge could deliver his order on the reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Land Acquisition Collector sent an additional revised statement under Section 19 in LAC No. 144/76. The same was forwarded to the learned Addl. District Judge, wherein detail of the...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswant Kumar Alias Billa Vs. Directorate of Revenue, Intelligence
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)633; 78(1999)DLT649
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1. This petition is directed against framing of the charge of entering into a conspiracy to illegally acquire and possess 83.770 kg. of heroine in contravention of Section 8 read with Section 29 and Section 21 of the NDPS Act. 2. According to the prosecution case, on specific intelligence, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted one truck. No. MP-23-B-3469 at Sindhu Petrol Pump, Adarsh Nagar near Jahangirpuri Bus Stand, New Delhi. One Ghanshyam Chandravansi was apprehended with the truck. During the course of interrogation, photographs of some of the smugglers from the dossiers of the smugglers available with DRI were shown to DRI Ghanshyam Chandravansi. From his voluntary statement recorded in Section 67 of the NDPS Act it is apparent that he identified one of the photographs, as photograph of the Sardar who met him at the petrol pump for receiving/collecting his goods. That was photograph of Shri Jaswant Kumar alias Billa s/o Mehar Chand r/...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswant Singh @ Jassu Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)771; 1999CriLJ2254; 78(1999)DLT805; 1999(49)DRJ81
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of his detention dated August 25, 1998 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. The order of detention is based on the material indicated in the grounds of detention, which were served on the petitioner on September 1, 1998 on execution of the order of detention. The petitioner is stated to have committed three criminal offences in the year 1997 which included offences of robbery & attempts to murder. He is also stated to be a leader of a criminal gang having propensity to use fire arms and indulge in violence at public places in pursuit of his objectives and this renders him a grave threat to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention further allude to the fact that the witnesses in the criminal cases pending against him are l...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Cook India Limited Vs. Hindustan theremo Prints Limited (In Liq ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)705; [2001]103CompCas138(Delhi); 79(1999)DLT404; 1999(49)DRJ709; (1999)122PLR26
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is an application of the Official Liquidator moved on behalf of M/s.Hindustan Thermo Prints Ltd. (for short 'the Company') seeking recall of the order dated March 20, 1990 passed by Mahesh Chandra, J. in C.A. No. 7567 of 1989 whereby leave was granted to the first respondent to file a suit under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. 2. The applicant 'Hindustan Thermo Prints Ltd. is a company in liquidation in respect of which winding up order was passed on February 24, 1986 in Company Petition No. 62 of 1983 filed by Thomas Cook India Ltd., an unsecured creditor of the 'Company'. 3. The first respondent is a company incorporated under the laws of England and has its registered office at Bristol, England. This respondent supplied plant and machinery to the 'Company'. 4. The second respondent M/s. Polar Chem Coats is the auction purchaser of the assets of the 'Company'. 5. The third respondent is Grindlays Bank which gave a loan to the tune of...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Sharma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)751; 79(1999)DLT184; ILR1999Delhi282
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Mr. Surender Sharma, petitioner herein was selected as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial Staff), Central Reserve Police Force. He was selected after having passed the physical, written, typing, and medical tests as well as the interview. On his being selected he was asked to undergo two months training at Group Centre-I at Ajmer (Rajasthan). Petitioner accordingly proceeded for his training. Hardly six days were left for the completion of his training when he got movement order with direction to proceed to Delhi for re-examination. At Delhi instead of being re-examined he was handed over the notice of termination thereby terminating his services w.e.f. 4th October, 1991.2. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner represented to the respondent to assign reasons for his termination. But no reasons were assigned. His termination was purported to be under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.3. Petitioner again made representation seek...
Tag this Judgment!Swati Acharya and anr. Vs. Aruna Suresh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)724; 1999CriLJ2067; 79(1999)DLT110; 1999(49)DRJ173; 1999RLR232
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioners pray that proceedings for Contempt of Court be initiated against the first respondent who is the Additional Sessions Judge, and the second respondent who is one of the persons against whom the first petitioner lodged a First Information Report, being No.733/95, regarding commission of offences under Sections 114, 120B, 506, 376/511 IPC with Police Station, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The facts relevant for the disposal of the petition are as follows:- 2. The first petitioner is the daughter of Mr. Ajay Acharya and Mrs. Neerja Acharya. According to the aforesaid FIR, the father of the first petitioner Mr.Ajay Acharya died as a result of an illness in the year 1991. During his illness his friend, Mr. Jaswinder Pal Sethi, the second respondent started visiting him at his residence C-4-D/39-B, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It is alleged that the mother of the first petitioner, Smt. Neerja ...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Kumar Mehra Vs. Ram Lakhan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)804; 79(1999)DLT221; (1999)122PLR23
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1.By this order I propose to dispose of the application registered as I.A. No.9321/1998 filed by the plaintiff praying for a temporary injunction against the defendant restraining them from processing, selling and offer-ing for sale items for human consumption like roasted gram, roasted ground-nut, Gajak, Rewari, Patti and other allied and cognate goods bearing the trade mark MATKEWALA with or without the device of an earthen pot. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit in this court praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off the various items meant for human consumption like roasted gram, roasted groundnut, gajak, rewari & patti of the plaintiff under the trade mark MATKEWALA, as that of the defendant. Along with the aforesaid suit the plaintiff also filed the injunction application on which notice was issued and on service of the same the defendant appeared in the suit and has filed a reply to the afore-said application refuting th...
Tag this Judgment!Puneet Industrial Controls (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Aditya Enterprises Pv ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIAD(Delhi)820; 78(1999)DLT811
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the this application for injunction. The point involved in the case lies in a very narrow compass. The plaintiffs filed the Suit No.2852-94 against M/s. Classic Electronics and Mr. Sanjay Chanana. 2. The main case of the plaintiffs against the defendants in the present suit is that the defendants 1 & 2 are infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in the drawing for the manufacture of electronic relays and timers through a firm by the name of Classic Electronics and the defendants 1 & 2 are only allies of the Classic Electronics and Mr. Sanjay Chanana. According to the plaintiffs, Mr.Sanjay Chanana of Classic Electronics in order to get over the order of injunction, is doing business through defendants 1 & 2. 3. Defendants 1 & 2 had never been, according to the plaintiffs, in the business of manufacture of electronic relays and timers. According to the plaintiffs, the third defendant who was purchasing goods from the plaintiffs is no...
Tag this Judgment!