Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 10 of about 243 results (0.026 seconds)Chajju Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)985; 80(1999)DLT129; 1999(50)DRJ398
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. By a notification dated 27th January, 1984 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Delhi Administration expressed its intention to acquire large tracts of lands covering nine villages in Delhi. The proposed acquisition was for a public purpose, viz. Planned Development of Delhi. The villages were: 1. Matiala 2. Palam 3. Bagrola 4. Amberhai 5. Toganpur 6. Bharthal 7. Shahbad Mohammadpur 8. Loharheri2. Thereafter, by another notification dated 18th September, 1984 issued under Section 6 of the Act, the Delhi Administration declared that the land notified by it under Section 4 of the Act was required for a public purpose. This declaration included 4798 bighas 174 bids was of land in Village Matiala with which the present appeal is concerned. 3. For determining the amount of compensation to be given to the landowners, the Land Acquisition Collector, by his Award No. 164/86-87 divided the acquired land into thr...
Tag this Judgment!Bawra Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Co-operative G.H.S. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)845
ORDERI.A. NO. 1697/98 in Suit No. 274/881. The award was filed in court and the objections thereto were filed by the respondent.On 22.1.1998 no one appeared on behalf of the parties and the suit was,therefore,dismissed for non prosecution of the Suit. I have pursued the application.As it was case of an award having been filed in court and objections thereto were preferred by one of the parties,in my opinion,the suit could not be dismissed even if none of the parties was present in the court. The suit appears to have been dismissed for non prosecutions as, it appears, it was not brought to the notice of the court that it was a case where award has been filed in court.Be that as it may,I allow this application and restore the suit to its original number. No further orders are required to be passed on this application and the same stands disposed of. S.NO.274 /88 &I.A.6232;/882. List these objections for hearing on 8th July 1999. ...
Tag this Judgment!Varinder Agro Chemicals Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT679; 1999(50)DRJ13
C.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ to the respondents to release all outstanding payments of subsidy of Rs. 48.45 lakhs for the fertiliser already supplied by the petitioner and regular monthly subsidy claim bills for the months of May/June, 1989 which have already been submitted as well as for payment of interest on account of delayed payments.2. The petitioner is a Unit manufacturing Single Super Phosphate fertiliser (SSP). In the manufacturing process the petitioner utilises rock phosphate and sulphuric acid as the raw material for the manufacture of SSP. The Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 was enacted under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to ensure that fertilisers were available to the farmers at a subsidised rates. The claim for subsidy is based on the ground that in pursuance to the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 the petitioner is supposed to sell fertiliser manufactured at a price lower than...
Tag this Judgment!New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. O.P. Sethi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT145
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court passed on the 6th of November, 1994. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that:1. The Labour Court was not within its jurisdiction to go into the questions referred to it in view of the earlier refusal by the Government to refer the matter on the ground that there was no demand.2. The petitioner is not an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. The view taken by the Labour Court on merits is not sustainable. ,2. All the three questions had been answered by the Labour Court against the petitioner. The Labour Court framed the following issues for its consideration:1. Whether the management is an 'Industry' as defined in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act?2. Whether the reference is not maintainable for the reasons mentioned in paras 2 and 3 of the preliminary objections of the W.S.?3. As in the terms of reference.3. On the first Issue, the Labour Court held that the manageme...
Tag this Judgment!Swastik Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT671; 1999(50)DRJ260
C.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents to fix. the rate of payment of subsidy in respect of the fertilisers as already supplied by the petitioners.2. The petitioners allegedly submitted an application for registration with respondent No. 2 for payment of subsidy along with basic documents on August 24, 1990 and September 15, 1990 respectively. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated October 22,1990 sought certain clarifications with regard to setting up a new SSP Unit in the small scale sector and on December 8, 1990 the petitioners replied in detail to the letter of the respondents dated October 22, 1990 and the petitioners submitted detailed information sought for by respondent No. 2. The basic grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that there has been delay in fixation of subsidy and in payment of the subsidy amount and the Unit of the petitioners had to remain closed and intimation of such closure was sent...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Chawla Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT124; 1999(50)DRJ334
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. According to the prosecution case, a big fraud in Punjab National Bank at Branch Office Rani Bagh, Delhi, was detected on 6th March 1998. Mr. B.K. Kalra, Special Assistant in the bank is said to be the Central figure, other persons involved are three other bank employees and eight customers.2. Against Raman Chawla, one of the eight customers, the allegation is that two bank accounts were got opened by Raman Chawla, one current account No. 3398 as Proprietor of M/s Rohan Securities at the said branch. His firm M/s Rohan Securities are share dealers and most of the dealings of Kalra were through them and an amount of Rs. 74 lakhs approximately were deposited in CA-3798 on the basis of credit vouchers. He was also maintaining a savings bank account No. 21864 jointly with Smt. Rama Munjal wherein an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs approximately were deposited on the basis of fake vouchers. Almost the entire amount is withdrawn by Raman Chawla either by issuing cheques in favor of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Anup Razdan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT492; 1999(50)DRJ521
K.S. Gupta, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 15th July, 1998 of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant has filed this appeal.2. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed, inter-alia, alleging that the petitioner is a Dental surgeon in regular service with the Jammu & Kashmir Government. There are four seats in the course of Masters of Dental Surgery (MDS) in the specialities of (1) Orthodontics (2) Oral Surgery (3) Operative Dentistry, and (4) Prosthodontics in King George Medical College, Lucknow which had been offered by the State of Uttar Pradesh to the Central Government for being filled up by candidates from the central pool. Pursuant to a letter dated 8th/15th April, 1997 issued by the Ministry of Health, Government of India to the Health Secretaries of the States/UTs, which did not have the facilities for MDS course, asking to nominate one candidate each from their States/UTs for the course, the petitioner forwarded h...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ246
C.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek- . ing writ in the nature of mandamus for fixation of the Ex-works price of Single Super Phosphate (hereinafter referred to as 'SSP') supplied by the petitioner and for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay the balance being the difference between the subsidy paid to the petitioner and the subsidy payable on the basis of the correct notified ex-works cost for the quarters September, 1990 to August, 1992 as well as for payment of interest on the delayed payments at the market rate.2. The petitioner is alleged to be a Company registered under the Companies Act having amongst its businesses, the business of manufacturing SSP which is an important fertilizer containing Sulphur and phosphate. The relevant facts with regard to payment of subsidy are referred to in paragraphs 2,3,4,5 and 7 of the petition which may be reproduced as follows:'2. That between the years 1976 and August, 199...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Kalra Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ331
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. According to the prosecution case, a big fraud in Punjab National Bank at Branch Office Rani Bagh, Delhi, was detected on 6th March 1998. Mr. B.K. Kalra, Special Assistant in the bank is said to be the central figure, other involved are three other bank employees and eight customers.2. It is alleged that the petitioner, Mr. B.K. Kalra, Special Assistant of the bank forged the fake credit vouchers and authorised the same for crediting in certain accounts of the customers without any genuine credit. He made up the deficiencies caused by these false and fraudulent transactions by adopting the accounts from the imprest account of the bank. He, along with three other bank officials and the account holders, destroyed the cheques drawn on certain accounts at Branch Officer, Rani Bagh, Delhi which had come from other branches for clearing after debiting the cheques to the imprest account of the bank thereby not affecting the debits to the accounts with respect to which the ch...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Cit Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Del)966
ORDERBy the BenchThese appeals of the revenue are directed against the orders of the Commissioner for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89.2. The assessed in this case is a limited company deriving income from manufacture and sale of refrigerators. For the assessment year 1986-87, it filed its return of income on 27-6-1986, declaring income of Rs. 58,18,520. Assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 8-3-1989, on a total income of Rs. 1,10,08,344.3. Similarly, for assessment year 1988-89, the assessed filed the original return on 30-6-1988, declaring income of Rs. 49,55,592 (at Rs. 88,82,463 under section 115J) This return was revised on 5-10-1989, whereby depreciation claimed amounting to Rs. 3,49,82,152 in the original return was withdrawn. There was no change, however, in the total income as assessable under section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessment was completed vide order dated 29-12-1989, on a total income of Rs. 88,82,462 under section 115J of the Act.4. On ...
Tag this Judgment!