Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 24 of about 243 results (0.020 seconds)Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/S BhasIn Associates
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)237; 79(1999)DLT363
ORDERC.K. Mahajan J.1. The petitioner/DDA invited tenders for construction of 260 DUs under the Self Financing Scheme in Pocket IV, Sector C, Group II SH; 130 DUs (78 category III and 52 category II) and 78 scooter garages including internal development of land Group I. The respondent who is a registered contractor with the petitioner submitted his application for allotment of the tender.2. The notice inviting tenders contained certain directions/conditions and the clause relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition is clause 13 A (1) which is reproduced hereunder:'It may please be carefully noted that no conditions whatsoever (beyond the tender documents placed under) shall be accepted by the department and the contractor are strictly prohibited from giving conditional tenders. If any contract is not prepared to execute the work at the terms and conditions contained in the tender documents, he is requested not to tender for this work. It may be noted that if any contractor choos...
Tag this Judgment!Shubh Lata JaIn (Smt.) Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)905
ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petition is directed against the order dated 1st November, 1996 passed by respondents No.3 in House Tax Appeal and order dated 21st December, 1993 assessing the rateable value at Rs.9900/- with effect from 1st December, 1998 in respect of property No. B-2/250, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. 2. The petitioner owns the property No.2/250 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The rateable value of the said property was fixed at Rs.8130/- w.e.f. 1.4.83 after taking into consideration the costs of land and costs of construction, following the procedure under Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 3. In 1991 respondents No. 1 and 2 proposed to increase the rateable value of the said property from Rs.8130/- to Rs.10170/- w.e.f. 29.3.1991 and from Rs.8130/- to Rs.36,500/- from 1.4.1989 on the ground of amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner filed objections against the proposed increase in the rateable value. By order dated 21st December, 1993 respondent No.2 asses...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjana Vs. the Addl. Dy. Commissioner and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)309; 79(1999)DLT768
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioner applied in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent No.2, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, on 16th July 1996 for the post of Primary Teacher. The petitioner had passed the Pre University Examination in 1985 from Maharashi Dayanand University, Rohtak securing 61.1 per cent marks. The said pre university course was of one year duration after obtaining the metriculation certificate for a 10 year course. 2. The petitioner was denied selection for the post of primary school teacher and the results were declared on 24th January 1998, by public notice inviting objections from the candidates. The petitioner herein filed her objections to the proposed results by bringing on record the fact that Pre University Course (1995) of Maharashi Dayanand University, Rohtak was of one year duration after 10 years of metriculation examination of recognised Board which is considered equivalent to 11 year Higher Secondary programme. 3. Along with the cou...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. the Secretary, Cbse and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)397; AIR1999Delhi395; 79(1999)DLT348; 1999(50)DRJ281; ILR1999Delhi377
ORDERC.M. Nayar,J.1. The present petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing them to make the correction in the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the date of birth certificate issued by respondent No.1 which is filed as Annexure P-III to the writ petition. The date of birth in that certificate is indicated as 18th March, 1967.2. The averments made in the writ petition are that the petitioner was born at Jeewan Hospital, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi on 13th August, 1967 and was admitted to J.D.Tytler School, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi in Nursery class on 3rd April, 1972. On June 20, 1984 the petitioner was issued the date of birth certificate by Central Board of Secondary Education (for short CBSE) respondent No.1, and it is alleged that by mistake the date of birth mentioned was 18th March, 1967 which in fact is the date of birth of another student also named as Rajesh Jain son of Shri Bhushan Jain and both the entries, it is st...
Tag this Judgment!Dsa Engineers (Bombay) and Others Vs. M/S. U.E.M. India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)729; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)499; [2000]101CompCas441(Delhi); 79(1999)DLT740; 1999(50)DRJ184; ILR1999Delhi489
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') and Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners (accused) for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent for offence under Section 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') and the orders of summoning dated 19.8.1996, 6.12.1996 and 10.1.1997 passed thereon by the learned M.M. 2. Petitioner No.1, a partnership firm, and petitioners No.2 to 4 as its partners have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the complaint. 3. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-complainant in its complaint under Section 138 of the Act has alleged that in the month of May 1994, the accused had placed an order upon it for the design, supply, erection, installation and commissioning of Sewage Treatment Plant for Hotel Trident at Ahmedabad for a consideration of Rs.13,25,000/-; that during the execution of the work, the complainant had been...
Tag this Judgment!Mamta Sharma Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)774; 79(1999)DLT612; 1999(50)DRJ567
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition could be narrated thus: The second respondent college, issued an advertisement in 'The Hindustan Times' on the 27th of August, 1996 calling for applications for the posts mentioned in the advertisement, including Scientific Assistant. It is stated in the advertisement that the post of Scientific Assistant is permanent. The petitioner applied for being appointed as Scientific Assistant. On the 15th of February, 1997, the Selection Committee for the Post of Scientific Assistant recommended the following candidates:-1. Mamta Sharma 2. Rajesh Sehrawat 3. Alka Arora 4. Sheetal Shammi The petitioner in that list is at No.1. 2. By proceedings dated 17.2.1997, the Principal of the second respondent college, appointed the petitioner on temporary basis. On the 17th of July, 1998, the petitioner made a representation to the Principal of the second respondent college, for regularisation of her services on the footi...
Tag this Judgment!Y.K. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT585
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner was working as Chief Manager with the first respondent. The petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 24.10.1996 by the General Manager. The petitioner preferred an appeal and that was dismissed by the Charismatic-Managing Director by an order dated 26.6.1997. Challenging those orders the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.2. According to the petitioner that he had served in the first respondent-Bank for about 38 years with all sincerity and devotion to duty. The petitioner was promoted as a Senior Management Grade, Scale IV Post i.e. the post of Chief Manager on 1.10.1986.3. On 2.2.1993, a chargesheet was issued. On 4.11.1993, a supplementary to the charge-sheet dated 2.2.1993 was issued. On the basis of the charges the inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report but no date has been given.4. Mr. S.C. Aggarwala, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my notice the details a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shubh Lata JaIn Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT366
ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petition is directed against the order dated 1st November, 1996 passed by respondents No. 3 in House Tax Appeal and order dated 21st December, 1993 assessing the rateable value at Rs. 9900/- with effect from 1st December, 1998 in respect of property No. B-2/250, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. 2. The petitioner owns the property No. 2/250 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The rateable value of the said property was fixed at Rs. 8130/- w.e.f. 1.4.83 after taking into consideration the costs of land and costs of construction, following the procedure under Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In 1991 respondents No. 1 and 2 proposed to increase the rateable value of the said property from Rs. 8130/- to Rs.10170/- w.e.f. 29.3.1991 and from Rs.8130/- to Rs. 36,500/- from 1.4.1989 on the ground of amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner filed objections against the proposed increase in the rateable value. By order dated 21st December, 1993 respondent No.2 as...
Tag this Judgment!Surender K. Dhawan Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ309
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The short point necessary for the appreciation of the question raised by the petitioner can be recounted in the following terms:-The petitioner joined service in the second respondent College on 01.08.1968. The 3rd respondent joined service in the second respondent College on 02.08.1968. They have been functioning in the College since the date of joining. The petitioner was appointed as Teacher In-charge in 1974-75, 1984-85, 1989-90 and 1995-96 and he was also appointed as Member of the Governing Body in 1978. The 3rd respondent was not appointed as such. On 06.11.1997 the 3rd respondent made a representation to the Principal of the 2nd respondent for rectification of his position in the Seniority List. The representation reads as under:-'There is an obvious mistake in the Seniority list. I am senior to Mr. Surinder Kumar for the following reasons:- 1. The Selection Committee had put me No. 1 - We were selected by the same Selection Committee.2. I was selected as a...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Pasricha and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT323; 1(1999)DMC676
N.G. Nandi, J. 1. Charges framed on 26.11.1997 for the offences under Section 34 IPC and under Section 498-A/34 IPC are sought to be revised by the petitioners by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. The prosecution case, briefly stated is, that Monika Pasricha wife of Kamal Pasricha was married on 26.10.1990; that this marriage was a love marriage but was later on regularized; that after 2-3 months of marriage, the father-in-law M.L. Pasricha, mother-in-law Veena Pasricha, brother-in-law Vineet and husband Kamal Pasricha started harassing Monika; that these people had been taking of the household work from Monika to such an extent that she was not able to do it physically and Monika used to be told bitter words; that these people had been asking Monika to bring Rs. 50,000/- for starting their own business and that Monika's parents had given them the money; that business did not ru...
Tag this Judgment!