Delhi Court July 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nar Singh JaIn and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)29; 80(1999)DLT742
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1.After the full bench decision of this court in Sheelawanti & Anr. Vs . DDA & Anr. : AIR1995Delhi212 , we for once had thought that litigation with regard to the pricing of flats being constructed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) under its various scheme will come to an end but that was not to be and this is yet another batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein registrants/allottees under 5th Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1982 again assail the price of flats being demanded from them by the DDA. 2. Since the issue involved is common in all the matters, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. To appreciate the controversy, we shall treat the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 858/94 as illustrative. 3. Like its earlier self financing schemes, seeking financial participation of the intending purchasers during the process of construction of flats, the DDA announced its 5th such scheme and...
Brawn Laboratories Limited Vs. Fittydent International Gmbh and Anothe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)18; 85(2000)DLT204; 2000(53)DRJ144; (2000)125PLR48
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. On 20.5.1994 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant no.1 whereby the plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to manufacture and market denture cleansing tablets and adhesive powder in India on the technical know-how, trade marks and trade names of the product being provided to the plaintiff by defendant No.1. The agreement was subject to terms and conditions contained therein. According to clause 18.5 the agreement was subject to requisite approval of Government of India andor Reserve Bank of India as the case may be. Plaintiff is stated to have applied to the Secretariat for Industrial Approvals of the Government of India for approval of the license agreement vide its letter dated 25.3.1994. It is alleged in the plaint that in complete breach of the agreement defendant no.1 failed to supply the technical know-how for manufacturing adhesive powder and denture cleansing tablets. The government also did not give requisite approval to the agreemen...
Anil JaIn Vs. Jagdish Chander
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)413; 86(2000)DLT510; [2000(87)FLR998]
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner-management of Nutan Arts Printers - has filed Writ Petition C.W.P. No. 82/97 challenging the award dated 15.3.1995 passed by respondent No.2 labour court directing reinstatement of the workman Shri Jagdish Chander (respondent No.1) with full back wages. Notice of the writ petition was ordered to the respondents on 9.1.1997. This Court also passed an interim order on 9.1.1997 staying the operation of the impugned award subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs. 25,000/- with the Registrar of this Court within four weeks. The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 25,000/- in terms of the order dated 9.1.1997. The interim order passed on 9.1.1997 has since been extended till the disposal of the writ petition. The present two applications are filed by respondent No. 1 - workman. The prayer in C.M. No. 6158/97 is for release of the sum of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 the prayer in C.M. No. 6159/97 filed under Section 1...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Bhori Lal and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)65; 81(1999)DLT61; 1999(50)DRJ712; [2000(84)FLR245]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition is directed against the award dated 6.4.96 passed by Sh. Dharam Paul Arora, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. III Delhi whereby the Industrial Tribunal has directed the MCD to appoint Sh. Bhori Lal, respondent No. 1 to the post of Baildar on compassionate ground. 2. One Sh. Chunna Ram was working with MCD as Baildar in the Engineering Department at Karol Bagh Zone as regular employee. He died on 9.2.87 while in the employment. After his death, his son Sh. Bhori Lal respondent No. 1 herein, moved an application with the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The application was rejected by MCD. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 raised Industrial Dispute,which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication as per Notification No. P26 (1573) /89-lab./13021-26 dated 5.5.89. The terms of reference is as under:- 'Whether Sh. Bhori Lal is entitled to be appointed as Baildar in place of his deceased father late Sh. chunna Ram on compass...
Raju Babu Vs. Shri Deen Dayal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT311
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.IA. 2750/98(0.39 R.1&2), 4703/98 (0.39 R. 4) 1. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from is-possessing him from the property bearing No.9, Bhogal Lane, Jangpura, New Delhi. An ex parte order dated 27.3.1998 was obtained by the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property. The plaintiff in the suit claimed to be the co-owner of the property in question with defendant No. 4, Written statement in the case has been filed. Counsel for the defendant No. 1 in annexure A to the written statement has given the detailed history, as to how the grand father of the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in respect of the premises in question on 30.10.1956. There is also a chequered history of plaintiff's father having instituted a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 30.10.1956 was illegal and nullity and of no consequence. The said suit No.372/69 wa...
Banque Nationale De Paris Vs. Globus Agronics Ltd and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)828; AIR2000Delhi11; 80(1999)DLT712; 1999(50)DRJ623; (1999)123PLR1
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 6th May, 1999 dismissing the application moved by the appellant (defendant No. 2 in the suit) seeking rejection of the plaint and return of the same for presentation to the appropriate court on the ground that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the suit.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) filed a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code') for recovery of Rs. 3,50,84,500/- representing the letter of credit of US $ 7,66,622.60 along with interest thereon, on the allegation that vide agreement dated 29.9.97 it had contracted to sell 'Fermentation Ethanol' to M/s. Kolmar PetroChemicals AG, Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as the buyer). The buyer was to provide Documentary Irrevocable Letter of Credit payable at sight at the counters of an Indian Bank against pres...
Urmila Salwan and ors. Vs. Kasturi Lal Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)805; 2000CriLJ284; 80(1999)DLT643; 1999(50)DRJ618; 1999RLR457
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1.This petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the purpose of bringing to the attention of the Court certain acts of the Respondent which allegedly tantamount to contempt of Court. 2. The facts are that a Suit No. 802/93 was filed seeking an injunction for restraining late Shri Ramesh Datt Salwan from interfering in any manner with the possession of Shri Kasturi Lal and M/s. Romica Enterprises (the plaintiffs in the suit) and from restraining him from defacing, damaging or carrying out erections in premises commonly knows as G-9, Marina Arcade, Connaught Place, New Delhi. In this suit a decree was passed pursuant to an application filed by the parties under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure being I.A. No. 4661/93. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.4.1993 formed the basis of the compromise. This application is a short one and is reproduced below : 'A...
Behari Lal Vs. the Commandant, Ordnance Depot, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)823; 81(1999)DLT391
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1.This writ petition was filed in the year 1983. Rule was issued on 23.2.84. Petitioner had filed CM.1462/99 for early hearing. This application was allowed vide order dated 19.2.99 and matter was directed to be listed for final hearing on 17.5.99 at the end of the list in 'After Notice Misc. Matters'. It was also directed that written submissions be filed within four weeks. On 17.5.99 the case was adjourned for 16.7.99. When case came up for hearing there was no representation on behalf of the respondent although the matter was called out twice. Written submissions have been filed by the petitioner but respondent has not filed any written submissions. As noted at subsequent stages, the matter is short and involves dispute of petty nature. Petitioner is about 80 years of ages and, thereforee, it is not proper to keep the matter pending. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner was heard. 2. The petitioner retired as Office Superintendent in the Ordnance Depot, Ministr...
iron Master (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT866; 1999(51)DRJ254; 2000(67)ECC376; 2000LC60(Delhi); 1999(114)ELT792(Del)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. An interesting question under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 arises for consideration in both these writ petitions which are, thereforee, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner claims, that udder the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998, on payment of 50% of the duty amount it is entitled to waiver of the complete amount of the redemption fine and penalty imposed in respect of the imported goods. The goods imported had been confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but an option to pay redemption fine and--penalty in lieu of confiscation, had been provided to the petitioner under Section 125 of the said Act.3. Let us briefly notice the factual matrix of the two writ petitions before dealing with the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the Scheme, and the legal submissions in respect thereof.The petitioner claims to have imported tractor spares and defective/second hand...
iron Master (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1999
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN670(Delhi)
Sarin, J. - An interesting question under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) arises for consideration in both these writ petitions which are, thereforee, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner claims that under the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, on payment of 50 per cent of the duty amount it is entitled to waiver of the complete amount of the redemption fine and penalty imposed in respect of the imported goods. The goods imported had been confiscated under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but an option to pay redemption fine and penalty in lieu of confiscation had been provided to the petitioner under section 125 of the said Act.3. Let us briefly notice the factual matrix of the two writ petitions before dealing with the provisions of the Scheme, and the legal submissions in respect thereof.The petitioner claims to have imported tractor spares and defective/ second hand diesel engines from Japan...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »