Delhi Court February 2000 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.
Shiv Kumar Vyas Vs. Ignou and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)395; 2000(53)DRJ781
ORDERS.N. Variava, CJ. 1. This Appeal is against an Order dated 3rd March, 1997, by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein has been dismissed. Briefly stated facts are as follows : 2. In December, 1993, the 1st Respondent University had advertised for the post of Reader in Engineering and Technology. The last date for submitting the Applications was 7th February, 1994. Pursuant to the advertisement various applications were received by the 1st Respondent University. The Appellant did not make any Application as the advertisement was not in respect of the post of Reader in Civil/Water resources which was his speciality. The Applications, which were received were screened some time in second half of 1995. The Screening Committee prepared a list of persons for being called for interview. The Appellant then learnt that even though the advertisement did not so mention the post was also for Reader in Civil/Water Resources i.e., persons qualified in Civil/Water Resources were a...
S. Rajinder Singh (Deceased) Vs. S. Dalip Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)534; AIR2000Delhi228; 84(2000)DLT796
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. The IA. 12765/95 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1-2 CPC for confirmation of the interim orders granted on 20th December, 1995 in favor of the plaintiff Shri Rajinder Singh (since deceased). The defendant has also filed an application, i.e., IA. 326/96 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of interim order dated 20th December, 1995. Both these applications are taken up together for disposal. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiff claims the following reliefs : '(a) that the parties are co-owners of the properties mentioned as follows: (I) Properties at Nai Sarak, bearing No. 1685-91; (i) 9 shops on the ground floor; (ii) Flats on the first floor; (iii) flats on the Second floor; (II) 10 Basant Lok, Community Centre, (III) 8/46, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi (IV) Chowk Chatti Kui, Amritsar's property (b) directing the defendants to render the accounts to the Plaintiff; (c) Restraining Defendant from in any manner selling, ...
Dimple Overseas Ltd. Vs. Minerals and Metals Trading Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)525; 2000(53)DRJ645
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 1,37,22,137/- under summary procedure of Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC'). 2. The case of the plaintiff is that on June 7, 1995, the plaintiff had entered into a contract with the defendant for sale of 14250 MT of Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) Ex-JNPT (Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust), Bombay @ US$ 240 per MT as per contract No. MMTC/FA/DAP/2/95-96. The goods had already been imported and were lying at the said port. Plaintiff had written letter dated 7.6.1995 to M/s. Vilas Transport Company (hereinafter called the 'Clearing Agent') apparently holding the goods, informing them about the sale of the goods, informing them about the sale of the goods to the defendant and requiring the said Clearing Agent to deliver the entire consignment to the defendant. Vide another letter dated 7.6.1995, plaintiff also confirmed to the Asstt. Collector of Customs, JNPT, Bombay about their having sold the s...
Gunjan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)614; 84(2000)DLT817; 2000(53)DRJ760
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. By this judgment I propose to dispose of five writ petitions which were heard together as they involved same question of law to be decided on substantially the same set of facts. All the petitioners in these writ petitions are aspirants for selection to Batch No. 102 of National defense Academy (N.D.A). 2. The respondents UPSC issued advertisement inviting applications for entry into course No. 102 of National defense Examination. For this purpose, all these petitioners appeared in the examination and were successful. Thereafter call letters were sent to them for appearing in the intelligence test, SSB test and medical fitness test for final selection to the aforementioned course. In the Employment News of dated 3-9 July, 1999, results of the entrance examination were published. Declaring these results, number of vacancies as intimated by the Government was 337(214) of the Army, 30 in the Navy, 73 in the Air Force and 20 in the Executive Branch of Naval Academy. T...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Delhi Administration and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(53)DRJ314
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. Civil writ petition No. 439 of 1990 is filed by Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as DTC, for short). In this writ petition DTC challenges the award dated 3rd May, 1989 passed by Shri P.L. Singla, Presiding Officer, Labour Court in I.D. No. 478 of 1984. By this award learned Labour Court held that the service of respondent no. 1- Shri Avtar Singh (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as Workman, for short) were terminated illegally and he had not himself abandoned his job. Direction was given to reinstate him with back wages and continuity of service till he attains the age of superannuation. 2. In Civil writ petition No. 849 of 1996 Smt. Harbahajan Kaur, widow of the deceased employee has challenged the order passed by appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act. On an application filed by her late husband Shri Avtar Singh before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, order dated 16th March, 1994 was passed by th...
M/S. Bhagwan Dass Yash Pal Vs. Wasu Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)906; 85(2000)DLT395
ORDERMadan B. Lokur. J.1. The Appellant has impugned the order dated 22nd May, 1982 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in RCA No. 783 of 1980. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that in spite of having had the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act),the Appellant had committed default in payment of rent for three consecutive months and was liable to be evicted. An appeal has been preferred under Section 39 of the Act, as it then stood on the statute book. 2. The case of the Appellant in brief is that he had initially committed a default in payment of rent and by an order dated 20th October, 1970 the learned Additional Rent Controller gave him the protection and benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and as such no eviction order was passed on the ground of non-payment of rent. 3. Thereafter, the Appellant again committed a default in payment of rent ...
Shiv Kumar Vyas Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 85(2000)DLT182
S.N. Variava, C.J.1. This appeal is against an order dated 3rd March, 1997, by which the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed.Briefly stated facts are as follows:2. In December, 1993, the 1st respondent University had advertised for the post of Reader in Engineering and Technology. The last date for submitting the applications was 7th February, 1994. Pursuant to the advertisement various applications were received by the 1st respondent University. The appellant did not make any application as the advertisement was not in respect of the post of Reader in Civil/ Water Resources which was his speciality. The applications, which were received were screened some time in second half of 1995. The Screening Committee prepared a list of persons for being called for interview. The appellant then learnt that even though the advertisement did not so mention the post was also for Reader in Civil/ Water resources i.e. persons qualified in Civil/Water Resources were also to ...
Kailash @ Kuddu Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2134; 85(2000)DLT193; 2000(54)DRJ746; 2000(71)ECC63
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 582/96 convicting the appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 8.9.1996 at about 5.55 p.m., a police party led by Sub-Inspector Devinder Singh (PW 8), upon information received, apprehended the appellant near Trilok Puri Church. The appellant was given the option (Ex. PW 4/A) of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He declined the offer and produced eighty grams of smack which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/A. The appellant was charged with an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act and tried! 3. The appellant abj...
Dairy Development Corp. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT629TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Dairy Development Commission, Maharashtra, the issue involved is whether Bulk Butter Packing Machine, imported by them, is classifiable under sub-Heading 8434.20 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act read with Notification No.59/87-Cus., as sought by the Appellants or under Heading 84.22 of the Tariff, as ordered by the Commissioner of Customs, under the Impugned Order dated 8-1-1992.2. The Authorised Counsel for the Appellants, in their letter dated 26-12-1999, has requested for adjournment of the hearing as he has not recovered from the joints problem. We observe that the hearing of the Appeal is being adjourned since June 1999 on the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellants. Last time hearing was adjourned on 16-11-1999 and it was made clear to the Learned Counsel that the hearing was being adjourned as a last chance. In view of this, we do not accede to the request for adjournment and proceed with the disposal of appeal after heari...
S.P. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT163TriDel
1. Shri S.P. Mehta has filed Application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. 1194/99A, dated 24-8-1999.2. Shri G.S. Chaman, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal while passing the Final Order No. 1194/99-A, dated 24-8-1999 did not pass any order regarding payment of interest @ 18% P.A. on the refund amount which may be due to the Appellants as a results of the Tribunal's Order; that the Delhi High Court in Elephanta Oil and Vanaspati Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I, 1994 (73) E.L.T. 43(Del.)/ ordered payment of interest @ 17.5% P.A. on the amount from the date of deposit till it was refunded. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Swastic Metals v. U.O.I., 1990 (49) E.L.T. 45 (Raj). He further, submitted that had the amount been invested in the market or put in fixed deposit it would have by now multiplied; that the Customs Authorities also charge interest on delayed payment of duty and as such rule of reciprocity and justice demands that he should ...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »