Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

Dr. Atul Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

The applicant who was an employee of the Central Government, was appointed as Scientific Assistant (Chemistry) in the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Laboratory (for short H.P. Laboratory), Department of Health, Government of India at Ghaziabad, U.P. It is submitted that the Ministry of Health created one post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Chemistry) (SSA (C) for short) and three posts of Research Officers, i.e. (i) Research Officer (Plant and Introduction), (ii) Research Officer (Homeopathy) and (iii) Research Officer (Chemistry) were created in 1987. We are concerned with two posts of SSA (C) and Research Officer (C). The said posts could not be filled up till 1992 when the Recruitment Rules were promulgated. As per the recruitment rules the next higher post of SSA (C) has to be filled up by promotion from the post of Scientific Assistants (Chemistry) with five years' regular service in the grade failing which by transfer on deputation. The post of Research Officer (C) is to be filled b...

Rajinder Gopal and Others Vs. Gowarsons Publishers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)203; 2000(53)DRJ156

ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court allowing amendments in the written statement, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. 2. It has been contended by Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Suit was instituted on 26.2.1996, the written statement was filed on 8th August, 1996 and, thereafter, in view of certain admissions made by the defendant with regard to execution of Agreement to Let, the rate of rent, the terms and conditions thereto, the petitioner filed an application under Order 12, Rule 6 of the CPC and the pleadings in that application was also completed. After the said application was filed, the respondent filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the written statement. 3. It has been contended before me by Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC filed by the respondent was an abuse of proces...

Harcharan Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)292; 2000CriLJ1671; 84(2000)DLT183; 2000(52)DRJ810

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner calls in question the order of the DCP (North-East) dated July 16, 1999, whereby the petitioner has been externed from the NCT of Delhi for a period of two years and the order of the Lt. Governor dated August 18, 1999, by which the order of the DCP (North-East) was upheld. 2.On May 3, 1999 DCP (North-East) issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') call-ing upon him to show cause why he should not be externed from the NCT of Delhi on the ground of his involvement in 22 criminal cases. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice and also produced two defense witnesses in support of his case. However, the DCP (North-East) passed the order of externment against the petitioner on July 16, 1999 on the ground of his complicity in large number of criminal cases. On the basis of material before him, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was 'actively involv...

Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. Vs. Prem H. Lalwani and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)490; 84(2000)DLT565; 2000(53)DRJ483

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. 11674/98 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Order xxxvIII Rule 5 along with the plaint. In the plaint it has been prayed that a decree be passed for Rs. 55,84,000/- together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of twenty four per cent per annum. Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to the disputes between the parties are that the Plaintiff was interested in purchasing land in Maharashtra for the setting up of a fresh industrial unit in that State. The Defendants represented to the Plaintiffs that they were holding land measuring fifty two (52) acres situated in Village Isambe, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigard, Maharashtra. The Defendants also owned a stone crusher and a 75 KVA generator on the land. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the purchase of the land and the stone crusher and electrical and mechanical fixtures was entered into between the parties for a total consideration of Rs.1.77 cro...

Burr Brown Advertising Agency Vs. Spg Green Gold Plantations Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)560

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a suit on behalf of the plaintiff under Order xxxvII praying for recovery of Rs. 10,30,024.05/- along with pendente lite interest.2. There is no appearance on behalf of the defendant though the defendant has been served by affixation at its last known address and service by publication as well as affixation at the notice board of this Court as per the report of the Joint Registrar dated 11th January, 2000. Office report dated 20th January, 2000 has also indicated that no Memo of Appearance is filed on behalf of the plaintiff.3. The suit arises from a claim by the plaintiff payable by the defendant for preparing and publishing advertisement for the various schemes of the defendants in various newspapers and cheques totalling Rs. 8,93,050.41 as per the details given in Paragraph No. 8 of the plaint were issued by the defendants and upon being presented for encashment dishonoured. A Regd. AD Notice was sent on 2.2.1998 calling upon the defendant to pay and ...

Syndicate Bank Vs. General Exports Combinations and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)546; 84(2000)DLT240; 2000(53)DRJ67

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. Plaintiff Bank has filed a suit against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 9.87.535.72 with interest thereon @ 21% per annum compounded quarterly from the date of the suit till realisation and costs of the suit. It is alleged that the plaintiff is a nationalised bank and a corporate body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition transfer of undertaking) Act, 1980 having its one branch at B-12, Green Park Extension, New Delhi: defendant No. 1 was a partnership firm, which was engaged in the business of automobile spare parts and were enjoying various credit facilities from the bank from time to time. Defendants 2 to 4 were the partners of Defendant No. 1. On 6th November, 1991, defendants were granted packing credit limit (PCL) of Rs. 7 lacs and FDBP facility of Rs. 10 lacs. Defendant No. 1 availed of PCL limit of Rs. 4.50 lacs on 6.11.1991 and executed the documents in favor of the Bank namely, Promissory note, for the said amount promising to pay the...

Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi-iv, New Delhi Vs. M/S. Amar Company D ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(2)ARBLR564(Delhi); [2000]243ITR309(Delhi)

ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in allowing the deduction of Rs.12,107/- in the computation of the assessor's income for the assessment year 1973-74.'2. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1973-74 for which the previous year ended on 12th July, 1972. At the relevant time section 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stood as under:- 'Section 40. Amounts Not Deductible Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 39, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession.' (a)................ (b) In the case of any firm, any payment of interest, salary, bonus, commission, remuneration ...

State Vs. Subhash Chander @ Subhash @ Yashpal @ Amerjeet

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)599; 2000CriLJ1908; 84(2000)DLT127; 2000(53)DRJ276

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. The prosecution case is that on June 4, 1984 at about 1.15 p.m. Subhash, Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi, Satish, Mohan and Rajesh Gupta holding pistols in their hands entered the premises of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. They asked the employees and the persons present in the bank toraise their hands. They also enquired as to who was the Manager and the Cashier of the bank. One of the employees answered to say that Shri K.L. Batra was the Manager and Shri V.K. Marwaha was the Accountant. After collecting the bank employees and the customers near the strong room of the bank, they demanded the keys of the strong room from Shri K.L. Batra and Shri V.K. Marwaha, but they refused to hand over the same. Since they did not accede to their request, they were hit in their abdomens by the butts of the pistols. Shri Marwaha was made to take out the key from a locker. They also asked him as to where was the other key of the strong room as the same had...

Palwell Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Royal Safe Co. (South) and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)619; AIR2000Delhi249; 84(2000)DLT442; 2000(53)DRJ235

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order. I would be disposing of two interim applications, viz. IA. 7529/96 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 10922/97 under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of property No. G-26, South Extension Part - I, New Delhi, by virtue of Sale Deed dated 16.3.1990, has instituted the present suit. Plaintiff has sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from sub-letting, assigning, creating any third party interest in any manner in the premises or parting with possession thereof to M/s. Joy Line Exports or any other person. Plaintiff claims that the defendant, after the purchase of the property by the plaintiff, had attorney to the plaintiff as tenant and started paying the rent in respect of the entire premises on the ground floor. It is alleged that in August 1996, the defendant under-took substantial additions, alterations and renovations in portions of the suit prem...

Suresh Srivastava Vs. Delhi Government Officers Cooperative Group Hous ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 84(2000)DLT749

M.K. Sharma, J.1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner as against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, namely, the Financial Commissioner dated 20.8.1998 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as against the order of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 21.5.1998 directing the petitioner to pay interest @ 18% on the 10th and 11th installments for the period of default.2. The petitioner is a member of the Delhi Government Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited. The petitioner was also an office bearer of the Managing Committee of the Society and for some time he was also the President of the Society.3. The Society is a Group Housing Society which constructed three types of flats, namely Type B, Type AL and Type A. The initial cost as approved by the General Body was for Type A Rs. 2,61,200/-, Type AL Rs. 3,56,000/- and Type B Rs. 4,42,000/-. The aforesaid cost was divided into nine installments and the General Body Meeting held on 17....