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.
Delhi Travels and Tours (M/S.) Vs. M/S. Motorola India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)351; 84(2000)DLT753; 2000(53)DRJ742; (2000)125PLR10
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the defendant under Order xxxvII Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) for obtaining leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of liquidated damages of a sum of Rs. 9,99,760/- along with pendente-lite and future interest. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging therein thatit is engaged in the business of travel and tour under the name and style of 'APACE rent a car', it has been regularly supplying luxury vehicles to the various clients in Delhi as well as in other cities; that the plaintiff entered into three agreements with the defendant, namely : (i) Agreement on 14th June, 1995 for hiring of six Maruti Gypsy vehicles which were to be supplied at a monthly rental of Rs. 25,000/-; this agreement was valid for a period of 12 months, and it further provided that in case the vehicle was returned before the said period then the plaintiff shall be entitled to charge a...
Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Mesco Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 85(2000)DLT683
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This is an application filed by the defendant seeking leave to defend n a money suit filed by the plaintiff under summery procedure of Order xxxvII CPC. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is a non-banking financial company and on being approached by the defendant had agreed to give financial assistance by way of bill discounting facility to the defendant to the extent of Rs. 1.00 crore. On the terms as mutually agreed in writing dated 18.11.1995 inter alias agreeing at a discount rate of 26% per annum with additional finance charges of 6% per annum in case of delay and in pursuance of this agreement the laintiff had discounted certain hundies dated 24.11.1995 for Rs. 99,62,975/-, dated 2nd March 1996 for Rs. 75,000/- and dated 29th June 1996 for Rs. 75,00,000/-. The defendant, however, was irregular in clearing their liability in time and gave three cheques No. 792166, 792167 and 792168 for Rs. 25,00,000/- each dated 15.1.1997, 15.2.1997 and 15.3.1997 in repay...
S. Kuldeep Singh Vs. Shri Banarsi Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)425; 85(2000)DLT649; 2000(53)DRJ569
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1.This is an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963(hereinafter called the Act) filed by the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.2 and defendant No. 5 seeking rescission of the agreement for sale dated 29/30.7.1980 and the decree dated 30.4.1984 passed thereon. 2. Nand Lal was the owner of property No.9, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi with leasehold rights in the land. After his death, the property devolved on his two sons, widow of a predeceased son Paras Ram and widow, three sons anda daughter of another predeceased son Din Dayal who were imp leaded as defendants No. 1 to 9 in the suit. These defendants had entered into anagreement forsale dated 29/30.7.1980 for the sale of the aforesaid property tothe plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 14.00 lakhs out of which Rs. 1.40 lakhs was paid as advance at the time of agreement and balance amount of Rs.12.60 lakhs was payable at the time execution and registration of the sale deed. Sale was to b...
Ram Kishan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2735; 84(2000)DLT673
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the order of learned trial court by which the appellant in Corruption Case No. 25 of 1977 on 9th March, 1978 was sentenced one year R.I. under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of the fine, the appellant was further directed to suffer further R.I. for three months and under Section 161 IPC the appellant was sentenced to RI for one year. The trial court also directed that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are recapitulated as under. 2. Ram Kishan appellant, Manual Assistant attached to Taxi Meter Unit in the Inspectorate of Weights and Measures of the Office of the Director of Industries, Khyber Pass, Delhi, was charged under Sections 161 IPC and 5(2...
Shashi Bala Vs. Managing Committee, Sardar Patel Public Sr. Sec. Schoo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)888; 2000(53)DRJ494
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. RuleWith the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Sardar Patel Public Senior Secondary School which is arrayed as respondent No.1 w.e.f. 1.8.1988. She was promoted as TGT (Sanskrit) on 4.7.1989. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent school started paying her less salary w.e.f. 8.8.1991 and when she demanded full pay Along with other teachers who were also paid lesser salaries, respondent started intimidating her thinking that she was the cause of inciting ther teachers. It is not necessary to go into all these details. Suffice is to state that the petitioner was issued charge sheet on 18.3.1977. Disciplinary authority was constituted under Rule 120 of Delhi School Education Rules which itself proceeded to conduct the inquiry. The inquiry was conducted on different dates. Inquiry proceedings were supplied to the petitioner who has herself annexed the same Along...
Jaswinder Singh (Col.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)97; 86(2000)DLT451; 2000(54)DRJ925
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was granted permanent Regular commission in Signal Corps on 11.12.1949. On 13.1.1973 he was transferred to Pioneer Corps., and was appointed as Assistant Director (Pioneer Corps.) Hqrs. Northern Command. In December, 1974, he was approved for promotion to Colonel by Selection Grade and by order dated 28.4.1975 he was promoted as Colonel and appointed as Director (Pioneer Corps.) at Army Hqrs. 2. To overcome the stagnation in higher ranks and to improve the careeprospects of service officers : in the Army, Government had ordered a Cadre Review in 1979, in which 125 additional posts of Brigadier were created by upgrading certain posts of Lt.Col./Col. The post of the petitioner i.e. Director Pioneer Corps. was one of the posts accepted by Government for upgradiation from Col. to Brig. The upgraded post of the petitioner was to be filled specifically by an officer of the Pioneer Corps and its upgradiation was not linked with that of any other posts. In Augu...
Grafitek International Vs. K.K. Kaura and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ692
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This application has been filed in a suit for the, recovery of Rs. 12,65,532.40 filed under the Summary procedure of Order xxxvI of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 30.7.1998 summons and notice of the application were ordered to issue, to the Defendants: On 10.11.1998, being satisfied the the Defendants 1 and 2 had been duly starved (sic.), and that Defendant No. 3 was deemed to have been served by operation of Order xxxvII Rule 3 of the CPC, the Court proceeded to pass a decree. This was done taking into regard the provisions of Order xxxvII Rule 2(3), C.P.C. Subsequently, execution proceedings were initiated by the Plaintiff. The present application under Order xxxvII Rule 4 is a sequel to these happenings. 2. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the applicants that service had not been properly and legally effected on the Defendants. It is also contended that the decree is liable to be set aside as non est and void for the reason that the plaintiff was n...
Dr. Manisha Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)519; 85(2000)DLT579; 2000(54)DRJ78
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 3215 of 1999 did her M.B.B.S. in the year 1990 from Ravi Shankar University, Raipur, Madhya Pradesh. From the same university she passed her post graduate degree i.e. M.D. (Radio-diagnosis) in the year 1994. This M.D. degree is not recognised by the Medical Council of India. Thereafter, she joined Hindu Rao Hospital in Radiology Department on 19th June, 1998 as Senior Resident on contract basis. Persuate to advertisement dated 2nd January, 1999 issued by respondent No. 2 namely, Hindu Rao Hospital for the post of Senior Resident in Radiology Department Petitioner applied for the said post. She was interviewed on 4th March, 1999.2. When the result of the interview was declared on 7th April, 1999, petitioner was placed at Seriall No. 1 in the list of selected candidates. In the meantime, on 31st March, 1999 the petitioner's contract service on the post of Senior Resident was extended up to 14th May, 1999.3. After the result of t...
Ram Nath Jayant Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT312TriDel
1. These are 17 appeals filed by the above appellants against the common Order-in -Original dated 31-10-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi by which varyiing amounts of penalties were imposed on a number of noticees. The matter relates to the seizure of various items imported into India. The Department by show cause notice dated 12-5-1989 had alleged that - the noticees had acquired possession or were concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling, purchasing or in some other manner concerned with the seized goods and had dealt with such goods or other smuggled goods. The Commissioner by the impugned order had held that there was enough evidence to show that the goods seized were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and they had became liable for penal action under Section 112 of the Act. In the light of the above conclusion, various amounts of penalties were imposed on the appellants under Section 1...
C.C.E. Vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC93
1. This Revenue appeal has been filed against the Order of the Commissioner of Excise, Chandigarh dated 8.2.99 allowing the respondents refund claim of Rs. 20,53,017 out of an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs pre-deposited by them after adjusting duty payable on the royalty charges collected by them during the period in question. The refund claim arose consequent to the Tribunal decision dated 18.10.95 setting aside the duty demand or advertisement expenses. The respondents had pre-deposited the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs on 6.12.94 for the purpose of complying with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequent to the Tribunal's order setting aside demand of duty on advertisement expenses, they claimed refund with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 26.11.96. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants had not paid the duty under protest and had not followed the procedure laid down in Rules 233 B of the Central Excise R...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »