Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 20 of about 221 results (0.019 seconds)Lissy Jose Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ305
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- 'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that your Lordship may be graciously be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing the O.M. No. F-744/IC/90 dated 11th December, 1990 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and direct the respondent to implement the orders of the Govern ment of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pen-sions Vide OM No. 2.1.90 OS IV dated 31st July, 1990 with respect to the revision of the pay scale of Stenographer Grade 'C' and Assistant, in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.1640-2900 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1986.' 2. The case of the petitioners is that on the 31st of July, 1990, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, had refused the pay scale of stenographers 'Grade C' and Assistants from pay scale of Rs.1400-2...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Sharma Vs. D.D.A. and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)749; AIR2000Delhi459; 85(2000)DLT163; 2000(54)DRJ471
ORDERVikramajit Sen,J.1. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are not in dispute. An Award was published wherein two claims were partly allowed, one was fully allowed and two were rejected. Out of a total claim of Rs. 8,79.085/- a sum of Rs. 2,11,820.61 was granted by the Arbitrator. The 1st claim was for Rs. 2,94,309/- as the amount due in the Final Bill, towards work done but not paid. The finding was that this was partly justified to the extent of Rs.1,20,775.25. The next was for the refund of the Security Deposit of Rs. 84,776/- which was found to be fully justified. The third claim for Rs. 5,00,000/-, towards damages for work executed beyond the stipulated date of completion was rejected as being unjustified. The fourth claim for Rs. 2,00,000/- under Clause 10-C, was held to be partly justified to the extent of Rs. 6,279.36. And the final claim was on account of pendente lite interest, which was fully disallowed. Three Counter Claims were also filed. 2. Both partie...
Tag this Judgment!Col Gajraj Singh (Retd.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)665; 2000(54)DRJ765
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army on 9-6-1968 as Second Lieutenant in Army Service Group. He was romoted from time to time and rose up to the rank of Colonel from which post he retired on 31-5-94. During the period May,1990 to 31-10-1991 petitioner was posted as Commandant 4 Reserve Petroleum Depot,Delhi Centt. He made local purchase of Hygiene Chemical for supply to various units dependent on the aforesaid depot where petitioner was posted. On 31.10.92 petitioner was transferred to ASC Centre North Gaya, Bihar. In May,1993 after the transfer of the petitioner from 4 Reserve Petroleum Depot, Delhi Cantt. two technical inquiries were conducted into the aforesaid purchases made by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not called to give evidence in the said inquiries nor was found blame worthy on any account. However, on 7-5-94 a high level Staff Court of Inquiry was ordered by Western Command of Army to inquire into the alleged i...
Tag this Judgment!Mange Ram Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)684; 85(2000)DLT257
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The question for determination in these appeals is about the compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their lands situated in village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi. The claimants have filed appeals under Section 54 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for enhancement in the amount of compensation whereas Union of India has filed six appeals claiming reduction in the amount of compensation. 2. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 24.10.1961 notifying the intention of the Government of acquire land, measuring 16,000 acres marked in blocks 1 to 24, covering number of revenue estates of Union Territory of Delhi at public expense for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi. This notification was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 6.12.1966 with respect to 92B Bighas 18 bids was of land situated in village Mangolpur Kalan. Separate awards were made by the Collector, Land ...
Tag this Judgment!Pran Nath Mallick Vs. Dr. Netar Prakash Mallick and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)843; 85(2000)DLT179; 2000(53)DRJ206
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order will dispose of an application filed by respondent No. 3 New Friends Co-operative House Building Society ('the Society'), praying for setting aside and recalling the order dated 10.12.99 passed by this Court disposing of the appeal in terms of the compromise filed under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 2. Brief facts are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging therein that he was entitled to the plot No.C770 measuring 500 Sq. Yards, which was allotted to his mother Smt. Shanti Devi Malhotra, by the Society. The plaintiff prayed for setting aside the resolution dated 28.5.77 of the Society as also the order dated 23.1.76 of the Chairman of the Society permitting exchange of this plot No. C-770, measuring 500 Sq.Yards allotted to said Smt. Shanti Devi with the plot No.A-249, (300 sq yards) allotted to Mrs. Raj Kumari Malhotra by the Socie...
Tag this Judgment!High Way Farms Vs. Sh. Chinta Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)857; 85(2000)DLT355; 2000(56)DRJ201
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This application for temporary injunction has been filed in a suit for the Specific Performance of land situated in Khasra Nos. 314(4-16), 313(4-16), 315(4-16) situated in village Shahroorpur, District Mehrauli, New Delhi. This agreement based on a Receipt dated 22.9.1991 has allegedly been signed by Defendant Nos.1, 3, 9, 10 and 11. In this very suit Specific Performance of another piece of land has also been claimed on the basis of another Receipt dated 3.10.1991. The land mentioned in the second Receipt is situated in Khasra No.311(4-16), 312(1-4) situated in the same village and allegedly executed by Defendant Nos.13, 14 and 15. There is no document witnessing any Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 but they have all been imp leaded in the suit. 2. Learned counsel for Defendants had raised an objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of mis-joinder of parties as well as mis-joinder of cause of action. Pri...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Bala Anand Vs. Prem Pal Anand
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)950; 85(2000)DLT640; 2000(54)DRJ155
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The respondent-husband filed matrimonial case against the appellant wife for divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is not necessary to set out the pleadings as the learned Addl. District Judge had noticed all facts. In support of his case, the respondent-husband examined P.W. 2 to P.W. 5 and himself as P.W. 1. 2. The appellant-wife besides examining herself as R.W.1, examined R.W.2 to R.W. 6. The learned Addl. District Judge after analysing the evidence placed on record observed:- 'On the face of the above evidence brought on record, the question is as to whether the parties have been able to establish their respective versions and whether on the basis of the established facts, the respondent can be held guilty of the matrimonial offence of cruelty as envisaged in Sec. 13(1) (ia) of the Act. In this case not only the petitioner but the respondent has also alleged a number of instances which could amount to cruel treatent to her. However, since it is the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Gupta Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)909; 85(2000)DLT779; 2000(54)DRJ237
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was in service of respondent Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB in short) from where he retired with effect from 30.11.93. However, few months before his retirement, Petitioner was issued Charge Sheet dated 26.5.93 which was received by him on 28.6.1993. Although the petitioner retired, enquiry continued. Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.4.1997, returning the findings that charges against the petitioner was not proved beyond all doubts. However, Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued show Cause Notice to the Petitioner dated 2.1.1998. His reply was received and considered by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter on 21.9.98, Petitioner was imposed penalty of 30% cut in pension per month for a period of 3 years. His appeal against the said order having been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Grave man of the charge, as per the Charge Sheet served upon th...
Tag this Judgment!Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. Vs. National Projects Construction ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)86; 2000(53)DRJ580
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J. 1. These are the objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') filed by M/s. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the respondent') for setting aside the award dated 15.9.1992 passed by Shri C. Rama Rao, retired Director General of Works, Central PWD as Sole Arbitrator. 2. The work of construction of Turbine Hall, Auxiliary Annexe etc. for BALCO Captive Power Plant at Korba (M.P) was awarded by the respondent to M/s. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the petitioner') by means of letter of award No. 700570/Projects dated 30.5.1985. The estimated value of the work was Rs.1,48,86,150/- and the work was to be completed within 16 months, i.e., by 30.9.1986 commencing from 30.5.1985. Extension was granted up to 31.12.1987 but work was actually completed on 31.7.1988. Disputes arose between the parties as petitioner's dues remained unpaid. The contract provided for arbitration. The...
Tag this Judgment!Jonsons Rubber Industries Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railways and an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)383; 2000(54)DRJ59
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery pf Rs. 10,33,875.02 against the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta and the Controller of Stores, Calcutta, being the Defendants herein. The Plaintiff had submitted its Tender dated 26.12.1992. The dispute that has arisen between the parties pertains to whether the Plaintiffs offer was inclusive of Excise Duty. On notice being issued to Defendants, an application purporting to be under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by them. In substance the application states that, although this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the cause of action had arisen in Calcutta, where the Defendants have their Office, the Agreement between the parties contained an Arbitration Clause. This Clause 2900 has been reproduced in the application itself.2. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff has strenuously resisted the application. It is his contention that Section 34 of the Ar...
Tag this Judgment!