Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 4 of about 254 results (0.022 seconds)B.B. Patel Vs. M/S. Nexim Exports Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)624; 2000(54)DRJ180
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 37 rule 3 sub rule (6)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC), seeking judgment and decree forthwith interalia on the ground that defendants have failed to pay Rs. 15 lacs in cash to plaintiff as per the Supreme Court order dated 14.2.2000 passed in Civil Appeal (Nos. 1119-11120/2000). The defendants are opposing this application. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the application are : that the plaintiff filed a suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs. 24,20,000/- against the defendants along with interest @ 21% from the date of filing of the suit till realisation and costs. On 3rd May, 1993 the defendants were granted leave to defend the suit subject to the conditions that they shall furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 12.10 lacs which shall be kept alive till the disposal of the suit and that they shall deposit Rs. 12.10 lakh in the Court to be kept in the fixed deposit recei...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Archana Shukla Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)658; 86(2000)DLT385; 2000(54)DRJ398; [2000]244ITR829(Delhi)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to grant refund flowing from the order of assessment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax, 1961 (for short, the Act) dated 19.8.1999 for the As- sessment Year 1998-99. It is her grievance that instead of granting refund, a subterfuge was adopted to make adjustment of the refund due to her against a demand purported to have been raised against M/S Techno Exports in respect of the assessment year 1994-95. Petitioner moved the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Respondent No.1) for grant of refund. It was communicated to her by said authority that a notice under Section 226(3) had been issued on 3.12.1999 and the refund has been adjusted against the demand raised in the case of M/S Techno Exports and the communication was indicated to be an intimation under Section 245 of the Act. 2. It is to be noted that by communication dated 3-12-1999, it was communicated to the petitioner that in her bala...
Tag this Judgment!Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)709; [2000(86)FLR450]; (2001)ILLJ191Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This writ petition is filed by Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (NYKS, for short), registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This peti- corporation is directed against Award dated 2.3.98 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi in I.D. No. 26/1992. The main question to be decided is as to whether Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan is an 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The factual background which has led to the aforesaid issue may be narrated first : 2. Shri Murari Lal Sharma, respondent No. 4 worked with the petitioner as Peon from 28.8.80 to 5.2.87 and as Peoncum-Watch and Ward from 6.2.87 till March, 1988. While working in the aforesaid capacity he applied for the post of Accounts Clerk with the petitioner and was duly selected. Accordingly, he was appointed as Accounts Clerk w.e.f. 4.4.88 and he worked as Accounts Clerk till 30.11.88 when his services were terminated. He raised Industrial D...
Tag this Judgment!Major Joginder Singh Gill Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)698
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner is Ex-serviceman who retired from Army as Major. However, the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition which was filed in May,1983 just before his retirement is that Respondents 5 to 28 were wrongly given seniority above the petitioner and further that respondents 29 to 31 were promoted to the rank of Lt. Col. denying the same to the petitioner. He, accordingly, has claimed grant of seniority above these respondents as well as his promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. The controversy has the following factual background: 2. The petitioner joined Army as an 'other rank' on 24.4.1950. He was granted Emergency Commission in 1962 as per Army Instruction 9/S of 1962 and thereafter underwent OTS Training for 6 months at Poona between April,1963 to October,1963. In 1965 Government of India had decided to grant Permanent Commission to Emergency Commissioned Officers vide A1 13/S of 1965. Para-11 of this Army instruction dealt with the seniority which w...
Tag this Judgment!Piara Lal Vs. Lt. Governor and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)804; [2001(88)FLR329]; (2001)ILLJ24Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner who was working as a Conductor with DTC-Respondent No.3 was removed from service by order dated 20.12.1985. He challenged the removal by raising Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court and was registered as I.D.No.437/95. After adjudication, Labour Court rendered Award dated 31.10.1995 declaring dismissal of the petitioner from service as illegal and unjustified and held that petitioner was entitled to reinstatement to his job and was also entitled to continue in service along with full back wages. The Respondent-DTC did not implement the aforesaid Award even after its publication on 10.1.1996. Under these circumstances, petitioner moved an application under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Commissioner on 14.12.1996 claiming a sum of Rs.5,51,000/- as back wages in terms of the aforesaid Award. The details of aforesaid amount claimed by the petitioner as given in his application before the Labour Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Tuncay Alankus and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)812; 2000CriLJ3280; 86(2000)DLT62; 2000(54)DRJ324
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The petitioners herein are the University of Delhi and the Executive Council, University of Delhi. Respondent No. 1 is Dr. S.R. Gupta, Reader, Department of Library and Information Science. University of Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is Prof. Krishan Kumar who also is employed in the Department of Library and Information Science, University of Delhi. 2. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in Suit No. 57/98 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi. Respondent No. 1 Dr. S.R. Gupta is the plaintiff and respondent No. 2 Prof. Krishan Kumar is defendant No. 3 in the said Suit. 3. According to the plaintiff in the above mentioned Suit No. 57/98, he is employed as Teacher with the designation of 'Reader' in the Department of Library and information Science of the University of Delhi (defendant No. 1). Under the provisions of the statute and the ordinance of the University, the plaintiff claimed to be eligible and entitled to be appointed as the Head of the Department...
Tag this Judgment!University of Delhi and Another Vs. Dr. S.R. Gupta and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)838
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J. 1. The petitioners herein are the University of Delhi and the Executive Council, University of Delhi. Respondent No. 1 is Dr. S.R. Gupta, Reader, Department of Library and Information Science. University of Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is Prof. Krishan Kumar who also is employed in the Department of Library and Information Science, University of Delhi. 2. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in Suit No. 57/98 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi. Respondent No. 1 Dr. S.R. Gupta is the plaintiff and respondent No. 2 Prof. Krishan Kumar is defendant No. 3 in the said Suit. 3. According to the plaintiff in the above mentioned Suit No. 57/98, he is employed as Teacher with the designation of 'Reader' in the Department of Library and information Science of the University of Delhi (defendant No. 1). Under the provisions of the statute and the ordinance of the University, the plaintiff claimed to be eligible and entitled to be appointed as the Head of the Department ...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Laxmanan Vs. I.A.A.i. and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT292; [2001(88)FLR164]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition was filed by the petitioner Mr. T.A. Laxmanan challeng- ing the punishment of removal inflicted upon him. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner died. His legal heirs moved CM. 5707 of 1998 under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring themselves on record in place of deceased petitioner and the same was allowed vide order dated 17th May, 1999 as no reply was filed to this application. Amended memo of parties bringing legal representatives on record was filed. When the matter was argued respondent took the preliminary objection to the effect that writ petition stood abated on the death of the petitioner and it cannot be pursued by the legal representative of the petitioner as cause of action did not survive after the death of the petitioner. thereforee before deciding the validity of the punishment imposed upon the deceased petitioner, this preliminary objection of the respondent has also to be decided. The di...
Tag this Judgment!Online India Capital Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dimensions Corporate
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)860; [2000]102CompCas352(Delhi)
K.S. Gupta, J.1. A suit was filed seeking to restrain the defendant permanently from using the website under the name of www.mutualfundindia.com or in any other identical name, inter alia, alleging that plaintiff No. 2 acquired the proprietary rights of www.mutualfundsindia.com and assigned it in favor of plaintiff No. 1-company. The website www.mutualfundsindia.com was created on May 5, 1999. It is alleged that this website provides most comprehensive data on mutual funds. Finding it to be highly informative, knowledgeable and useful the Templeton Mutual Fund, DSP Merill Lynch Mutual Fund, Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund, Alliance Capital Mutual Fund and Taurus Mutual Fund are advertising on the said website. Prudential ICICI Mutual Fund has also agreed to advertise for one year beginning May 1, 2000. SIDBI Venture Capital Co. Ltd. has offered to participate in the share capital of plaintiff No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crores. Other leading companies of North India dealing in shares, secu...
Tag this Judgment!Ved Parkash and Another Vs. M/S. Marudhar Services Limited and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)845; 2000(54)DRJ654
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The plaint contains several prayers, inter alia, for the passing of a decree of possession of the property in suit. This prayer is available to the Plaintiff if the monthly rent of the suit premises is in excess of Rs. 3500/-. and if the tenancy has been validly terminated. The allegations in the plaint are that the period of lease had expired on 31.8.1995 but that Defendant No.2 continued to occupy the premises even thereafter. Hence the tenancy of the Defendants had been terminated vide notice dated 2.3.1998, the receipt of which is admitted by the Defendants. In para 8 of the its Written Statement the Defendants have pleaded inter alia, as follows: 'That the contents of para No. 8 of the plaint are wrong and denied. It is wrong that tenancy was terminated or no reply to the notice dated 2nd Mach, 1998 was given by the defendants. It is submitted that a detailed reply to the said notice was duly sent by the defendant through speed post dated 23.4.1998. That...
Tag this Judgment!