Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 10 of about 277 results (0.020 seconds)Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT825; 2000(54)DRJ875
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. These three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since question of fact and law are same and similar. 2. The land, which is the subject matter of these appeals, situated in village Kondli was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi. For the lands, which are subject matter of R.F.A. No.603 and 604 of 1992 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published on 17.11.1980 and for the lands, subject matter of RFA. No.601/92, the said notification under Section 4 was published on 25.2.1981. It was followed by separate declarations issued in Section 6 of the Act. For the lands covered by notification dated 17.11.1980, Collector Land Acquisition made his Award No.80/82-83 and for the lands covered by notification dated 25.2.1981 he made Award No.57/81-82. Compensation was assessed and offered by the Collector Land Acquisition at a uniform rate of Rs.8,500/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Unified Agro Ind. (India) Ltd. and ors Vs. Debts Recovery Tribuna ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas708(Delhi)
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Order passed on 5.5.1999 by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi constituted under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. 51 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge by the petitioners in these two separate petitions filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside of the said order dated 5.5.1999 by which the Tribunal has allowed the application of the respondent Bank for passing an order against the petitioners on the alleged admissions. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the application of the respondent Bank was allowed and final order was passed by the Tribunal: (a) without holding trial on disputed facts emerging from pleadings of the parties and without adjudicating upon bank's claim submitted for adjudication, in view of the disputes stated there and contrary to the manner mandated by the provisions of the Act, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cref Finance Ltd. Vs. Puri Construction Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(3)ARBLR331(Delhi)
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. Ubi Jus Ubi Remedium is a Latinism which has become an integral part of jurisprudence. Considering the vituperous, vehement and vigorous opposition to this petition from Shri Mohinder Puri and the other Respondents represented by S/Shri Amarjit Singh Chandiok and Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocates, it is surprising that it was ubiquitously reiterated that the Orders dated 13.5.2000 passed by Justice S. Ranganathan are ad-invite. All the more so since the Petitioner only seeks jural protection virtually identical to these ad-invite Orders. The grant of the relief was contested by the Respondents substantially on legal Objections, which is why the legal maxim came to mind. Of equal authority, tested by time, is the view expressed in Ashby v. White that 'if a man has a right he must have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy for want of...
Tag this Judgment!University of Delhi and anr. Vs. Dr. Usha Kulshreshtha and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ503
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated December 19, 1997 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4085/97. The facts lie in a narrow compass and are as follows:- 2. The first respondent herein, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, is M.Sc. in Mathematics. She received Ph.D. degree in Physics in December 1993 from the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany. On July 18, 1994 the first respondent was appointed as Research Associate in Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for five years and posted in the Department of Physics, University of Delhi. The petitioner applied for her empanelment in the list suitable candidates to be considered as ad-hoc lecturer in the College of the Delhi University. Pursuant to submission of the said application, she was called for interview. The selection committee after interview selected and empanelled her for being considered for appointment as an ad-hoc Lecturer in Ph...
Tag this Judgment!Kaushik Chakraborty Vs. Director General Doordarshan and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT660; 2000(54)DRJ854
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal as the pleadings are complete. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks the quashing of the sanction letter bearing No. 4/84/96-Ps-/751 dated 15.10.1997, by which sanction was accorded for payment of royalty of Rs. 4 lacs for the telecasting rights of the petitioner's Manipuri feature film ' LANGLEN THADOI'. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to make the payment in accordance with the earlier sanction letter bearing No. 4/84/96-Ps/310 dated 15.4.1997 in the sum of Rs. 8 lacs. 2. The controversy in the present case is narrow one. Petitioner had applied to the Doordarshan for telecasting the feature film 'LANGLEN THADOI' on the Doordarshan. Petitioner represented that the said film had won two State Awards. The application form appearing at page 26 of the paper book, mentions award of 'Best Producer 1994' and 'Best Art Director 1994'. It appears that the respondents,...
Tag this Judgment!Duncan International (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Appellate Authority for ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas237(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT698; 2000(54)DRJ836
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made by the petitioner Company to that part of the order passed by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 28.2.1997 in case No. 117/87 in Re: M/s. Anglo India Jute Mills Company Limited (AIJM) in the proceedings held on 6.2.1997; by which the petitioner was directed to pay rental @ Rs.10,000/- per month for Flat No.34, Woodland Estate, Alipore, Calcutta, without adjusting the amount against any dues claimed by it from Anglo India Jute Mills Company Limited, further directing that rental payable shall be increased to Rs. 27,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1997 and within a period of six months, the petitioner shall make necessary arrangement to vacate the flat in favor of Anglo India Jute Mills and against the order passed on 15.4.1998 by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) dismissing its appeal. 2. Relevant facts, in...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Surinder Kaur and Others Vs. S. Rajdev Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi77
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 21, 2000. By that order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application of the appellant under Order 32, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, being I.A. 7974/99 in Suit No.1806/99, seeking appointment of a Medical Board to determine the mental capability of respondent No.1 herein, Rajdev Singh. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:- 2. Appellants No.1 to 3 and respondents No.1 to 4 are closely related to each other. The appellants and respondent No. 4 are real sisters of respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 and 3 are the sons of respondent No.1, while respondent No. 5 is a partnership firm in regard to which the appellants claimed to be partners Along with respondents No.1 to 4. 3. On July 9, 1937 the Secretary in State granted a perpetual lease of plot in block No.124, Janpath in favor of Sardar Bahadur Ranjit Singh, father of the appellants, respondents No.1 & ...
Tag this Judgment!DeseIn Privated Limited Vs. Deputy Director (Big Cell) and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)888
ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. According to the averments in the petition the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in rendering consultancy and ancillary services to its clients in the power sector. Even before the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 were extended to the establishment of the petitioner, its employees had been given medical, maternity and other benefits which were more generous than those provided under the E.S.I. Act. After the provisions of the E.S.I. Act were held to be applicable to the petitioner, it had no option but to start making contributions in accordance with provisions of the E.S.I. Act. Respondent No. 1 - the Deputy Director, Regional Office, ESI Corporation passed an ex parte assessment order dated 8.8.1997 against the petitioner under Section 45A of the ESI Act. No notice of the said proceedings had been received by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner submitted an application (Annexure P1 dated 9.4.1998) to respondent No. 1 pray...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Krishan Bhalla and ors. Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ778
Devinder Gupta, J.1. In the year 1961, Delhi School Teachers Cooperative House Building Society Limited was formed and duly registered at Seriall No. 954 under the Bombay cooperative Society Act, 1925, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. The object of formation of the society was to regulate and cater to the housing needs of its members and process thereof to acquire suitable land, develop it and sell plots to its members on 'no profit and no loss basis'. Prospectus of the Society provided that the area of operation of the Society would be Delhi and only people connected in the recognised educational institutions in Delhi can become members and that the Society may have different housing colonies in Delhi. It also provided that any teacher, of a recognised school of Delhi and paid member of Delhi School Teachers Association or Government School Teachers Association, desirous of becoming a member of the Society has to be introduced by a promoter member of the Society and shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ29
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Common question of law arises for consideration in the Appeals and the writ petitions. Common arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the parties, thereforee, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2 L.P.A. 118/89 arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8.9.1989 dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. Like the appellants other petitioners and appellants are seeking direction against the respondents for implementation of the resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 4.12.1970, 25.4.1972, 31.7.1.973, 21.12.1985, 20.2.1989 and 24.10.1989: for quashing of the direction/order dated 8.1.1990 of Lt. Governor, Delhi and dated 223.1990 of the Chief Secretary in his capacity as an officer exercising powers of the Corporation under Section 490(2)(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'). In addition direction is sought for implementation of the judgment of this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!