Delhi Court October 2001 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.
Ram Dhari Singh and ors. Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(63)DRJ620
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By this Order the interim application filed by the Petitioner long with the Writ Petition shall be disposed off. The prayers in the application are:-'a) restrain the respondents from appointing AFOs/ROs by transfer on deputation from any other organisation, in terms of the instructions of Central & State Government, b) restrain the respondent from regularizing/absorbing the AFOs/ROs in DVB who have been appointed by transfer on deputation against the instructions of the Central and State Governments and The R&P; Rules, till disposal of the writ petition.' 2. The Petitioners are on the regular strength of the Delhi Vidyut Board (hereafter - DVB). In the petition it has been averred that the overwhelming majority of deputationists have been recruited by DVB contrary to its statutory Regulations and are continuing in the service of the DVB pursuant to extensions granted to them from time to time contrary to these very statutory Regulations, which reads thus:Name of Po...
Hanuman Prasad Sharma and ors. Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT853; 2002(61)DRJ252
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ for quashing the order No. D/6/ZE/DB/CY/2001 dated 11.9.2001, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 under Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, ordering demolition of the tenanted remises, as specifically shown in 'Red, Green, and Blue' in the site plan of property No. 4262 Gali Bairon Wali, Jogiwra Nai Sarak, Delhi.4. (2) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Bansal has pains takingly urged before me that this sis a case where respondent Nos. 4 to 8, who happen to be the landlord of the premises, are bent upon evicting the petitioner. For this purpose, they have managed to secure the order passed under Section 348 of the DMC Act for demolition of the premises on the ground that the said premises are dangerous.5. (3) It is not disputed before me that there has been inter se civil litigation between the par...
Sneh Vasih and anr. Vs. Filatex India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT373
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Smt. Sneh Vaish and another have fled a suit for ejectment, recovery of rent an mesne profits against M/s Filatex India Ltd. (hereinafter described as the respondent). The sum and substance of the pleadings which give rise to the filing of the said suit is that on 1.10.1993, the suit premises were let to the defendant/respondent for three years. Lease was executed. But defendant started paying 20% increased rent. Thereafter the plaintiffs vide a notice of 25th October, 1999 had terminated the contractual lease with effect from 30th November, 1999. Since the premises as such had not be vacated the suit as such referred to above has been filed. 2. In the written statement the defendant had contested the suit. Defendant's plea is that he is in legal possession of the suit premises in part performance of the agreement which is containing in the registered lease deed of 21st October, 1993 executed between the parties which was provided and agreed between the parties tha...
Premier Clearing Agency Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Gen.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(79)ECC161; 2000LC13(Delhi); 2001(133)ELT533(Del)
ORDER1. Though this is an application for reference, we feel that, in view of the limited nature of the controversy, it would be desirable to dispose of the application at the admission stage after hearing learned Counsel for the parties.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The present petition involves a very interesting question as to whether the authorities under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (in short the 'Regulations') have any discretion to take a liberal view in case it is shown that the performance of the Custom House Agent was not deficient as to the facts of a case as to warrant revocation of the license.Factual position is almost undisputed and is as follows :4. A license was issued to the petitioner under Regulation 21 of the Regulations which was valid up to 18th June, 1999. Same was not renewed on the ground that the performance of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory regarding the quantity or value of cargo cleared, as per...
Bhagwanti Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT632; 2001(60)DRJ603
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition u/ss. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the order dated 10th September, 1997 framing charges u/ss. 304-B/498-A r/w Section 34 IPC passed by the court of Ms. Indermeet Kaur Kochhar, Addl.Sessions Judge, New Delhi, against the petitioner (mother-in-law of the deceased), in the case FIR No. 112/90 u/ss. 498-A/304-B IPC P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin.2. Prosecution allegations in brief are: on 27th September, 1984 Rajni (deceased) was married to Dharamapal Dhamija. On 18th April, 1990 she committed suicide by hanging. On the same day, statement of Balram Singh Anand, father of the deceased, was recorded by the SDM, who stated that Dharampal Dhamija (husband), had been torturing his daughter as he was having illicit relations with his cousin Sunita Gandhi. Whenever, there was dispute between husband and wife, she used to come to her parents' house and he would send her back after consoling her; that on 10th ...
Dr. Meeru Bhatia Prasad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1674; 94(2001)DLT597; 2001(60)DRJ594
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This revision petition under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 18th October, 1997, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi framing the charge against petitioner for offences under Sections 313/269 IPC. 2. Prosecution allegations in brief are: on 22th March, 1993, Tarsem Kumar lodged a report with the police alleging that on 3rd january, 1993, after reading the advertisement in Punjab Kesari, he along with his wife, who was then pregnant, contacted M/s.Bharati Lab and Scan Centre at Rajouri Garden, to rule out any fetal abnormality. They were told that the test will be done by ultra modern computerised machines and with modern techniques. They agreed for the test. Rs.3,500/- was charged from them. After test, he was told by his wife that needle was injected in her abdomen by the petitioner and amniocentesis test was done. They were told that it was a healthy male baby. Dr....
Sunder Lal JaIn Hospital Karamchari Union (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT640; 2002(61)DRJ808; [2002(92)FLR566]
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner, which is stated to be a duly registered Trade Union, is aggrieved by the non-declaration of protected-workman status to its Vice President (Mohd. Shakir, Petitioner No. 2) and its General Secretary (Karam Singh, Petitioner No. 3) for the relevant year commencing from 1999-2000. It is contended that there has been a violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act in short) and of Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) Rules, 1957 (Rules in short).2. The petition came up for hearing on 12.7.2000 and the Respondent was allowed four weeks time for filing its Reply. An extension of time for filing the Reply was requested for on 8.11.2000 and two weeks time was granted, subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- as costs. When the writ petition again came up for hearing on 26.2.2001 a final opportunity to file the Counter Affidavit was granted. Today it has been stated by learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 that the Co...
institute of Directors Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ116
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. Taken up today for final hearing with the consent of the parties.3. This writ petition challenges the award of the Arbitrator under Section 7 of Indian Telegraph Act. The award is reasoned one. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following observation of the Arbitrator:'The Respondent which is a Government Public Sector Unit, is bound to collect the outstanding from the subscribers for the Welfare of the common man & any order which may amount to stoppage of recovery of these amounts would amount to creating obstruction in the Welfare of the people. That would be the last thing the undersigned would want.'According to him, the above observation, disclosed the predetermined approach of the Arbitrator, resulting in dismissal of the claim. In my view the above observations are general in nature and cannot vitiate the award on the ground of bias particularly when the Award is a reasoned one.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitte...
Director of Income-tax (international Taxation) Vs. Dumez Sogea Borie ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR576(Delhi); [2002]120TAXMAN800(Delhi)
1. Heard. The extdfdfat and reach of Rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules'), is the subject-matter of controversy in this appeal. The Tribunal, with reference to the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Chowgule and Co. Ltd. : [1996]218ITR384(SC) , held that the assessed was entitled to the benefits in terms of rule 115 of the Rules. Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the said rule has no application to remittances made outside India. A bare reading of the said provision and the decision of the apex court makes it clear that the stand taken by the Revenue is without any merit. Accordingly, we do not entertain this appeal. Dismissed....
Cit Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN663(Delhi)
Admit.2. The following questions of law shall be adjudicated :'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,80,969 by holding that provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not applicable to the properties owned by the assessed ?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation @ 100% was allowable on shuttering tubular scaffolding ?3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in treating the interest income and other income as business income of the assessed for the purposes of allowing deduction under section 32AB of the Act ?'3. The appellant shall file within three months ten copies of the cyclostyled paper books, containing all documents on which reliance was placed before the Tribunal, including any order/orders, either in the case of the assessed itself or in case of any other assessed, which has been followed by the Tribunal.4. The appeal shall be heard along with IT Appeal No. 18 of 1999....
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »