Delhi Court October 2001 Judgments

Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi167; 95(2002)DLT261; 2002(61)DRJ406

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an application for interim relief in the writ petition where the primary prayer is to set aside the orders under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), passed by the Registration Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the RC'), constituted under the Act, granted in favor of respondent No. 4, i.e., M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India, thorough the Secretary of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, respondent No. 2 is the Chairman, Registration Committee of Central Insecticide Board, respondent No. 3 is the Central Insecticide Board & Registration Committee, through its Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture & respondent No. 4 in M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., a Company Regd. under the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The dispute raised in the writ petition is that when an insecticide is granted registration under Section 9(3) of the Act after undergoing tests, the same tests have to be followed fo...

The Management of the Hindu, Ins Building, Rafi Marg, New Delhi Vs. th ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT84

Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The present petition is filed by he Management of M/s. The Hindu and is directed against the award dat ed 19th May, 1998, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. II, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in I.D. No. 1586/1990. By the aforesaid award, the Tribunal held that the services of the respondent/workman were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the Management and he was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages. 2. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the parties it would be necessary to the state certain background facts leading to the reference., on the basis of which the aforesaid award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal. the petitioner/ Management engaged the respondent/workman as a driver on daily wage basis some time in the month of February, 1987. It is alleged by the petitioner/Management that the respondent/workman was engaged to drive the car for the Special Correspondent who was to do special assignment and...

Pearl Intercontinental Ltd. and Vs. State Bank of Indore

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against the order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I in O.A. No.368/97--State Bank of lndore v. Pearl Intercontinental Ltd. and Ors.2. The impugned order has been passed on an application moved by the appellants for amendment of their Written Statement. The application has been rejected by the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below on the ground that the appellants by seeking amendments in the Written Statement were taking a complete somersault and wanted to say that they had availed the facility but not to the fullest extent. He also observed that lodging claim with the ECGC was totally irrelevant on that stage and that since the Written Statement had been filed in January, 1998, he was convinced that the defendants were only interested in prolonging the litigation.4. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Copy of the amendment application on which the impugned order has been passed is at pages 9 to 11 ...

indo Foreign Commercial Agency Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against the order dated 31.7.2001 passed by Mr. S.N.Aggarwal, Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi in O.A. No. 143/96, Punjab & Sind Bank v. Indo Foreign Commercial Agency (Products) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer has allowed the appellants application for setting aside the ex pane decree dated 29.8.1997 on payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs and further on deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs with the Registrar of the Tribunal within one month from the date of the order. The respondent Bank has not filed any appeal against that order but the appellants who were applicants for setting aside the ex pane order are aggrieved with the order only in respect of the condition of the deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs. Thus, the short point involved in this appeal is whether the appellants should be put to the aforesaid condition of deposit or not before the ex pane order is set aside and the case is listed.2. Before dealing with the merit...

Suresh Sharma and ors. Vs. SteIn Doshi and Bhalla

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT54; 2002(61)DRJ129

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is an application moved under Section 151 CPC by the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants from misusing the premises as the demand of Rs. 5 crores has been made by the L&DO; upon the plaintiff against misuse of the premises and also for directions to give security of Rs. 5 crores to secure dues. 2. The defendant has, by way of writ petition, challenged the validity of the demand of the L&DO; as according to him the use of the premises by him is not against the terms of the lease and the L&DO; is not justified in making the demands towards the misuse of the premises. However, in CM. No. 4537/97 & 7132/94 in CW. 3898/94 the Division Bench declined to restrain the respondent from using the premises which is being used as per agreement of tenancy between the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 but to protect the interest of the plaintiff, the defendant was directed to furnish security of Rs. five crore within four weeks failing which all interim orders passed in t...

Ganga Prashad Sharma Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ328

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, I would be disposing of CM. 10843/2000, moved by the petitioner in CW.No. 586/1997, seeking a direction to respondent-No. 1/MCD to remove the encroachment on municipal land included as part of shop Nos. 3278 to 3281, Bazar Sita ram, Delhi-110006. Further , to remove shuters, fixed by tenants/respondents Nos. 2 to 4, who have encroached upon 17 ft. of municipal land by including it in the covered area of each of the shop.2. Petitioner, owner of shop bearing Nos. 3278-3281, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus for removal of unauthorised constructions, raised by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in from of shop bearing Nos. 3278-3281, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi,shown in red colour in the site plan attached.3. For disposal of the present application, facts and events, culminating in the filing of the application, may be noted:-Notice to show cause had been issued in the writ petition. MCD had sought time to file counter affida...

Ashok Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT95; 2002(63)DRJ191

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Petitioners in these writ petitions have been engaged by the Delhi Vidyut Board (for short 'DVB') on contract basis for a period of six months in a year. It is their case that there is a perennial need for the services of persons such as them. It is further their case that their services have been engaged after they were successful in the Test and Interview duly conducted by the Delhi Vidyut Board. Since the DVB has taken the plea that regular appointments can be made only through the recommendations of the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (for short 'DSSSB') they are all willing to again appear in the fresh selection process as and when carried out by this body. It is emphasised on behalf of the Petitioners that they are receiving a consolidated salary of Rs. 5500/- and because of the meagerness of this amount when compared with salaries payable to regular employees, the DVB has found it convenient to meet its staff requirement through this 'cheep la...

Green Carriers and Contractors Vs. Allahabad Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This is an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The applicant was defendant No. 17 in the O.A. No. 20/1990 decided by DRT, Jaipur. The O A. was first filed as a Civil Suit in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur. Later on, when Debts Recovery Tribunal was established in view of Section 31 of the said Act.2. There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant was served in the Civil Suit by the said Court of Distt. Judge and had also appeared before that Court and had asked for time to file written statement. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant did not file any written statement before the Court of Distt. Judge and also before the DRT, Jaipur in spite of having appeared before that Tribunal. The case proceeded ex parte against the applicant and by the impugned final order dated 30.3.2001, a decree of Rs. 69,50,761.95 was made against defendant No. 1. Out of that sum, the liability of defendant No. 1...

Zenith Gwar Gum and ors. Vs. United Bank of India

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 291/97--United Bank of India v. Zenith Gwar Gum and Others. By the impugned order the Tribunal below has disposed of these applications of the appellants without giving any relief to the appellants. The first application moved by the appellants was for setting aside the exparte preliminary decree dated 17.11.1990 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City in original Suit No.649/88. The second prayed for stay of further proceedings in the said O.A. No. 291/97 till the first application for setting aside the exparte decree was decided. The third was for cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent Bank.2. Before coming to the merits of the appeal it would be appropriate to narrate certain facts. The respondent Bank had filed a suit No. 649/88 against the appellants before the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. In ...

Lloyds Insulations (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)80ITD465(Delhi)

1. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the same are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The common issue is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction from his income in respect of wealth-tax paid under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983.2. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 97,700 and Rs. 1,07,731 for asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93, respectively, in respect of the wealth-tax paid under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, while computing the income for these two years. The claim of the assessee for both the years was disallowed by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(iia) of IT Act, 1961 (in short 1961Act). The disallowance has been confirmed by the CIT(A) for both the years. Hence, the present appeals before the Tribunal.3. The learned counsel for the assessee Manian has vehemently assailed the orders of CIT(A) by contending that disallowance under Section 40(a)(iia) of 1961Act can be made only with reference to...