Delhi Court November 2001 Judgments

Asha Vij and ors. Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)109

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. As the facts and the issues raised in these two writ petitions and the contempt petition are similar, I propose to dispose of both the writ petitions and the contempt petition by this common judgment and order.2. The petitioners in the writ petitions were/are working as teaching and non-teaching staff of Delhi Area Primary School (DAPS in short) at NOIDA. The petitioners have been working in the aforesaid capacities in the said school for different periods. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notices issued by the respondent dt. 18.3.1999 intimating the petitioners that they would be relieved from their duties that they have been doing, w.e.f. 31.3.1999 and that they would be paid three months salary up to 30.6.99 in lieu of three months notice period as per the constitution of the school. Copies of the said notices have been placed on record. Since the contents of the said notices are similar, I propose to take up and examine and discuss the notice issued to t...

Lakhbir Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ551

K.S. Gupta, J.1. Criminal liability with the aid of Section 120-B, IPC for murder of his wife on 16th July, 1999, was sought to be fastened on the petitioner on the basis of extra judicial confession made by co-accused Ramesh @ Danger before Kanta and Mohammed Layak on 23rd July, 1999 as also the fact that this co-accused was known to petitioner from before the occurrence. Mohammed Layak has not been cited as witness. Kanta whose statement was recorded on 24th May, 2001 by the trial court, has not supported the prosecution story in regard to said co-accused having told her and Mohammed Layak that as he had done a big job, and likely to receive Rs. 50,000/- shortly. Having perused the statements of PW-1 Smt. Durga Devi, mother-in-law and PW-5 Dhimesh Kumar, brother-in-law of petitioner on said second circumstance, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. He be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of cour...

Rajendra Prasad Saxena Vs. M.T.N.L.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 19.9.1997, passed by District Forum No. -IV in Complaint Case No. 569/1997 (old No. 66/1996) entitled Shri Rajendra Prasad Saxena v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had applied for a telephone connection in the OYT/G category on 10.7.1995 and had also deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as per the requirement of the respondents against registration No. I.XR/OYT/G/R/013987. In pursuance of the said registration, an OB No. 36224100001 was issued by respondent No. 2 on 24.7.1995. Since no telephone connection was provided to the appellant till 21.8.1995, the appellant contacted respondent No. 2 and was assured that his telephone would be installed within a fortnight. However, despite repeated visits no telephone was provided to the appellant and on 4.10.1995 respondent No. 2 informed the appellant that the gr...

Naresh Kumar and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT92; I(2002)DMC51; 2002(61)DRJ273

ORDER1. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband, petitioners 3 and 4 are parents-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is brother-in-law of Smt. Geeta on whose complaint dated 12th July, 2001 made to Crime Against Women Cell, case under Section 498-A was registered on 14th July, 2001. Contention advanced by Mr. Alvi is that allegations made in FIR are vague inasmuch as date, month and year of alleged demand and beating have not been disclosed therein. However, on the other hand, Shri Kapoor has invited my attention to the supplementary statement of complainant recorded on 27th July, 2001 wherein some of the instances of demand and infliction of cruelty have been disclosed. Obviously those instances where within the knowledge of complainant on the date she made complaint on 12th July, 2001. In the facts and circumstances of case, petitioners are admitted to anticipatory bail. In the event of their arrest, they will be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the surety in like...

Mohan Sen Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(161)ELT61(Del)

1. By an order dated 20th November, 2000 the CEGAT had directed the respondents to return the seized amount of US $ 1,30,000 to the petitioner herein. The amount has not so far been returned to the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner had to file this petition seeking directions to the Government to release to the petitioner US $ 1,30,000 with interest. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no other remedy to enforce the order of the CEGAT and thereforee he had to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have sought a reference in the Bombay High Court against the order of the CEGAT dated 20th November, 2000. He further submits that since a reference Court has no power to grant stay, the respondents approached the CEGAT for stay of the directions regarding return of the aforesaid amount. It appears the CEGAT has not granted any stay order on the application mov...

Sujata Grover Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by CIT under Section 263 on 27th Feb., 2001, in relation to asst. yr.1994-95.2. The grievance of the assessee as projected in grounds of appeal is as under: (i) The learned CIT, Delhi VII, has erred in law and on facts in invoking the provision of Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, to the facts of the present case. (ii) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the foreign exchange difference was to be excluded to the extent of 90 per cent from the profit of business in terms of Clause (baa) to the Explanation to Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961. (iii) In any case, he erred in law in failing to note and give effect to the provision of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC.3. The factual matrix of the case : The AO while framing assessment under Section 143(3) varied the amount of deduction under Section 80HHC, inter alia, on two counts. First he reduced 9...

J.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT100

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, filed in May, 1985, it has been prayed as under:- (A) allow this writ petition with costs and damages; (B) Issue appropriate writ or writs, direction or directions, order or orders. (i) quashing various documents/ orders leading to the rejection of the case of the petitioner for absorption in DDA; (ii) declaring the petitioner entitled to be absorbed in the DDA; (iii) directing the respondent CPWD to give its concurrence to the absorption of the petitioner in the DDA; (iv) quashing the impugned act of the DDA in not taking the petitioner on duty after he reported for duty on the expiry of his leave; (v) directing the respondent DDA to absorb the petitioner in the DDA with all consequential benefits; (vi) directing the respondent DDA to take the petitioner on duty in DDA from the date from which he reported for duty after expiry of his leave and then take further action in the matter according to law; (vii) directing the respondent DD...

Bhagwati Prasad Sharma Vs. Ram Swaroop Sharma (Deceased) Through Lrs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ603

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. The order of a Civil Judge dated 20.1.2001 has been assailed in this revision petition by the defendant whose application for consolidation of four civil suits which were being litigated between the parties, was dismissed.2. Following four civil suits are pending inter se parties. Three of them were filed by Ram Saroop Sharma, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent and the fourth was filed by the petitioner. Civil suit No. 269/1990 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the premises from the petitioner. Evidence in this petition concluded and the case was fixed for final argument in 1995. Thereafter an application for additional evidence was filed by the petitioner which had been allowed and the case is now pending for recording of additional evidence. Suit No. 355/1995 was also filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the petition...

H.C. Chandel Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT174

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for Declaration, Mandatory Injunction and Recovery of Damages against Union of India and Chief of Army Staff declaring t he termination of the plaintiff as illegal and void with the direction to the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff in the service and compensation of Rs.10,25,000/- towards damages, losses, mental agony, defamation and harassment. 2. The case of the plaintiff in brief as under:- 3. The plaintiff joined the Army in the 'Ranks' on clerical post as 'Clerk' (General Duty) in March 1991. By way of quick promotions, he rose to the rank of 'Naik'. During this period, he qualified the written test and interview held at Banglore and he was appointed as 'Service Cadet' and sent for training to ACC Wing (IMA Dehradun) in the year 1987. After completing the mandatory training of three and half years from the said institution, in December, 1990, he was sent for further training to Indian Military Academy Dehradun and Successfully completed the s...

Peshori Lal Vs. State of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT491

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. These are two probate petitions. One probate petition has been filed on the basis of Will dated 11.12.1968 executed by petitioners' mother Smt. Lakhmi Devi, who admittedly was the absolute owner of the property bequeathed by her. Another probate has been filed on the basis of Will executed by their father on 28.11.1978 on the assumption that after the death of Smt. Lakhmi Devi, he had become the absolute owner by virtue of para 5 of the Will. 2. Admittedly, Gulshan Kumar, petitioner in probate No.58/79 did not challenge the execution of the Will by Smt. Lakhmi Devi. Rather he accepted the same having ben validly and legally executed by Smt. Lakhmi Devi. The relevant paras of the Will executed by Smt. Lakhmi Devi are as under:- '4. That I am the exclusive owner of these properties and by virtue of the Will, I divide the said properties amongst my sons. As long as I am alive no one has any right in the said properties. 5. That after my death, my husband sri Boota Mal ...