Delhi Court February 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.
Ashok Kumar Vs. Competent Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)121; 90(2001)DLT337; 2001(58)DRJ354
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (forfeiture of property) Act, 1976 (short the Act). According to the petitioner, the conditions requisite for application of the Act are non-existent, there was no reason for proceeding against the petitioner under the Act and the authorities have not brought on record any connecting link or nexus between holding of the property or assets by the petitioner with illegal activity of the detenu/convict. 2. Background facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows: Chiranji Lal, father of the petitioner was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA). The order of detention was passed on 19.12.1974. Reason for the detention was that on 23-10-1974 shop of Chiranji Lal was raided by the Cus...
High Court of Delhi Vs. Sh. Purshottam Das Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)907; 90(2001)DLT203; 2001(57)DRJ809
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Respondent No.1, Sh.Purshottam Das Gupta, is a member of Delhi Judicial Service (for short 'DJS'). He joined DJS on 28th January, 1978. He is aspiring to get promotion to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service(for short 'DHJS). His case for promotion to the DHJS was considered by a Full Court of this Court on administrative side but rejected. While considering his case for promotion to DHJS, adverse remarks made by the High Court for the years 1994 and 1995 came in his way. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed CWP No.4334 of 1997 in this Court, inter alia, seeking quashing of the adverse remarks in his Confidential Reports for the years 1994 and 1995 and direction to promote him to DHJS with retrospective effect and appropriate seniority and other benefits or in the alternative direction to consider his case for promotion to DHJS with retrospective seniority and all other benefits. His writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and ord...
Jagbir Singh Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)726; 90(2001)DLT16; 2001(57)DRJ768
judgmentR.S. Sodhi, J.1. Notice. Mr. Butalia, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice. 2. Admit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his application for pre-arrest bail has been rejected vide order dated 30.1.2001 on the ground that more offences have been added by the police to the original FIR. 4. Learned counsel was not in a position to give me any Explanationn as to why the second pre-arrest bail application was moved when the petitioner had been admitted to pre-arrest bail by order dated 17.1.2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in FIR No.13/2001, Police Station, Usmanpur. The only Explanationn that came from the learned counsel was that the police had added more sections to the original FIR and, thereforee, were threatening arrest.5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that if during investigation any changes are made in the offences mentioned in the FIR, the police can take into custody a person even though he has been admitted to...
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Pandey
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)1; 90(2001)DLT356; 2001(58)DRJ56
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Both these cases relate to judgment of learned Addl Sessions Judge, New Delhi in sessions case No. 10/97. The reference has been under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.PC) for confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon the accused. Criminal Appeal has been filed by Ashok Kumar Pandey (hereinafter referred to as accused) against the judgment of conviction and sentence. The accused was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short, Arms Act). The accused faced trial for having caused homicidal murder of his wife Neelam and daughter Anu, (hereinafter referred to as deceased by their respective names) on 11-9-1996. Death sentence was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and three years for the other offence. Fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation for each offence. 2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follo...
Chander Kishore Gulati Vs. Varinder Kishore Gulati and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 90(2001)DLT649
ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. The present application has been by the plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) for directions. The Plaintiff has filed a suit for partition against the Defendants related to properties situated at Delhi, Jammu and Mumbai. The properties were claimed to be HUF properties by the Plaintiff Initially, the suit was filed in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir where an objection was taken by the Defendants regarding the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. A Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that High Court at Jammu and Kashmir has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with respect to the properties situated at Delhi and Mumbai. Against that, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed and the Division Bench of the said High Court accepted the appeal of the Plaintiff. Against that order, the Defendants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where Defendants 1 to 5 made a statement over the ite...
Ranbir Singh Dhanjal Vs. the State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)488; 91(2001)DLT515; I(2001)DMC779; 2001(59)DRJ1
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This application has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 - Mrs Aruna Gupta in which she has prayed that the operation of the order dated 28.04.2000 quashing the FIR No. 422 of 1996 (on joint request of the parties) under Sections 498A/406 IPC registered at police station Badarpur, New Delhi be stayed. The applicant had also asked for directions that the petitioner be directed not to leave the country without the permission of the Court and till then his passport be impounded. It is also prayed that the register of the Oath Commissioner be summoned.2. The learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that this is an application for review of the order passed by this Court on 28.4.2000. She submitted that under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no such application is maintainable. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal procedure reads as under:362. Court not to alter judgment.--Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for th...
Punjab Nationa Bank Vs. M/S Rinkoo Plastice Insustries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)39; 2002(63)DRJ238
ORDERJ.D.Kapoor,J. 1. This is a suit under Order XXXIV CPC for recovery of Rs. 8,91,827/- being principal sum due as on 13.12.1995 payable by the defendants jointly and severally to the plaintiffs bank together with pendente lite and future interest along with cost of the suit.2. The plaintiff bank is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1 duly registered as Small Scale Industries Firm with Directorate of Industries, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. It is averred that defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiff for grant of certain banking facilities for the establishment and enhancement of trade/business activities and after processing the application the following credit facilities were sanctioned in favor of defendant No.1 on 30.3.1991:Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Rs. 2.00 lakhs against hypothecation of Stocks of raw material, dyestee, PVC compound, PVC granules etc...
M/S Optina Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)125; 91(2001)DLT566; 2001(75)ECC758; 2003(151)ELT493(Del)
ORDERVijender Jain, J. (Oral) 1. Rule.2. The petitioner was given an approval by the respondent for setting up of a hundred per cent export oriented unit. Unit of the petitioner was set up in Gujrat. The petitioner's Unit was supposed to export the lenses of high quality and condition in order to successfully compete in the world market.3. Show cause notice was issued by the respondent under Sections 4-M and Section 4I(1)(a) of Import & Export (Control) Act, 1947 read with Section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 to the petitioner. Adjudication order was passed on 3.3.1998 an dan appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Committee of the respondent was also dismissed by the Committee.4. In the writ petition the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Appellate Committee as well as the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.4. Mr. Hazarika learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that the approval for setting up...
Mohd. Ashan and anr. Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 91(2001)DLT169; 2001(58)DRJ265
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Revisional No. 49/97 is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 4.3.1987 holding the petitioners guilty under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The only ground taken before me by learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the sanction under Section 20 of the Act is bad for reasons that sanction Order was without application of mind.2. He has drawn my attention to various judgments in Nand Kishore and Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration), 1991 FAC 220; 44(1999) DLT 247 the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of revision petition on the same grounds held that the Sanction was not valid for the reason that except for filling in the name of Food Inspector, who had taken the sample, the date of taking the sample, and the name of the accused, the rest of the proforma was merely a cyclostyled proforma. thereforee, on perusal of the sanction order the learned Judge held that there was lack...
Shoba Rani Sharma Vs. Dhiraj Finance and Chit Funds (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: 92(2001)DLT429
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that by some omission signatures on the reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act bearing No. 1185/2000 have been left. Learned Counsel for the respondents may sign the application today in Court putting today's date, for the application is supported with a duly sworn affidavit.Insofar as the condensation of delay in filing the petition is concerned, though each day's delay may not have been minutely explained appropriately by giving details. But there is substantial Explanationn for delay in moving the petition. Accordingly, I feel that it would be appropriate to condone the delay for the reasons mentioned in the application.C.M. 1185/2000 is allowed.C.R. 424/2000:Heard.1. In this case, it appears that the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. Last opportunity was granted. On 11th August, 1998 none of the parties appeared. Learned Civil Judge instead of dismissing the suit closed the evid...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »