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.
Smt. Sushila Goel and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: I(2001)ACC470; 2002ACJ65; 2001IIIAD(Delhi)81; 90(2001)DLT173; 2001(58)DRJ76
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in FAO No.202/87, dated May 6, 1991. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated are as follows:-2. On 17th July, 1974 at about 7.45 p.m., Mr.P.G.Goel, who was working as Under Secretary in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, was crushed to death by a bus being driven by respondent no.2. The accident took place while the deceased was going towards Lodi Colony on his scooter. The bus belonged to respondent no.3 and was insured with respondent no.1. At the time of this unfortunate accident, the deceased was fifty years of age and he had still eight years of service left before his retirement. 3. The first appellant, who is the wife, and appellants 2, 3, 4 and 5, who are the sons and daughter of the deceased, moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) claiming a sum of rupees ten lakhs as compensation from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the death of the deceased in ...
Competent Construction Co. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC437; 2002ACJ437; [2001(90)FLR59]; (2001)ILLJ1545Del
ORDERKhan, J.1. Abdul Kalam (24), a loader on appellant's truck No. DLG -3809 died when the truck over-turned on 21.5.1985. Respondents 2 to 6 (claimants) filed a claim petition before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act who awarded them a compensation of Rs.87,388/- vide Award dated 4.8.1986. He also found that Management had failed to deposit the entire amount within prescribed time without any justification and accordingly, awarded penalty of Rs.25,000/- and interest of 6% p.a. on the whole amount from dates which are not material for our purposes. 2. Insurance Company felt aggrieved of this and filed FAO 171/86 which was disposed of by first Appellate Court vide a lucid judgment dated 1.3.1989 interpreting relevant Provisions of WCA and also MVA holding that the word, 'liability' occurring in Section 95 of MVA only embodied a normal compensation in the context of WCA and did not include special interest and penalty awarded under Section 4-A(3) of WCA. The court ac...
Shri K.S. Cheema and ors. Vs. M.C.D. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)760; 90(2001)DLT497; 2001(58)DRJ97
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common order I would be disposing of CM.10056/2000, moved by the petitioner seeking a restraint on respondent No.2 Delhi Vidyut Board from raising any further construction of the sub-station, till the disposal of the writ petition; and CM.7395/97 moved by the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 28th May, 1997. Pleadings in both the applications are complete.2. Before dealing with the said two applications, it may be noted that petitioners have filed the present writ petition, challenging the action of the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board in constructing a sub-station at a site meant for a district park as per the lay out plan and the Zonal Development Plan. Rule in the writ petition has been issued on 28th of May, 1997.3. Petitioners contend that it is not permissible to convert the district park for use as an Electric sub-station. The misc. application filed by the petitioners, viz. CM.1982/97, seeking rest...
M/S. National Telecom of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)419; AIR2001Delhi236; 90(2001)DLT613; 2001(58)DRJ82
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated December 16, 1999. By that order the learned Single Judge vacated the interim order restraining the second respondent bank from encashing the bank guarantee. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:- 3. The first respondent-Ministry of Communication, Government of India, on February 20, 1997 invited tenders for supply of 2-34 Mb/s Optimux with Regenerator. In response thereto the appellant herein submitted its tender on December 1, 1997. The first respondent placed an advance purchase order of the total value of Rs.2,27,07,850.91 paise on the appellant. The supplies were required to be completed by March 15, 1998. As per terms and conditions thereof, the appellant was required to furnish a performance bank guarantee of Rs.11,36,000/- within twenty days from the receipt of the advance purchase order. The appellant on December 11, 1997 accepted the advance purchase order and reque...
Ms. Veena Rani and Others Vs. Dtc and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: I(2001)ACC450; 2002ACJ740; 2001IIIAD(Delhi)77; 90(2001)DLT175
ORDERKhan,(J)1. One Kishan Lal Sethi, an Assistant in Finance Ministry and on deputation with Doordarshan was hit by a DTC bus on 28.12.1977 and succumbed to injuries two days later. Appellants (claimants) filed claim suit no. 231/1978 claiming compensation of Rs.5 lacs but MACT awarded them only Rs.60,000/- with 6% interest. While doing so, it assessed carry home salary of deceased at Rs.800/- per month and age at 36 years and applied a multiplier of 16 to determine compensation of Rs.1,00,800/- and then made some deductions from it for family pension and gratuity received by the widow and also for lump sum payment to claimants reducing the compensation to Rs.60,000/-. 2. Both sides took appeal against this award dated 23.9.1981. First Appellate Court, however, dismissed the appeal filed by respondent (FAO 65/1982) and allowed that of Appellants (FAO 103/1982) doing away with the deductions ordered by Tribunal and restoring compensation to Rs.1,00,800/- with 9% interest. 3. Appellants...
Shri Chuni Lal and Others and Shri Mir Singh and Others Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)401; 90(2001)DLT489
ORDERB.A. Khan, J. 1. Both these appeals being identical on facts and law are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellants' land was acquired in village Asalatpur Khadar pursuant to Section 4 Notification dated 20.6.1966. LAC divided this land into two blocks and awarded Rs.3,000/- per bigha for block A and Rs.2500/- for block B. Appellants sought reference and the ADJ enhanced the compensation by Rs.1100/- per bigha in block A and Rs.1600/- in block B. They filed RFAs and first Appellate court awarded compensation to them at the rate of Rs.7000/- per bigha with 15% solarium and 6% interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of dis-possession till payment. 3. Appellants have now filed these appeals seeking higher compensation. They are claiming Rs.,12,500/- per bigha in LPA No. 139/80 and Rs.15,000/- per bigha in the other appeal. Their case is that a DB of this Court had already enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,000/- per bigha for the land acquired in village Asal...
itc Hotels Limited Vs. Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)434; 91(2001)DLT58; 2001(58)DRJ250; 2001(3)RAJ143
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The sole question to be determined in this application is whether the proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1996) can be stayed on account of the respondent's having been declared as a sick company under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (hereinafter referred as SICA) and particularly when the scheme for revival of the company is still pending with the BIFR. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon Lloyd Insulations (India) Ltd v. Cement Corporation of India of 1997 Company Cases 483 wherein it was observed that Section 22(1) contemplates that any proceedings for the recovery of money against the sick company have to be stayed if an application under Section 21 of the Sick Industrial Company Act is moved. However, the facts of the referred case are distinguishable. In the said case arbitrator had passed the award which was registered as a suit in favor of ...
Smt. Narinder Kaur Vs. Smt. Tejinder Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT321
ORDERVikramjit Sen,J. 1. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to exercise jurisdiction for substituting its own appreciation of the case with that of the Courts below.This especially so where,as in the present case, there is concurrent finding of fact and law of the Courts bbelow.Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to disclose any reason for me to exercise this superintending jurisdiction, as neither of the Courts below had acted beyond their authority or had discharged their functions in a manner which was legally iproper.This would have been sufficient reason for me to dismiss the petition. The facts of the case are so singular that they have incensed judicial conscience as they disclose how a party can abuse the judicial process and thereby cause a miscarriage of jsutice.2. The first legal action taken was the filing of a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent, Control Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Smt....
Prem Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)204; 91(2001)DLT159; 2001(58)DRJ241A
B.A. Khan, J.1. Appellants' land in Village Sadhora Kalan was acquired pursuant to Section 4 notification dated 13.11.1959. The Collector categorised land of this village in four blocks and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/-, Rs. 5,600/-, Rs. 5,100/- and Rs. 2,500/- per bigha respectively. Reference Court affirmed the compensation awarded by the Collector except in case of field No. 185 for which he awarded Rs. 8,500/-. Appellants filed RFA 98/72 for enhancement of compensation and First Appellate Court awarded them a uniform compensation of Rs. 8,000/- per bigha vide judgment dated 28.2.1972.2. Appellants feel dissatisfied and have filed this LPA claiming compensation of Rs.12,000/- per bigha after paying the requisite fee they later filed CM 2130/89 for amending memo appeal on 6.10.1989 in which notice was issued to respondents on 24.1.1990 requiring them to file reply. No reply was filed and this application was allowed vide order dated 11.11.1991 'as prayed'. Appellant...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indo Asiatic Engineers P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)539; [2001]249ITR523(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (in short the 'Tribunal'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the present case ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76 for which the relevant previous year ended on December 31, 1974.3. The factual position, in a nutshell, is as follows :The assessed had furnished a return on June 30, 1975, declaring a loss of Rs. 69,898 and unabsorbed loss of Rs. 1,33,077 brought forward from earlier years. The aggregate amount of loss, i.e., the loss for the assessment year 1975-76, together with the unabsorbed loss brought forward from earlier years, was shown by the assessed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »