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.
Shri Rameshwar Sharma and Another Vs. M.C.D. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)876; 2001CriLJ1501; 90(2001)DLT328; 2001(58)DRJ105
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order I would be disposing of the notices dated 21.2.2000 issued to Zonal Engineer (Works) and Assistant Commissioner (Licencing) as to why proceedings for contempt be not drawn up against them. Replies to the said notices have been filed by the concerned officers. No rejoinder to the said replies has been filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the parties have been heard.2. The factual matrix, relevant for disposal of the notices for contempt may be noticed: Petitioner had filed this writ petition against the alleged illegal demolition of his property. Petitioner sought a restraint against demolition of the remaining portion and from being dispossessed from the land.3. Mr.Pandey, counsel for the petitioner, has urged before me that this was a case where there being an order for demolition, the property was illegally partly demolished. The respondents have been deliberately keeping away from the court, the record, which would show that there was no surve...
Mrs. Kamlesh Jaiswal Vs. the General Manager, Centaaur Hotel and Other ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)769; 91(2001)DLT161; 2001(57)DRJ836
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is that Respondents 1 to 3 be directed to restore/protect the seniority of the Petitioner for the post of Assistant Housekeeper. The facts are neither complex nor have raised any contentious issues. The Petitioner joined the service of the Centaur Hotel on 7th August, 1982; Respondent No.4 joined on 17.8.1982; and Respondent No.5 joined on 18.10.1982. The Petitioner was confirmed on 7.8.1983, Respondent No. 5 on 1.11.1983 and Respondent No.4 on 1.3.1984. It is, significant that although Respondent No.5 had joined service after Respondent No.4 his confirmation preceded that of Respondent No.4. The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.5, were promoted as Senior Supervisors on the same day, i.e. 1.2.1984 and were also confirmed together exactly one year latter. Respondent No.4, however, was promoted as a Senior Supervisor almost two years later, i.e. on 16.7.1986 and was confirmed in this post on 1.7.1987 i.e. almost two and...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Bakhtawar Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)341; 90(2001)DLT668; 2001(58)DRJ128; [2001(90)FLR50]; (2001)IILLJ143Del
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. The Syndicate Bank has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 13.5.1999 passed in C.W.P. No. 2786 of 1993. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under : 2. Respondent No. 1, a bank employee was charge-sheeted and removed from the service of the appellant Bank on 6.11.1992. The Delhi Cantonment Branch received a letter during November, 1996 from Major Manjit Singh stating inter alias that the proceeds of the loan arranged in his name at the branch were utilised by the CSE. He further doubted the genuineness of some of the entries effected in his Saving Bank pass book. On 6.12.1986, the CSE deposited on his own an amount of Rs.2,155/= at the branch for credit to Saving Bank Account No. 9581. The CSE vide his letter dated 14.101.1989 addressed to the Manager of the Delhi Cantonment branch stated that he made a credit entry of Rs.500/= in Saving Bank Account No. 9581 which pertains to...
Shri Ajay Pal Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1935; 91(2001)DLT91
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. This writ petition by Shri Ajay Pal Singh is directed against the order of respondent No.3, Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police dated 22nd June, 2000 thereby directing externment of the petitioner for a period of one year from Delhi or any part thereof, with immediate effect. He has also assailed the order of the confirmation passed by the respondent No.2 Lt. Governor of Delhi in appeal. 2. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 11th May, 1999 from respondent No.3 asking as to why externment proceedings be not initiated against him. The said notice was issued under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act (hereinafter called the Act). It was duly served on 21st May, 1999. It was alleged that petitioner was engaged in commission of Criminal offences and to illustrate six cases were cited therein to show his involvement. It was also pointed out that the movement of the petitioner was causing and calculated to cause alarm, danger, harm to person or property. T...
M/S. Rose Advertising Vs. M/S. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)513; 90(2001)DLT834; 2001(2)RLR262
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Whether the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act No. 10 of 1940) or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No. 1 of 1996) would apply to enforce the award of the arbitrator is in this appeal.2. Relevant facts are that on 15.1.1993 an agreement was entered into between the parties for display of advertisements on the body of D.T.C. Buses. Validity period of the agreement was from 15.1.1993 to 11.1.1996. Dispute appears to have arisen during continuance of the agreement. A request was made by the appellant on 9.1.1995 to settle the disputes or to get those settled by appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the agreement. No action appears to have been taken on such a request made by the appellant. Another letter dated 26.11.1995 was sent, inter alia, asking the respondent to either settle the dispute or to appoint an arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause. Since the request of the appellant was again not acceded to, on 16.1.1996 a petition under Section 20 of...
The Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Capita ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)156; 90(2001)DLT792; 2001(57)DRJ840; [2001(89)FLR925]; (2001)ILLJ1597Del
ORDERKhan, J.1. Both these Appeals involving identical questions of law are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appellant raised a demand against respondent No.1 for contribution under Employees' State Insurance Act. Respondent No.1 resisted this by filing a Civil Writ petition for quashment of the demand on the ground that its members did not fall within the definition of 'Employees' under Section 2(9) of the Act. The Writ Court formulated the question whether members of the producers Co-operative Society could be treated as 'Employees' under the Act and after elaborate analysis and discussion of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Bye-laws of the society answered it in the negative. While doing so it concluded that they were neither employed, nor did they receive any wages and nor did the relationship of employer and employee existed between the Society and them.3. Appellant feels aggrieved of this and has filed these appeals. Its counsel Mr. N.S. Bajwa submitted once th...
Mrs. Rukma Singh and Another Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)519; 90(2001)DLT378; 2001(58)DRJ229
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The short question for our determination in this appeal is that whether learned Single Judge while deciding application (IA.6576/2000) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') has or has not exercised discretion properly.2. By the impugned order the defendant/appellants have been restrained from forcibly taking custody of the minor child from the plaintiff/respondent reserving liberty to the appellants to initiate proceedings in accordance with law to take custody of the child.3. The facts in brief are that on 5.7.2000 suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant/ appellants restraining them from forcibly taking away the child Aaliya, the plaintiff's daughter, from his legal and physical custody or in any manner disturbing the peaceful custody of the child Aaliya from the plaintiff. Decree was claimed, inter alia, alleging that the plaintiff was married to ...
Shakeel Ahmed Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)362; 90(2001)DLT694
ORDERUsha Mehra, J. 1. Shakil Ahmad was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the court of Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 27th January, 1996 and has been sentenced vide order of the same date to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Appellant has assailed his order of conviction and sentence primarily on the ground that prosecution failed to bring his guilt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on unsubstantiated allegations and on a dying declaration which did not furnish particulars of the person who throw acid on him. Even otherwise the learned Addl. Sessions Judge disbelieved the alleged dying declaration Ex.PW-12/B and the supplementary statement purported to have been made by the deceased Ex.PW-18/A. In the absence of dying declaration appellant could not have been convicted. There was no eye witness to the occurrence. Moreover, the testim...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Shri Hari Chand Sachdeva and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)902; AIR2001Delhi307; 90(2001)DLT817
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. In the first appeal [FAO (OS).No.77/2000] order dated 1.3.2000 and in the second appeal [FAO(OS) No.235/2000] order 10.3.2000 passed by learned Single Judge in suit No.2274/97 are under challenge at the behest of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.2. The facts in brief are that on 27.12.1997 Hari Chand Sachdeva filed a suit in this Court impleading Smt:Shakuntala Devi, as defendant No.1 and Rakesh Sachdeva, defendant No.2 in which he prayed for passing a decree dissolving the partnership from the date of notice given by him to Shakuntla Devi or from such date, as may be deemed just and proper by the Court. In addition, he prayed for; a preliminary decree against the defendants to render accounts of the partnership; a decree for the amounts to be found due to the plaintiff from the defendants and; a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in his possession in respect of the Petrol Pump being run by the name of ...
Smt. Sudershan Karir and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)401; 92(2001)DLT249; 2001(59)DRJ154
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26th October, 1987 affirming the judgment of the Sub Judge, Delhi granting succession certificate to the respondents No. 2 to 4 and dismissing the appellants' petition No. 738/74 filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act.2. The appellants and Smt. Nirmal Karir and her children (respondents No.2 to 4) filed two separate petitions under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate to the estate of one Shri Sham Sunder Karir, who died on 30.7.1974. Smt. Nirmal Karir claimed that she was married to the deceased sham Sunder Karir on 26th September, 1963 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and her three children (respondents 2 to 4) were born to her out of the wedlock. On the contrary, the case of the appellant Smt. Sudershan Karir is that she was married to the said Sham Sunder Karir on 2nd February, 1962 at Simla according to Hindu r...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »