Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Chander and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)665; 91(2001)DLT21; 2001(59)DRJ68
ORDERA.K Sikri, J,1. This writ petition was initially filed by 40 petitioners. The averments made in the writ petition were their lands situated in the villages of Badli, Sahibabad, Daulatpur, Rajapur, Seemapur and Surehra Najafgarh were acquired by the respondent NO. 1 on different dates and placed the disposal of respondent no.2 for planned development of Delhi under the Scheme of 'Large Scale Acquisition, Development and disposal of land in Delhi-1961'. Under this scheme, it was envisaged that the affected persons whose lands were acquired would be allotted alternate plots. Pursuant to the acquisition, awards were made on different dates and compensation was paid to the owners/interested persons. Few years later respondent No.1 sanctioned alternate plots to the petitioners. These sanctions were addressed to respondent No.2 directing it to allot developed plots of different sizes to the petitioners as per the sanction issued by respondent no.1 from time to time. It is not necessary t...
Sh. P.P. Khurana Vs. M/S J.K. Synthetics and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)216
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.11,54,768.75 filed under the provision of Order 37 CPC.2. The plaintiff is running a business of manufacturing of electrical wires and cables in the name and style of M/s Prakash Electrical Works. The defendant is also a limited company having its office in New Delhi and Rajasthan. The defendant through its New Delhi office approached the plaintiff and placed order for supply of copper and aluminium cables vide purchase order dated 7.3.96. Pursuant to this the plaintiff booked the goods for 'Self' to be delivered to defendant No.2 through Vishal Goods Carriers from Delhi who supplied the goods to the defendant No.2 at Jhalawar, Rajasthan address, against Bill Nos 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 145 and 149 and the same were delivered without G.R. by M/s Vishal Goods Carriers.3. In terms of the Hundies provided, that the bill amount was to be paid within 45 days failing which the defendant was liable to pay interest @ 24 per cent per an...
M/S. Vidhi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Baljit Kaur and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 91(2001)DLT730
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The appellant feeling aggrieved against dismissal of its application (IA.10720/2000) whereby it sought impleadment as a defendant in a suit, has preferred this appeal against the order passed by learned Single Judge on 18.12.2000. Appellant has also felt aggrieved by non-consideration of the prayer for vacation of ex-parte injunction made in IA.10721/2000 and has consequently prayed for vacation of ad-interim order of injunction dated 28.9.2000 passed in IA.10043/2000.2. Facts as are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the appeal in brief are that on 26.9.2000 Suit No.2205/2000 was filed by respondent Baljit Kaur against Ajit Singh and Harish Kaur ( the other two respondents in this appeal). In the said suit, plaintiff Baljit Kaur claimed a preliminary decree for partition of property, namely, House No.D6/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi by declaring respective shares of the parties in the said property and on determination of shares to pass a final decree as re...
Shri Hari Chand Through Vs. Union of India Through
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)160; 91(2001)DLT602; 2001(60)DRJ821
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This judgment is meant to dispose of these group of appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') since they arise out of same award of the Collector Land Acquisition.2. A big chunk of land situate within Revenue Estate of village Tughlakabad was notified for being acquired, at public expense for public purpose, namely Planned Development of Delhi, through notification issued under Sections 4 and 17(1) of the Act on 1.6.1992. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act made on 29.7.1992. As Section 17(1) of the Act was invoked, compliance of Section 5A of the Act was waived off. Actual physical possession of the land admittedly had already been taken over on 4.7.1988.3. Pursuant to notices issued under Sections 9 and 10(1) of the Act claims were invited. The Collector Land Acquisition o n 17.5.1994 made his award No.4/94-95 offering amount of compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs...
Smt. Apinder Kaur Vs. Delhi Administrations and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)327; 92(2001)DLT294; 2001(59)DRJ493
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. (Oral)1. The facts of the case are singular. That the Petitioner holds an M.A. Degree in Economics from a recognised University. It appears that she was first employed with Respondent No.3, which is admittedly a minority school as envisaged in Article 30 of the Constitution of India, in 1975 as an Assistant Teacher. In 1981 she was promoted as TGT (Language). Since 1986 she has been teaching Economics to the XIth and XIIth Class students in Respondent no.3. In 1990 a vacancy occurred for the post of PGT (Economics). A DPC was constituted in which the nominee of the Department of Education was present. There is no challenge by the Department to the constitution or functioning of this DPC. The DPC by a unanimously decided to promote the Petitioner as PGT(Economics). The Department of Education, however, has not granted its approval to this decision of the DPC. The consequence is that the subject in which she had postgraduate, but her promotion/appointment to this ...
M/S. Rama Vision Ltd. Vs. M/S. Raletronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)904; 92(2001)DLT110
ORDERSharda Aggarwal,J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.10,31,300/- against the defendants. The plaintiffs were engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of black and white television picture tubes where as the defendants were engaged in the business of manufacturing of television sets etc. The black and white television picture tubes were sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants on three dates against which a number of post-dated cheques were issued which were dishonoured. Thereafter as against the outstanding amount of Rs.16,70,600/- the defendants issued a singled cheque dated 20th January, 1994 drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank M.G.Road, Bombay for that amount. On being presented for payment through the bankers of the plaintiffs, the said cheque was again dishonoured. An advice dated 9th February, 1994 was received from the bank to that effect. The plaintiffs served the defendants with a legal notice dated 21thFebruary, 1994 under Section 138 of Ne...
M/S. K.L.G. Systel Ltd. Vs. Director (Vas-iii), Department of Telecomm ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)825; 92(2001)DLT314; 2001(59)DRJ137; 2002(1)RAJ454
ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J. 1. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has prayed for the appointment of a sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes having arisen between the parties, in view of the arbitration clause contained in the license agreements executed between the applicant and the respondents.2. It is contended that in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (2) Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Central Government delegated its powers to Telegraph Authority by GSR 806 Gazette of Indian Part-II, Section 3(I) dated 24th August, 1985 and on the request of the applicant granted license to establish, maintain and operate Mobile Radio Trunked Service in eleven areas and executed eleven separate license Agreements for each area. All the license Agreements are similar. These eleven license Agreements were executed pursuant to the Department of Telecommunicati...
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. and Others Vs. Siti Cable Network L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT177; 2001(60)DRJ11
ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. Since a short point is involved, with the consent of counsel for parties, we have taken up this appeal for final disposal at the is stage itself. This appeal is directed against an order dated 14th February, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the plaint in the suit. Briefly the facts are the plaintiffs are parties based in the United States of America. They filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and rendition of accounts on account of infringement of copy right in this court. According to the plaintiffs they are engaged in the business of film production and have copy right in the films produced by them. Besides they claim to have copy right or licensee rights in films produced by others as such rights have been assigned to them. The defendant is a cable TV operator working in India. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendant without seeking permission of the plaintiffs is exhibiting or showing the films in which the copy right...
Om Parkash and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT78
ORDER1. This is an application seeking amendment to the memorandum of appeal to claim higher amount of compensation on the ground that while filing appeal, due to paucity of funds, the appellants could not claim proper amount of compensation had been claimed. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle that a claimant must be paid fair amount of compensation in case his property is acquired for public purposed by the State and relying upon the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harcharan v. State of Haryana, : AIR1983SC43 ; Bhag Singh and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, : AIR1985SC1576 ; Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India and Others, : AIR1991SC730 ; Chand Kaur and Others v. Union of India, : (1994)4SCC663 ; Gokal v. State of Haryana, : AIR1992SC150 ; and Buta Singh (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India, : [1995]3SCR359 , the prayer made in the application is allowed subject to the condition of the...
Eastman Collaborater Vs. S.K. Mehta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)995; 91(2001)DLT401; 2001(59)DRJ55
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are present in Court.I.A. No. 6741/99 has been filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure while I.A. No. 9660/2000 has been filed by the defendant under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.2. The allegation of the defendant is that there has been a violation of the orders passed by this Court.3. To understand the controversy, it is necessary to go through two orders passed by this Court.4. In the order dated 20th July, 1999 the defendant was restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property till t hen next date. It was clarified that the tenants shall continue to pay rents to whom they were paying earlier whether it was being collected by the plaintiffs or the defendant.5. The next order is dated 16th November, 1999. It appears that there was some dispute in respect of possession of the su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »