Delhi Court May 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.
Escorts Finance Ltd. Vs. Mr. Mohd. Hanif D. Khan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)392; 2002(1)RAJ546
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. CM No. 505/20012. This is an application filed by the Appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to exempt him form filing certified copies of the annexures which have been filed for the purpose of reference. In vie of the facts stated this application is allowed and stands disposed of FAO(OS)206/2001 and CM 506/20013. The present appeal arises form an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26th April , 2001 in OMP 119/2001 whereby the petition filed by the Appellant Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for appointment of Receiver has been dismissed. The Appellant has filed the a foresaid petition stating t hat the Appellant is in the business of the lease financing and hire purchase of vehicles, equipments and machineries an is a leading finance company of the country. The Appellant had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the respondent whereby the respondent was the hir...
Shri Mukhraj Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1004; 92(2001)DLT580; 2001(59)DRJ364
ORDERManmohan Sarin. J Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to deposit the tender amount and start the work of removing carcasses of dead animals for the year 2001-02, under the terms and conditions as incorporated in the tender. Admittedly the highest bid received in the tenders invited was of Rs. 9,10,000/- (Rupees nine lacs ten thousand only). The petitioner was the second highest bidder at Rs. 5,05,000/-(rupees five lacs five thousand only). The highest bidder did not come forward to deposit the earnest money. Petitioner thereforee claimed that the contract should have been awarded to him, being the second highest bidder at Rs. 5,05,000/-. The respondents found that the second highest bid at Rs. 5,05,000/- of the petitioner was far below their expectation. The petitioners own bid last years was for over Rs. 9 lacs. The respondent/MCD to subserv...
Shri Rajiv JaIn Vs. Citizen Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ628
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner in this writ petition assails order dated 6.7.2000 of the Financial Commissioner, dismissing the appeal against the arbitral award dated 29.7.1999. Petitioner challenges the impugned order on the following grounds:(i) Petitioner Rajiv Jain was simply the authorised signatory and representative of M/s. Arihant Enterprises, the sole proprietor concern of Mr. Vijay Jain Petitioner, in the absence of any privity of contract with the respondent could not be fastened with any personal liability. (ii) The proceedings under the Delhi Cooperative Societies act against the petitioner as a member, were not maintainable since the borrower was M/s. Arihant Enterprises through its sole proprietor Mr. Vijay Jain. M/s Arihant Enterprises was also not a member. (iii) The claim petitioner under Sections 60-61 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, was barred by limitation as even the legal notice was issued as far bank as 24.3.1993. (iv) The petition under Section ...
Residents Welfare Association Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ793
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner is the Residents Welfare Association, of the residents of the Self Financing Scheme Flats, Section-18, Rohini, Delhi. Members of the petitioner's Association had applied for allotment of DDA flats under the Self Financing Scheme of April 1991.2. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondent/DDA to pay the members of the petitioner's association interest at the rate specified i.e. 7% and 10%, as applicable in Clause-4 of the terms and conditions of the Self Financing Scheme. The prayer is for payment of interest form the date the said interest became due up to the issuance of the 5th and final demand letter by the respondent/DDA. Claim for interest @24% per annum on the aforesaid amount due is also included.3. The claim in the writ petition is based on Clause-IV of the terms and conditions of the Self Financing Scheme. Clause-IV reads as under:'The estimated...
Suresh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ77
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in the case FIR No. 289/2000 under Sections 302/376/201/34-IPC. P.S. Shakarpur, Delhi.2. Learned counsel for, petitioner submits that except the disclosure statement there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged case. Learned counsel for State on instructions submits that investigation has been completed and challan has been filed. Learned counsel for the State is unable topoint out any concrete material against the petitioner.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not in any way temper with the evidence.4. dusty as well.5. Petition stands disposed of....
Galaxy Power Cables Limited Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)368; 92(2001)DLT133; 2001(60)DRJ578
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. By these Orders, the following applications shall be disposed off - I.A. 6558/94 filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.') for an interim injunction restraining the encashment of Bank Guarantee No. 86/90 issued by the Canara Bank-Defendant No. 1 in favor of Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board-Defendant No. 2; and I.A. No. 7886/97, being the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the C.P.C. filed by Defendant No. 2 for '(a) modification of the order dated 6.7.1994 to the effect that defendant No. 2 should properly invoke the bank guarantee and no further invocation was required and (b) that a direction be given to defendant No. 1 to honour the bank guarantee, encash the same and remit the sum of Rs. 14,12,850/- to the defendant No. 2'; and I.A. 8488/99 under Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed by Defendant No. 1 for the passing of 'clear cut directions to Defendant No. 1 in deal...
Ms. Kusum Lata Misra Vs. Mr. Sukhbir Jha and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)705; AIR2001Delhi374; 92(2001)DLT107; 2001(60)DRJ97
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. (Oral)1. On 9.10.2000 a last opportunity was granted to the Respondent to file a Reply within two weeks. Despite the passage of two months no Reply was filed. When the matter came up on 11.1.2001 a final opportunity to file the Reply within four weeks was granted subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs. Neither has the Reply been filed nor have the costs been paid. Mr. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that he has just been engaged by the Respondent. He prays for an adjournment, which prayer is declined because of the Respondent's previous conduct. It is clear that the Respondent is adopting dilatory tactics. In these circumstances, I proceed to dispose off the matter on merits.2. It appears the Respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant into the premises by late Smt. Janki Devi at a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. On her demise, the present Petitioner, namely Kusum Lata Mishra assumed the role of the landlady. She is one of the daughters of late Janki ...
J.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT628; 2001(59)DRJ480; [2001(91)FLR1206]
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This appeal under Letter Patent is directed against the impugned judgment dated 9.2.1996 dismissing the appellant's writ petition against an order of his removal from service.2. The appellant, formerly a Deputy Manager, was charged of tampering with quotations submitted by the supplier and over-payment made to the firm by the appellant against the terms and conditions of the purchased order and also for acceptance of sub-standard and poor quality of the Tarpaulins received by him from the firm. An enquiry was conducted departmentally and the enquiry officer submitted her report on 4.6.1983 holding Charge No. 1 as proved and Charge No.2 pertaining to sub standard and poor quality of Tarpaulins as partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority after examining the said enquiry report together with the relevant documents agreed with the finding in respect of Charge No.1 but did not agree with the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No.2. Con...
Mohd. Kamil Vs. New Vindhyachal Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ584
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. By this common order, I would be disposing of CW No.2838/2000 and CW No.2840/2000 as the facts are common except for the difference in the amount paid.2. The petitioners assail the order dated 22nd December, 2000 passed by Delhi Co-operative Tribunal, dismissing the petitioners' appeals under Section 76 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act against the award made by the Arbitrator. These cases have a chequered history, which may be briefly noted:3. Petitioners were members of respondent No.1 Society A sum of Rs.2,48,500 out of the total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as cost of flat had been paid by the petitioner in CW No.2838/2000. A sum of Rs. 2,38,500/-out of the total sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as cost of flat had been paid by the petitioner in Cw No. 2840/2000. Petitioners' case is that they have been wrongly and illegally expelled as members of the Society. Firstly Mr.V.B.Andley learned senior counsel for the petitioners urged that there was no agenda for expulsion of th...
Sarkar Saheb Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)759; 93(2001)DLT585; II(2001)DMC742; 2003(59)DRJ503
ORDERR.C. Chopra, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the code' only) by the petitioner against an order dated 22.2.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by which the application for grant of anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner was allowed subject to the condition that he would deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the Trial Court.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and also gone through the records of the case.3. Relying upon the the judgments in Ashok Malhotra & Others v. State, 1994 JCC 301 and Moti Ram and Others Vs . States of Madhya Pradesh, : 1978CriLJ1703 , learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the condition in regard to the deposit of Rs. 50,000/- cannot be sustained and as such, should be set aside. Learned counsel for the Sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »