Delhi Court June 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.
Akthar HussaIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)133; 2001CriLJ3442; 93(2001)DLT260; 2001(59)DRJ513
ORDERR.S. Sodhi J.1. This criminal appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.304/91, whereby the learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 25.8.1993 has held the appellant guilty under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Further by his separate order he has sentenced the appellant to undergo an imprisonment of ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh).2. The case when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellant in support of the appeal. Since this is a case of 1994 and has been shown on the list for a sufficient amount of time, it can brook no further delay. I, thereforee, appoint Mr. R.P. Luthra as amices Curiae, who is present on behalf of Delhi Legal Service Authority to assist the Court.3. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Sessions Judge are that:-On 30.12.1990, S.I. Pran Nath of P.S. Pratap Nagar, who was on patrolling duty Along with other police officials, received a secret ...
M/S. Alcatel India Limited Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and A ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ393
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11th May, 2001 IN civil Writ Petition No.1440/2001. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:-The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, (for short the 'MTNL') in order to expand its 'Managed Leased Line Data Network (MLDN) in Delhi and Bombay units, issued a notice inviting tenders (for short 'NIT)' on 19th June, 2000.2. Pursuant to the NIT, the appellant on 31st July, 2000 submitted its tender and also deposited the bid security. Certain other parties also submitted their tenders. The Tender Evaluation Committee shortlisted the appellant and two others, namely, ITI and HTL. on 8th September, 2000, a letter of intent (LOI) was issued to the appellant. Thereafter the appellant on 12th September, 2000 communicated its acceptance to supply the requisite equipment to the M.T.N.L. on the next day, viz., 13.9.2000, the appellant furnished the requisite bank guarantee for due perfo...
Goel Associates Vs. Sail Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and An ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 60(2001)DLT338
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner is a firm of Architects with Mr. M.P. Goel and Mr. Ambrish Vidyarthi as partners. The respondent is a society of employees of Steel Authority of India Ltd. It had entered into an Agreement dated 29-12-1987 with the petitioner for providing services to the respondent in the construction of flats for its members. By letter dated 29-3-1993 respondent terminated this Agreement and asked the petitioner to refund Rs. 30,000/- paid in advance. The petitioner denied the allegations and made counter-claims. Disputes having been arisen between the parties, both the parties appointed their Arbitration and both the Arbitrators appointed Justice S.N. Sapra, a retired Judge of this Court as an Umpire. Since the Arbitrators rendered conflicting Awards, matter was referred to the Umpire for his decision who made and published the Award dated 24-11-1997.2. Vide I.A. 6809/98 objections have been filed by the petitioner to this Award.3. It may be mentioned here that t...
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)337; 93(2001)DLT180; 2001(59)DRJ382
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. Pursuant to an advertisement published by the first petitioner in the Hindustan Times dated June 15, 1986 announcing the organisation of a contest known as 'The Colgate Healthy Teeth Happy Home Contest', the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTP) on October 16, 1986 issued a notice of enquiry under Regulation 58 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1974 (for short 'the Regulations') to the petitioner calling upon it to comply with the requirements of Regulations 11, 57, 65, 67 and 84A in case it wished to be heard in the proceedings. The notice also stated to the effect that the petitioner had prima facie indulged in an unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36A(3)(b) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short 'the MRTP Act') thereby causing loss or injury to the consumer and affecting competition. The petitioners being aggrieved of the aforesaid notice filed t...
Ganga Ram Hospital Trust Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ549
ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The society is running a hospital known as Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at its premises at New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi. The present controversy arises from assessment of the property of the plaintiff where the hospital is being run including the staff quarters etc. for purposes of property tax by the respondent MCD. The respondent issued a notice dated 7th March, 1984 proposing to revise the rateable value from Rs. 80,590/- to Rs.1, 90,55,400/- with effect from 1st April, 1983 on the following grounds:1. Erection of new building. 2. Erroneously valued. 2. The society filed objections to the proposal as permissible under the law. While the said proposal for enhancement of rateable value with effect from 1st April, 1983 was pending, another proposal was received by the society vide notice dated 16th March, 1985 for enhancement of rateable value w.e.f. 1st April, 1984 to Rs.17,97,...
Nestle (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)978; 93(2001)DLT412; 2001(60)DRJ8
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. The Director General, Investigation and Registration, filed an application under section 36B(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short 'the MRTP Act') before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (for short 'the Commission') on May 19, 1988 with the allegation that the petitioner company, formerly known as Food Specialities Ltd, issued an advertisement in the Tribune dated April 4, 1988 announcing the holding of a contest under the caption 'Nescafe-Shake-take a cool break contest' for promoting sale of Nescafe Coffee and as per the terms of the advertisement each single entry was required to be accompanied by a inner seal of a Nescafe 50 gms jar or any empty 50 gms refill pack thereof.2. Pursuant to the application, the Commission on July 7, 1988 issued a notice under Regulation 58 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1974 (for short 'the Regulations') to the petitioner ca...
Dheeraj Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT548; 2001(59)DRJ340
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. The petitioner Dheeraj Kumar has assailed the order of his externment passed by respondent under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter called the Act) for a period of six months. The order has been assailed, inter alia, on the grounds that five cases were veiled by the respondent in its notice under Section 50 of the Act and all of those cases were registered under the Excise Act. That as per the administrative instructions issued by the respondent a person could not be externed if he is involved in excise matters. Since the petitioner has been shown to be involved in excise matters, the externment proceedings could not be initiated against him. Secondly the witnesses recorded in ``Camera' could not be used against him because no copy of that evidence was supplied to him. And finally he is neither desperate nor dangerous nor his movements are hazardous to the public at large.2. In order to appreciate the challenge raised in this petition the brief ...
Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dimple Overseas Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi427
ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court dated 7th February, 2000 on an application of the defendant for leave to defend a suit filed under the provisions of order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge dismissed the application of the defendant/appellant seeking leave to defend the suit. As a result of refusal to grant leave to defend the suit to the defendant the suit was decreed as prayed. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff, respondent in this appeal, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,37,22,137/- along with interest and cost of the suit from the port and paid demurrage for it. The plaintiff i.e. the vendor started claiming the price of the good as per the terms of the contract on this the defendant raised the dispute that it will pay the price based on quantity of goods as per their dispatch from the port in bags. The defendant made part payment but a balance o...
Rajeev Malhotra Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT532; 2002(63)DRJ243
ORDERAnil Dev Singh,J:1. These proceedings arise from Civil Writ Petition No. 6734/2000 which is in the nature of a public interest litigation. It is stated in the writ petition that some time in March 2000 the petitioner had purchased Plot No. 37C measuring 834 square yards at Ashoka Avenue Sainik Farms, New Delhi.It is the case of the petitioner that he was approached by Shri R.S. Sherawat, junior Engineer, M.C.D., and Shri Puran Singh Rawat, Baildar, M.CD. They asked him to pay rupees one lakh per month for allowing hi to raise construction on the site.The petitioner claims to have told them that the amount demanded by them was excessive and he was not in a position to pay the same.The petitioner with a view to protect the plot is stated to have started the work of raising the boundary wall.Constable Surinder Singh and Constable Jai Kishan, Filed Offices, belonging to the Delhi Police, objected to the construction of the boundary wall on the ground that the same was not permissible ...
Shri Prabhash Saxena Vs. Smt. Ranjana Saxena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC365; 2001(60)DRJ200
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Marriage and sonship constitute some of the unique chapters in the literal legis of ancient Hindu law. As early as the time of Rig-Veda, marriage had assumed a sacred character of a sacrament and sanction of religion had heightened the character and importance of the institutional marriage. The basal thought was that marriage was a prime necessity for that alone could enable a person to discharge properly his religious and secular obligations. The smritis deal with the subject of marriage with meticulous care and make fascinating study. Manu expounded the subject so also many other smritikaras and commentators. Marriage is necessarily the basis of social organization and the foundation of important legal rights and obligations. The importance and imperative character of the institution of marriage needs no comment. In Hindu Law, marriage is treated as a smaskara or a sacrament. It is the last of ten sacraments, enjoined by the Hindu religion for re-generatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »