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.
Tilak Kumari and anr. Vs. Sh. Anand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ580
ORDERA.K.Sikri, J.1. Petitioner No.1 is wife of the respondent and petitioner No.2 is his daughter. Both mother and daughter have filed this petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act where in it is prayed that decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month w.e.f. 1st April, 2000 together with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till the date of payment be passed. Along with this petition is No. 6977/2000 is filed for fixing interim maintenance for grant of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month.2. For purpose of fixing interim maintenance detailed averments as mentioned in the petition or in the written statement filed by the respondent need not be stated. Suffice is to state that the petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Both are residing seprartely. Petitioner No.2 is the daughter of petitioner No.1 and respondent who was born out of the wedlock on 9th November, 1987. ...
The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi502
ORDERA. K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff has filled the suit for recovery of Rs.32,40,235/- comprising a sum of Rs.24.70 lacs as principal amount and a sum of Rs.7,70,235/- towards interest accrued thereon. Pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum and cost is also claimed.2. The material averments as made in the plaint, and which deserve mention, are that the plaintiff company, sometime in early 1984 was given the facility of a private railway siding at Harrawala Railway Station for the plaintiff's loading of limestone for dispatch to its works at Jamshedpur. In this regard, an agreement was also executed between the plaintiff and the Railways through the President of India on 21st January, 1984. It was expected that the volume of traffic for the company's loading of limestone from Harrawala Railway Station increased and had already reached 14000 tonnes per month and as such it was apprehended that the dispatches will increase to 30000 tonnes per month by the ...
M/S Niko Resources Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT12
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. These appeals arise from a common order passed by the learned Single Judge on 8th March, 2001 dismissing the applications of the appellants filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(Act No.26 of 1996), hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The Government of India invited bids for the development of petroleum resources in the 'Hazira Fields' which culminated into a Production Sharing Contract being signed on 23rd September, 1994 between the President of India, Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, respondent No.2 and the appellant.The appellant and respondent No.2 were collectively defined under the said Production Sharing Contract (PSE in short)as the contractors.The said contract provided for arbitration for settlement of disputes under Article 31 of the contract. The said article required that initially all disputes, differences or claims arising out of or in connection with any of the terms and conditions of the contrac...
Dma Nursing Home and Medical Establishment Forum Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Delhi471; 93(2001)DLT279
ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. The petitioner, DMA Nursing Home and Medical Establishment, an association of about 350 nursing homes and medical establishments in Delhi have files this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the virus of Guide-line Nos. IX and XI, issued by the respondent No. 1 in pursuance of notification No. 11017/7/91/DDIB dated 7th May 1999 permitting mixed land use namely nursing homes, guest houses and banks in the residential areas.2. The first comprehensive Master Plan for Delhi Was notified under Section 7 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 on 1st September 1962. Later on, on account of multifarious developments, the Central Government extensively modified the Master Plan 1962 under section 11A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 keeping in view the new dimensions in urban development and the perspective for Delhi in the year 2001. This modified Master Plan was titled as 'Master Plan for Delhi perspective 2001'. Non residential activi...
indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd., Apollo Hospital Employees Union ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT337; 2002(63)DRJ295; [2001(90)FLR460]; (2001)IILLJ1274Del
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The short and interesting question that has arisen in these writ petitions is whether the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), 1946, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is applicable to the Hospitals. If it is so enforceable, Section 3 of the Act mandates the 'employer' of the 'industrial establishment' to submits its draft standing orders to the 'Certifying Authority' Thereupon, after giving the employer and representatives of the employees a hearing, the Authority is required to propose modifications or additions thereto, if the need is felt. Thereafter, the Authority is required to propose modifications or additions thereto, if the need is felt. Thereafter, the Authority is the certify the draft. One of the Petitioner, namely, Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. (which along with other Hospitals is collectively referred to as 'the Hospital') is presently adhering to its own Standing Orders...
Mr. Gaurav Raswant Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT3; 2001(59)DRJ586
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Order of detention passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act') pursuant to which the petitioner Gaurav Raswant (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') is detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, is assailed in this habeas corpus petition.2. Detention of the detenu was considered necessary by the Detaining Authority with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future. The grounds of detention dated 1.12.2000 were supplied to the detenu in both English and Hindi language. The detenu was made aware of his right to make representation against the detention to the Detaining Authority, Central Government as well as the Advisory Board. It was indicated that the representation meant for the Detaining Authority was to be addressed to the Joint Secretary, (COFEPOSA), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central E...
Hari Ram Kakkar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ86
ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings with respect to land comprised in khasra number 571, 577, 578, 580min, 581, 555, 591, 593, 592, 554 and 592min, totalling 32 bighas 1 bids was situated within the revenue estate of village Satbari within the territory of the State of Delhi. Briefly the facts are that notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 5/25th November, 1980 covering large tracts of lands falling in several villages within the union territory of Delhi including village Satbari. The object for which the lands were sought to the acquired was stated in the notification as 'planned development of Delhi'. There have been several rounds of litigation in this court with respect to these lands covered under notifications under section 4th of the Act. First, the validity of the said notifications was challenged by way of the writ petitions. These peti...
Jaswant Singh Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT552; 2001(59)DRJ667
ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. This appeal under section 10 of the Letters Patent Act is directed against the order dated 1st February, 1995 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed appellant's writ petition No. 3073/91. In the said writ petition the appellant had sought quashing of order dated 4th October 1989 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.C. Goel rejecting the departmental appeal preferred by the appellant against the office order of the District & sessions judge, Delhi dated 13th September, 1985 whereby earlier order dated 9th May, 1985 placing the appellant in the higher scale Rs. 550-900 with effect from 22nd December 1973 was recalled.2. Briefly stated the facts relating to this appeal are as under:-The appellant was appointed as a typist (LDC) in the pay scale Rs. 55-110 with effect from 12th October 1955 in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. In the year 1964 he was promoted as Steno-Typist in the pay scale of Rs. 110-180 + Rs. 20/- as special pay. In December 196...
R.S. Sagar Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT194
ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 4th June 1998 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby O.A. 1252 of 1997 and O.A. No. 1737 of 1997 filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The facts in brief are as under:-The petitioner was initially appointed as Executive Engineer (C) on regular and permanent basis in Central Engineering Services Group-A on 3rd October 1969 after he successfully competed at the combined Indian Engineering Services Examination 1968 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). On 11th January, 1982, he was promoted as Superintending Engineer (C) on ad-hoc basis. While working as Superintending Engineer (C) on ad-hoc basis in February 1983, Mr. R.S. Sagar, petitioner, was in charge of Central Circle IX CPWD comprising of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, CPWD whereby extensive work of renovation, addition/alteratio...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›