Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2001 Page 1 of about 214 results (0.021 seconds)Vardhman Properties Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT323; 2001(60)DRJ319
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction for the respondent to assess separately various shops/units in plot No. 9, LSC, Mandavali, Fazalpur, Patparganj, Delhi in the name of individual shop purchasers and buyers for purposes of assessment of property tax. MCD it appears is proceeding to assess the properties in the name of the petitioner, who happens to be the builder/developer of the said complex. MCD has issue notices under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.3. Parties are at variance on whether the petitioners have complied with the provisions of Section 128 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act or not? Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has given the notice dated 20.1.1999, whereby he furnished the list of allottees to whom flats/units had been transferred. Petitioner has also furnished a letter ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Arora Vs. Mukesh JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT328
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of money under the provisions of Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).2. The order provides for a summary procedure in respect of certain suits. As per this procedure the defendant is at first instance required to enter into appearance within 10 days of the service of summons of the suit.3. Having entered into such an appearance, defendant is again served with the summons for judgment. He is, within ten days of the service of such summons, required to seek leave to defend himself. The defendant is entitled to leave to defend only when it discloses such facts that give rise to triable issues or that will put onus upon the plaintiff to prove consideration. Thus, in like ordinary suits, defendant is not entitled to defend as of right. The underlying object of this procedure is to prevent obstruction by the defendant who has otherwise no defense.4. The legal proposition arising in this suit is ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Chokhani Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT794; 2001(60)DRJ48
ORDERKhan, (J)1. Petitioner is wanting a retrospective promotion to the post of Architect from 1995 when according to him he became eligible for it.l For this, he filed OA No. 1889/99 which was dismissed by CAT by order dated 10.2.2000. Hence this petition.2. The post of Architect is to be filled up from two feeding channels viz. Deputy Architect (Group A post) possessing four years regular service and Assistant Architect (Group B) possessing eight years service under Central Architect Service Group A Recruitment Rules, 1989. Under Rule 7(5), if it cannot be filled up by promotion or by transfer on deputation, then it is to be filled up through commission from eligible persons under the Rules.3. Petitioner, appointed Deputy Architect in 1990 became eligible for promotion to the post of Architect in 1995 but he was not promoted. He filed OA No. 1889/99 seeking promotion on the plea that respondents had wrongly carried forward the vacancies of post of Architect from 1995 in contravention...
Tag this Judgment!Unit Trust of India Vs. Aaifr and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT86; 2001(59)DRJ723
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction New delhi, (in short AAIFR) in appeal No. 121/99. The said appeal was directed against eh order dated 30.7.1999 in case No. 293/87 of Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR). The main ground of challenge in the writ petition is that without indicating any basis or reason the directions of BIFR have been substituted. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 (ICICI Ltd) and 4 (Nirlon Limited), on the other hand, submitted that though the order passed by AAIFR is hot very explicit, yet the same was passed after taking into consideration all relevant aspects and while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1950 (in short, the Constitution) no interference is called for. It is also stated by their counsel that after waiting for a considerable length of time, the order passed by AAIFR h...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ram Nath Sachdeva Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT741; 2001(60)DRJ106
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek setting aside of the orders dated 16th December 2000 and 11th January 2001 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate and also the order dated 25th January 2001 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge dismissing C.R.No. 2/2001 preferred against said two orders.2. Facts giving rise to this petition lie in narrow compass. On 16th September 2000, Prakash Chand Paswan made a complaint to Police on the basis whereof FIR No. 855/2000 under section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was registered against the petitioner. On challan being, filed, by the order dated 16th December 2000 the Metropolitan Magistrate took the view that in fact offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') was prima facie made out and as this offence was exclusively tribal by special court he sent the file to Sessions Judge for assigning ...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen Kumar Vs. N.D.M.C. and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ627
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Notice in this case was issued on the limited question as to why the respondent/NDMC should not conspire the representation of the petitioner for grant of toleration permission, to use as per the Thareja Committee recommendations.3. Pursuant to the notice issued, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Committee has duly considered the matte and taken a decision, as communicated vide its letter No. D/755/DA(Thareja)/Enforcement dated 21.5.2001. The Committee by the said letter has intimated the rejection of the Tehbazari permission to the petitioner to continue to sell the Pan, Bidi, Cigarettes etc. at the site near Baroda House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said letter on the ground that the petitioner's case was an unfortunate one. The Thareja Committee had rejected his case for failure to prove continuous squatting for a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rekha Arora Vs. Chairman, National Commission for Scheduled Caste ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT90
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. In the present writ petition the Petitioner's alleged termination of services by the Respondent is under challenge. The facts of the case are that by order dated 4.9.1995 the Petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Stenographer 'on purely as-hoc basis in the scale of pay Rs. 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040 for a period of 89 days with effect from 23.8.1995 to 19.11.1995 or until further orders, whichever is earlier'. In the Order it is further clarified that this appointment shall not confer any claim for regular appointment. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner continued in service till 17.2.1997, that is, one and a half years from her initial period of engagement. Learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that no rights exist in favor of the Petitioner for claiming regularisation of service or even continuance of service. I am unable to accept this argument as carrying any weight for the dismissal of the Petition. Attention must be drawn to the decision of th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Midas Hygenic Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Sudhir Bhatia and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT667
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application, filed by the plaintiff under order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, praying for an order of ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the trade mark LAXMANREKHA during the pendency of the suit. Plaintiff has also prayed for grant of costs in this application. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction inter-alia avers as follows:(i) that the plaintiff carries on business of manufacturing, marketing and preparation of insect repellents and other hygiene products; (ii) that there was violation of the trademark KRAZYLINES and LAXMANREKHA which trademarks were conceived and developed in 1988 by the plaintiffs' predecessor; (iii) that extensive sales and promotional activities have been conducted all over the country for the above brands and LAXMANREKHA was registered and published in the year 1988 in Column 9 of the copyright registrations; (iv) that extensive sales and advertisement figures have been given from 199...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-iii, New Delhi Vs. H.S. Singhal ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT23
ORDERArijit Pasayat; C.J. 1. At the instance of Revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (for short the Tribunal) under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act):'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that no income from the portion of the house property used by the firm is assessable in the hands of the partner to whom the property belonged?'Dispute relates to assessment year 1974-75.2. Factual position which is almost undisputed is as follows:assessed is a Hindu Undivided Family (in short the HUF') which owned a house property which was partly used by a firm in which the assessed family itself was a partner. It was claimed by the assessed that income from the property should not be assessed in its hands as it was used buy the firm, and the business was carried on by the firm which also included the assessed itself. th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Shrimankar Gas Car Services and Another Vs. the State of Delhi an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(2001)ACC533; 93(2001)DLT510; 2001(60)DRJ220
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. Rule : With the consent of the parties this petition is being heard and disposed of at the admission stage itself in view of the urgency of the subject matter.2. This writ petition contends as under:-(a) The petitioner-Company is a retrofitter of CNG kits on autoriksha and pursuant to Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders in M.C. Mehta's case for improving the ambience of Delhi's air by directing the conversion of Autoriksha to Compressed Natural Gas mode (hereinafter referred to as the 'CNG mode'), received several orders for conversion of petrol driven autoriksha to CNG mode. The petitioner holds a certificate valid until 2005 issued upon testing a 1998 model autoriksha retrofitted with petitioner's kit by VRDE Ahmednagar, one of the testing agencies specified in Rule 126 of the Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Rules'). The petitioner's kit was also approved by the respondent No. 1, Transport Deptt, Delhi Administration, who accordingly issu...
Tag this Judgment!