Delhi Court July 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.
Shri Kailash Chand Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT791; 2001(59)DRJ673; [2002(92)FLR1202]
ORDERKhan, J. 1. The petitioner was working as a Floor Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.330-480/- when he responded to an advertisement notice dated 2.4.84 issued by respondents for filling up the post of Production Assistant in the higher scale of Rs. 425-750/- (pre-revised). He was selected and respondents issued memorandum dated 20.12.84 offering him the post of Production Assistant subject to some conditions which provided that his appointment in the first instance would be on a long term monthly renewable casual contract of six months pending completion of some formalities where after he would be considered for appointment as a Staff Artist on contract up to three years in the aforesaid pay scale and further contract renewal would be decided by mutual agreement. It was also stipulated that he would be on probation for two years and would have to resign from his existing job if he was in Government service.2. Petitioner claims that since he was working in the same department next d...
Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT257; 2001(59)DRJ774
ORDERKhan, J.1. The short question involved in this petition was whether Tea Research Association (TRA) was an 'Autonomous Body' and whether respondent was entitled to have the service rendered by him in it counted towards his pensionary benefits.2. Respondent was working in various organisations till he joined TRA on 23.2.1972 where he worked till 24.1.84. After a break of a month or so, he joined the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) on 21.2.84 and retired from service thereon 31.12.93. After he was granted a pension of Rs. 1,000/- and odd per month, he requested for counting of the service rendered by him in TRA which was turned down. He consulted with the Department of Education & Pensioner Welfare. He thereafter filed OA No. 734/98 and claimed that the term served by him in TRA was liable to be counted towards his pensionary benefits under Rule 37 of CCS Pension Rules and also on the ground that TRA was controlled and financed by the Government and that OM dated 2...
Union of India and Others Vs. Ms. Dolly Saxena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT124; 2001(60)DRJ43
ORDERKhan, (J)%07-31-20011. :Short question involved is whether a Quasi Judicial Authority could be subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Service Conduct Rules (SCR) on a mere charge of alleged negligence and recklessness in passing an adjudicatory order.2. Respondent a Collector of Customs and Central Excise at the relevant time, was to adjudicate the cases under Central Excise Act. She is charged to have dropped proceedings against the assessed M/s J.K.Synthesis accused of evasion of customs duty of 1.21 crores or so. a charge sheet dated 28.1.1999 was issued to her charging her with negligence and recklessness in discharge of duties and contravening Rule 3 of Conduct Rules, 1964. She made representations against this but failed. She then filed OA No.2199/99 claiming that she could not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings on a charge of misconduct while exercising her quasi judicial functions. Petitioner opposed this on the plea that charge sheet could not be questioned at ...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Pentafour Products Ltd. (Auto Division) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT660; 2001(59)DRJ654
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. I.A.6788/2001 1. This is an application moved under Order 37 Rule 7 CPC for condensation of delay in entering appearance pursuant to the service of summons of the suit under Order 37 Rule 3(1) CPC.2. Since this is a suit under Order 37, the procedure laid down in this provision has to be adhered to as it is a self contained code and no other provisions of CPC are applicable. It may be pointed out at the very outset that application has not been signed by the applicant and is resisted by the counsel for he plaintiff that it cannot be taken on record as an application moved by authorised person. It bears only the signature of the counsel. However, attached therewith is an affidavit of one Mr. V.Ramakrishnan, defendant no.2, who is Chairman and Managing Director of defendant no.1.3. The first objection taken by defendants is that long with summons of suit, neither copy of the plaint nor annexures annexed thereto were received by the defendants. At the same time, it ha...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii, New Delhi Vs. Mehta Harnam S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT98
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to directions given by this court, following question has been referred under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the `Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `C'(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), for opinion of this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month paid by the tenants to the son can be taken into account for determining the annual value of the property?'Dispute relates to the Assessment year 1971-72.2. The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid to the assessed's son for ensuring that the property form which rent was received was kept in good repairs. The assessed claimed the amount of Rs.1,000/- Per month paid as an expenditure. The ITO included the amount in the annual let out value, treating it as a part of the rent. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (in short `the AAC') confirmed the addition. In fur...
M/S Sawhney Brothers Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT694; 2002(63)DRJ127
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Through this application filed under Order 11 Rule 21 read with Section 151 CPC the plaintiff has prayed for striking out the defense of defendant no. 1 (Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation) on account of its deliberate and intentional failure to give full reply to the interrogatories of the plaintiff.2. Facts relevant for the purpose of aforesaid application, put briefly, are as under:-3. The plaintiffs are a business house engaged in export and import trade. The defendant no. 1 is carrying on business in foreign trade banking at Singapore.4. The defendants 2 to 5(hereinafter referred to as Suris) approached the plaintiff with representation that they had arranged for an indent for the import of brass scrap/cloves of c.i.f. value of approximately Rs. 40 lacs but as the Suris were not in a position to open the Letter of Credit for that amount the plaintiff should arrange for credit facility and other amount the plaintiff should arrange for credit facility an...
M/S Jindal Financial and Investment Services Vs. Prakash Industries Li ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR313(Delhi); 2002(63)DRJ82
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for restraining the respondents from selling, parting with possession, transferring, alienating or in any manner creating third party interest in the equipment namely Flameless Furnace of Electrotherm make and also restrain the respondents from removing the equipment from its present location at the premises of the respondent at Champa, District Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh till the possession of the equipment is taken over by the receiver. Along with this the petitioner has also sought the appointment of the Receiver to take over possession of the equipment for Flameless Furnace of Electrotherm Meter (purchased by the petitioner firm from Electrotherm (India) Ltd. given on lease to the respondent by the petitioner firm under lease agreement dated 17th of March 1994 and lying at the premises of the respondent at Champa.2. The solitary objection raised by the respondent No.1 is that since...
E.i. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Klaus Mittelbachert (Deceased) Through L.Rs.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ549; AIR2002Delhi124; 95(2002)DLT617; 2002(62)DRJ476
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. This regular first appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed on 3.1.1997 by learned Single Judge of this Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff against defendant/appellants for recovery of Rs. 50 lacs. Cross objections have been filed by respondents 1 and 2 representing the estate of the deceased plaintiff. 2. Facts in brief are that on 11.8.1975 Klaus Mittelbachert, a national of the Federal Republic of Germany and employed as a Co-Pilot by Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellsschaft, a company organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany filed a suit for the recovery of damages to the extent of Rs. 50 lacs against the defendants/appellants, inter alia, alleging that in the evening of 11.8.1972 he flew into New Delhi from Bangkok with flight Lufthansa 647 and was to continue to Frankfurt with flight Lufthansa 649 on 14.8.1972. The plaintiff checked in an stayed at the appellant's hotel. As a part of the hotel the residents were...
Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT247
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. I.A. No. 12230/2000 is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction. In this application, order dated 9th February, 2001 has been passed restraining the defendant in terms of para 15 of the I.A. till further orders. I.A. No. 3035/2001 is filed by the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4, CPC for vacation of the order dated 9th February, 2001. Accordingly, both these applications were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Plaintiffs are the two companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act which are carrying on business, inter alia, as manufacturers and dealers of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. Amongst other, one of the drugs of the plaintiff No. 1 is LIPICARD. It is stated in the plaint that in January, 1997 the plaintiff No. 1 had conceived and invented the trade mark LIPICARD for its medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations and filed appli...
Shashi Industries Vs. Mohinder Kaur Trading as Maja Cosmetics
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ400
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff firm has filed the present suit for injunction restraining, passing off trade mark and for rendition of accounts against the defendant from using the trade mark MAZA for its product of Aggarbattis. This suit was filed in this court on 22nd June, 1998. Before that the defendant had filed similar suit against the plaintiff for restraining the plaintiff from the using the trade mark MAZA in respect of Aggarbattis and cosmetics. The said suit was filed in March, 1998 being Suit No. 34/98 and is pending before Ms. Sunita Gupta ADJ, Delhi. The defendant has filed lA.No. 10089/98 under Section 10 of CPC for staying the proceedings in the present suit on the allegations that the subject-matter of the two suits being substantially the same, this suit which is filed later in point of time should be stayed till the decision in Suit No. 34/98 filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and pending in District Court. On the other hand, the plaintiff has filed is No. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »