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.
Smt. Indira Rai Vs. Iaf Educational and Cultural Society and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT282
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. The claimant filed a suit No. 288/90 under Section 20 of the Arbitrator Act, 1940 for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Clause in the Contract. This Court on 27th September, 1990 disposed of suit by giving a direction to the respondent to appoint Arbitrator. The respondent appointed Mr.B.K. Nigam, Air Commodore (retired) as the Arbitrator who gave his Award on 20th March, 1994.2. Both the parties have filed objections to the Award to the Arbitrator.3. Mr. Sharma learned counsel for the Claimant has contended that the Arbitrator has not allowed the amount of Rs. 1,05,911.30/- although the counter claims of the respondents were disallowed. The basic bone of contention between the parties on which objections have been filed by the respondent is the value of the contract and the professional fee awarded by the Arbitrator.4. Mr.Sanjiv Ralli, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that in terms of documents C-16 which is a letter written by...
Mr. Ashish Tiwari Vs. Steel Authority of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ475
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The contention of the Petitioner/Applicant in the Writ Petition is that he is entitled to be regularised in the Executive Cadre of the Respondent (SAIL); that SAIL be directed to pay the same salary and other benefits are being paid to regular employees; and that the services of the Petitioner be not terminate during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The Respondent have been extending the temporary service of the Petitioner from time to time even though it appears that an Order to this effect had not been passed by the Court. The prayer in this application is for the issuance of directions to the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner equal amount of pay and allowances as has been paid to other employees who initially joined the Respondent Company at a consolidated amount and have been confirmed in the appropriate pay scale.2. In the course of arguments, Counsel for the Respondent SAIL had disclosed that the offer of regular employment however, in the Non-Exec...
Nirbhay Kant Jha Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ453
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.10.1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No. 177/86, Under Section 25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Farash Bazar whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act and further by his separate order dated 30.10.1995 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days.2. Learned counsel at the outset does not challenge the order of conviction but has confined his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that the incident is of 5.5.1986 and the appellant has suffered the ordeal of trial for about 15 years and has already undergone a fair amount of incarceration. He submits that the accused has been on bail since 12.12.1995 and that there has been no complaint about his ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Virendra Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT305(Del)
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Revision No. 319/2001 seeks to challenge the order of the learned. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 30-4-2001 whereby the learned Magistrate has declined to release the currency seized by the Enforcement Directorate as being proceeds of sale of foreign exchange. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the currency seized by the Enforcement Directorate per se is not the case property and at the highest value thereof is sought to be secured by the seizure of the currency in the eventuality of final adjudication going against the petitioner. He, thereforee, submits that if the currency is released to him against security, which is equally strong, no prejudice would be caused either in the adjudication proceedings or otherwise.2. The learned Addl. Solicitor General submits that he petition is not maintainable since the Order challenged is interlocutory. However, he submits that there can be no greater security than the currency itself, wh...
Haseena Begum Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(79)ECC546
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1995 is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.10.1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, convicting the appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and further by his order dated 6.10.1995 sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year.2. The facts of the case, as noted by the learned Judge, are as follows:On 1.11.93 when SI Risal Singh was present in his office of N & CP Cell Kamla Market, at about 5.15 p.m. a secret information was received that one lady named Haseena who resides in Bengali Basti Yamuna Pushta who is selling smack in packets in front of her jhugi No. 319. If raid is conducted she can be apprehended. This information was passed on to Inspector J.S.Rana and Shri B.C.Kalra ACP was informed on telephone. Both ACP and Inspec...
Dy. Cit Vs. the Co-operative Stores Ltd. (Super Bazar)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2001
Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Del)46
ORDERSikander Khan, A.M.These two appeals have been filed by the revenue, Both relating to assessment year 1985-86. In ITA No. 4960/Del/1994 the revenue has contested the cancellation by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) of the penalty levied under section 273(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessed filed return declaring total income of Rs. 73,77,347. Assessment was however completed on total income of Rs. 96,93,478. It had filed estimate of advance tax in Form No. 28A on 15-6-1984, shoving income of Rs. 20 lakhs. Its accounting year ended on 30-6-1984. Penalty proceeding under section 273(1)(b) of the Act was initiated. However, finally the penalty was levied under section 273(1)(a) of the Act.2. In reply to the show cause the assessed submitted before the assessing officer that penalty under section 273 was not attracted in the case as there was reasonable cause for furnishing lower estimate. The following reasons were furnished for the lower estimate :'The reason for subst...
Usha Mankotia and ors. Vs. the Benaras State Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: II(2003)BC22
1. This appeal has been filed against order dated 7.8.2000 in O.A. No.712/95--The Benaras State Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Appu Amusement Machines Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.2. By the impugned composite order the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below has allowed three interim applications of the respondent Bank, the first filed on 22.7.1996 for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 3 in the O.A., the second filed on 16.4.1998 for setting aside the abatement and the third filed on 21.8.1998 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. The undisputed facts of the case relating to the aforesaid applications are that defendant No. 3, namely, Group Capt. V.C.Mankotia died during pendency of the case; that by the time of his death notices on the defendant had not been served that notices were directed to be served through publication in newspaper and the next date fixed before the Tribunal below was 15.3.1996; that on that date i.e. 15.3.1996, the Counsel appearing for ...
M/S Philco Expoprts Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT56; 2002(64)DRJ211
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Challenge in the present petition is notifications No.F.10 (4)/2001-Fin(A/cs) 120-128 (Annexure A), F. 101 (48)/2001-Fin (A/cs) 147-15 (Annexure-B) and F. 10(48)/20001-Fin(A/cs) 156-164 (Annexure-C) all dated 31.3.20001, issued by the order of the Lt Governor of NCT of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred under the First Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section(2) of Section 7 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (43 of 19750 (in short, the Act), as amended by the Delhi Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1997 (Delhi Act No.1 of 1998) read with the Delhi Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2000 (Delhi Act No.2 of 2001) (in short, the second Amended Act). By the first notification dated 31.3.2001 in the Second Schedule, amendment was made and one entry No. 67 was inserted which reads as: 'REP, DEPB and other tradable licenses'. Similarly by the second amendment, in terms of newly inserted entry no. 83 turnover in respect of the aforesaid items was to be taxe...
Deepak Bhardwaj and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ514
ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1.By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged a notification No.F.7(7)/97/L& B/LA/4252 dated 24th June, 1998 issued under section 4 read with section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By the impugned notification large tracts of land including the land of the petitioners falling in village Samalkha within the National Capital Territory of Delhi are being compulsorily acquired. Section 17 of the Act has been invoked and the provisions of section 5A of the Act have been dispensed with. The notification has been challenged on various grounds. However, the first and foremost ground of challenge is that invocation of section 17 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case is wholly illegal and unjustified. According to the petitioners there is total non-application of mind on the part of the State Government in invoking section 17 of the Act as also in dispensing w...
Rajinder NaraIn and Co. and Another Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT333; 2001(59)DRJ632
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing CW No. 1401/2000. vide order dated 7.3.2001 CW No. 1401/2000 was disposed of with the consent of the parties and the matter was referred to NDMC Bijli Adalat for reconciliation. NDMC Bijli Adalat disposed of the matter vide its order dated 27.3.2001, wherein the statement of Director (Commercial) was recorded that credit of Rs.90,152/- had already been given to the petitioner, in the billing cycle of October, 2000 and that a proper assessment had been made.3. Petitioner thereafter has filed the present writ petition against a total demand of Rs.2,28,173 as of April, 2001, being raised. Show cause notice was issued vide order dated 20.7.2001 in this writ petition and the order restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply vide meter No.A96117, B31877 and B25090 installed at 14-F, Connaught Place, Shivam House...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »