Delhi Court August 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 Partap Rai Kalra Vs. Shri Om Prakash Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT858; 2001(60)DRJ315
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 1st March, 2000 passed in respect of a petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, i.e., for the bona fide requirement of the landlord/owner for his residence.2. The premises were let to the tenant by the owner by means of a Rent Agreement dated 1st April, 1989. In terms of that Deed the rent was settled at Rs. 200/- per month, and the letting was for residential purpose only. There is also a recital to the effect that Shri Om Prakash Sharma (landlord) is also the owner of the premises. In view of the Rent Agreement the tenant is estopped and precluded from disputing the title, since Shri Om Prakash Sharma has put him in possession of the demised premises. Contrary to the Lease Deed the tenant has asserted that the rent of the Premises is Rs. 1500/- per month and that the premises had been let to him for composite purpose. On ...
Mr. Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT908; 2002(64)DRJ375
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Petitioners' claim is founded on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The Petitioners appear to have been engaged as a Regular Muster Roll (RMR) workers in the post of Mechanic-cum-Operator in CWP No. 6565/1998. CWP 6555/1998, CWP 6552/1998, CWP 6564/1998, CWP 6553/1998, in the post of Mason in CWP No. 6554/1998 and in the post of Tyreman in CWP No. 6556/1998 which is a Group 'C' post. In order to prove that they have been working on this post for several years, copies of the Identity Cards and Muster Roll have been filed. This clearly evidences that the Petitioners have been working since 1986 as an Operator. The Respondent however asserts that after their appointment in Group D the Petitioners were only asked to perform duties falling in this Group.2. On 4.4.1997 the following paragraph in the Circular of the Respondent was published:'To consider the cases of RMR workers for regular appointment, who have completed more than six years service as ...
Falcon Air Cargo and Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT843; 2001(60)DRJ618; 2001(78)ECC596; 2002(140)ELT8(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat,C.J.1. Change in this writ petition is to the order passed by Commissioner of Customs dated 13.7.2000 and order of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'CEGAT') dated 30.10.2000, upholding the first noted order. By the said order there was revocation of petitioner's license to function as Customs House Agent.2. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:Petitioner was holding a Customs House Agent's license issued in terms of the Customs House Agent license Regulations 1984 (in short the Regulations). Such Regulations have been issued in exercise of powers under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, the Act). license issued to the petitioner was valid up to 13.1.2000. Renewal thereof was denied on the ground that enquiries were pending against the petitioner for alleged misconduct for which two separate show cause notices were issued on 8.11.95 and 28.-8-1999 respectively. Reliance was placed on Regulation 12(2) which ...
Shri Sudarshan Lal Bajpai Through His Authorised Attorney Vs. Delhi De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT680
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plot No. D-3/79, Yamuna Vihar. A writ of prohibition is also sought against the respondents from interfering with the easing of construction of the said plot. 2. This petition has been instituted by Shri sudarshan Lal Bajpai, petitioner, through his attorney Smt.Bimla Devi. It appears that the plot which was allotted to Shri Sudarshan Lal Bajpai has been sold to Smt.Bimla Devi, to whom power of attorney has also been issued. The respondent/DDA has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that Shri Sudarshan Lal Bajpai had been allotted a plot bearing No.B-3/79, Yamuna Vihar in 1985. As per the counter affidavit filed by DDA the plot in question being plot No.B-3/79, Jamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 had been allotted to the petitioner in ...
Union of India Vs. Shri Dev Raj and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ734
ORDERKhan, J. 1. 20% of posts of Head Clerk/Section Supervisor (Grade-II) were to be filled up by promotion on seniority first. But later Director General P & T issued memorandum dated 15.6.1974 prescribing 1/3rd of these posts to be filled up from amongst eligible candidates by qualifying test, 2/3rd on the basis of seniority from the basic cadre of Telegraphists/Telegraph Assistant etc.2. Respondents took qualifying test and were promoted to the post against 1/3rd quota and were placed in Grade-II and enbloc senior in gradiation list. Meanwhile, department introduced One Time bound Promotion Scheme (OTBP) on 30.11.1983 providing that employees having rendered 16 years service in the basic cadre would be placed in the next higher scale. It also stipulated that those already promoted to Grade-II like respondents would rank senior to those who would get this grade under the Scheme. Respondents who stood already promoted against supervisory posts were granted special allowance of Rs. 35 ...
The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and ors. Vs. Ex-subedar Ansuya ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT611; 2002(61)DRJ109
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.9.1995.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:The respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Naik in Central Reserve Police Force (in short CRPF) on 28.9.1959. He was promoted as Subedar (Inspector) on 30.1.1975. The promotion of the respondent to the post of Inspector was made by the Commandant with prior approval of the Inspector General of Police as required by Rule 7(B) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules.4. The respondent was charged with misconduct and a regular departmental inquiry was held against him under the CRPF Rules and on the conclusion of the departmental inquiry disciplinary authority considered the case of the respondent and by an order dated 26.6.1980 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police the respondent was removed from service.5. The respondent preferred a statutory appeal to the Inspector Ge...
Prem Wati Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT646; II(2001)DMC701
ORDERCrl. M. 3542/2001 in Crl. M.(M) No. 2883/2001: Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Crl. M.(M) 2883/2001 : 1. By this petition under Section 438 read with Section 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner is seeking protection against anticipated arrest in case under Section 498A/406/34, Indian Penal Code, being investigated by the Crime Against Women Cell, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant. 2. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Pawan Sharma accepts notice. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that pending enquiry before the Crime Against Women Cell, petitioner apprehends that case may be registered and she is put to unnecessary harassment. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that whenever FIR is registered and petitioner is sought to be arrested, she would be given seven days' notice in writing. Petitioner shall participate and co-operate in the investigation, as and when required. Order dusty. 5....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)328; [2002]254ITR447(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (the 'Tribunal' in short) : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the interpretation of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal was justified to hold that the assessed-company is entitled to the carry forward of development rebate, having remained outstanding in the hands of HEIL which amalgamated with the assessed-company with effect from January 1, 1974 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 19,429 incurred by the assessed on serving tea, coffee and light refreshments to the representatives of the customers was not in the nature of entertainment and was allowable as a business expenditure ?...
Smt. Krishna Prakash and anr. Vs. Dilip Harel Mitra Chenoy
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi81; 93(2001)DLT777
ORDERB.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a judgment and decree dated 5.1.1996, passed by the Court of an Additional District Judge, Delhi in a suit for ejectment and mesne profits.2. Facts emanating from the pleadings are that late Dr. Suraj Prakash was a tenant in respect of entire ground floor, in addition to one garage and two servant quarters, of 20, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- exclusive of water and electricity charges. The said premises were leased out to him by Smt. Shanta Simha Chenoy, the owner of the premises, on 2nd of November, 1963. By a notice dated 10.10.1969, the tenancy of late Dr. Suraj Prakash was terminated w.e.f. 30.10.1969. Late Dr. Suraj Prakash responded tot he notice with his reply dated 27.10.1969 thereto and did not vacate the premises.3. On 30th of April, 1971, an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(B) & (J) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'Rent Act'), was filed by Smt. Shanta Simha Chenoy again...
Smt. Sanita Arora Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT120; 2001(60)DRJ607; 2001(78)ECC683; 2002(142)ELT554(Del)
ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.The present case is a classic illustration where a person is made to run from pillar to post for over nine long years to get refund of the excess excise duty paid on the purchase of a car, required to be used solely as tax. To indicate and appreciate the petitioner's agony, it would be necessary to state the facts in a little greater detail.2. The petitioner booked one Maruti Omni Van (taxi) by depositing a sum of Rs. 1,57,340, on 27th December, 1991 with M/s. Sikand & Co., respondent No. 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the dealer'). The car was delivered on 29th February, 1992 along with an invoice for Rs. 1,20,348/- towards the price of the said vehicle. Since the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,57,340/-, a sum of Rs. 36,92/-, towards excess excise duty recovered from the petitioner at the time of booking of the vehicle, was required to be refunded to her. The said amount became refundable on account of lesser rate of excise duty payable on...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »