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.
Union of India Vs. Shri Parbhati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT335; 2001(60)DRJ73
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The answer to the question-Whether the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to Act) were attracted only if the interested person has not sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act? would dispose of the present appeal.2. In terms of the impugned judgment dated 7.4.1999, the learned Single Judge negated the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that since the respondent in the present case had sought a reference under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Section 28-A if the Act i.e. seeking redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment delivered by the Addl. District Judge. The learned Judge thus remanded the matter to the Collector to dispose of the application of the respondent on merits in view of the findings recorded in the judgment. The appeal against the said judgment was admitted and the operation o...
R.P. Chaudhary Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ150
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Objections by way of is 3511/89 were filed by the respondent/DDA to the award made by Shri G.R. Hingorani, arbitrator appointed by the respondent who was the Engineering Member as well as Former Chief Engineer of the respondent . Ms. Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the finding of the arbitrator is contrary to law and facts of the case. The claimant/petitioner filed as many as 18 claims out of which the arbitrator allowed claim nos. 2,4,6,7,9,10,12,14,15 and 18 only. Ms. Salwan has vehemently contended that the finding of the arbitrator in respect of claim no. 14 is erroneous on the face of it as the arbitrator has not recorded reasons for allowing the claim of the claimant. She has contended that the provision of Clause 12(a) can be attracted if restriction provided under clauses (a) and (d) were made collectively. She has contended that there was no basis for accepting rate at the rate of Rs. 4.95 per k.g.2. I have heard arguments...
Shri R.P. JaIn and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT100
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.Rule.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of order dated 7th December, 2000, passed by the Joint Assessor and Collector confirming the rateable value of petitioners' Farm House admeasuring 17.60 Bighas at village Holambi Kalan, New Delhi at Rs.9,38,4000/-. This was pursuant to a notice issued under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, proposing the aforesaid rateable value with effect from 1.4.1997. It may be noticed that the petitioners' predecessors-in-title stated to have obtained sanction of building plans, raised and completed construction.2. The present controversy is a short one and revolves around whether the respondents could have confirmed the rateable value simply on the ground that the petitioner had failed to furnish the valuation report or the details of construction etc. Petitioner No.1 received a notice dated 12.9.2000, from respondent No.2 purporting to be under Section 124(5) of the DMC Act, requiring the petitio...
Kanika Aggarwal (Minor) Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT756; 2001(60)DRJ154
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties , the matter is taken up today for hearing.3. This wit petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the petitioner's admission to the 11th Standard in Science Stream (Non-Medical)in the Respondent No.3-School from which School she passed out from Class X. The petitioner's case arises from the refusal of the respondent No.3, the Principal of St., Mark's School to grant admission to the petitioner to Science Stream (Non-Medical). The petitioner was instead offered admission in Commerce Stream. The petitioner has challenged this refusal on the ground that in spite of securing 62.6% per cent marks in Class X she was not given admission. It is also averred that while there is no clear cut guidance in the Delhi Schools Education Act, 1974(hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and Rules to cover admissions to Science, Commerce and Arts (Streams) respondent Nos. 1 & 2 , i.e., Govt. of Delhi & Directorate of Educa...
Nectar (U.K.) Ltd. Vs. Herbs Shop India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT383
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23rd February, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge restraining the appellant from using the trademark NECTAR in respect of lipsticks or other cosmetic products.2. The suit was filed by respondent no.1 against the appellant for permanent injunction against the use of trademark NECTAR or any deceptively similar mark and for passing of the gods of the appellant as the goods of defendant no.1. Along with the suit an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC was also filed bearing is No. 5042/98 claiming and interim orders in the same terms. The suit was placed before the court on 29th May, 1998 when summons were directed to be issued in the suit and notice in the application. No ex-parte ad interim order was granted. The next date was fixed as 9th July, 1998. Respondent no.1, plaintiff in the suit, filed another application bearing is No. 5373/98 before the vacation bench and...
Surender Arora Vs. M/S. Satazo Trust and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT367; 2001(60)DRJ263
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC in the suit for specific performance in respect of the entire 11th floor, Narain Manzil, 23 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.2. There are allegations that defendants are trying to create third party interest by disposing of the property. However, in reply and affidavit, the defendants have denied the allegations. The plaintiff has filed advertisements allegedly given by the defendants in respect of the sale of the property. According to the defendants, advertisement was not given by them but it, appears to be is chief on the part of plaintiff. It is alleged that the plaintiff has played fraud which was brought to the notice of this court in reply to I.A.10770/98.3. Plaintiff is a real estate agent. On 15.10.1992, Mrs. Sumitra Chisti, defendant no.3, as Trustee of defendant no.1 through the plaintiff applied to M/s. Inder Pratap Singh (HUF), defendant no.6, for allotment of the entire 11th floor...
M/S. Om and Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT26; 2002(63)DRJ166
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. The petitioner has filed a petition under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for making the award rule of the Court. Award was made on 24.9.1994 by Mr. R C Malhotra, who was Superintending Engineer of the respondent. Objection have been filed by the respondent under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Basically, the objections have been filed against Claim nos. 1, 3 and 9.2. It is contended before me by Ms. Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the award is in excess of the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and, thereforee, same may be set aside. I have perused the award. I do not find any infirmity with the award with regard to the objections as filed by the respondent qua Claim nos.1, 3 and 9. The objections to the award are vague. The award is a reasoned award. I do not see any merit in the objections of the respondents qua award of claim nos.1, 3 and 9. However, counsel for the parties have vehemently ar...
Mr. H.L. Narang Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT227
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal.The petitioner had submitted plans for construction to the MCD in respect of L-1/10, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi. These plans were duly sanctioned by the MCD on 4.4.2001 and construction work commenced. It appears that a neighbour of the petitioner complained. The MCD was activated into action, culminating into the passing of the impugned order, which appears at page 17 of the paper book bearing No.443/EE(B)/Cent. Zone/2001/587/UPC dated 2.72.2001.2. By the impugned order the Deputy Commissioner MCD revoked the sanction accorded on 4.4.2001 and ordered that the work commenced/erected or done be treated as without any valid sanction. As per the said order, a show cause notice bearing No.D/414/EE(B)/Central Zone/539, dated 20.6.2001 is stated to have been sent to the petitioner,to show cause as to why the sanction should not be revoked. No reply is alleged to have been receiv...
Cit Vs. Chemical and Metallurgical (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN481(Delhi)
Pursuant to the directions given by this court, the following question has been referred at the instance of the revenue under section 256(2) by the Tribunal for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the Notification No. S.O. 3210 dated 8-8-1969 issued by the Central Government, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the assessed for the above assessment years ?'Dispute relates to assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70.2. The learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the question is confusing and the number of notification as shown in the question is not correct. We find that the correct notification as noted by the Tribunal is dated 6-6-1967. Dispute related to action under section 104 of the Act for non-declaration of dividend for two assessment years. The crucial question which fell for determination was whether fee received w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sohan Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR117(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court, in the three reference applications filed by the Revenue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C ('the Tribunal' for short) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in the appeals against the assessments, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalties imposed on the assessed for the assessment years 1963-64, 1965-66 and 1966-67 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1963-64, 1965-66 and 1966-67.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :S. Sohan Singh, the assessed, is an individual. The previous year in respect of each of the assessment years concerned ended on March 31, 1963, March 31, 1965 and March 31, 1966, respectively. Assessments were reopened ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »