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.
Ajay Bakliwal Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT139; 2001(60)DRJ163; 2002(79)ECC447
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under sections 482/483 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of Constitution of India the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 22nd December 1994 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Megistrate, New Delhi and quashment of proceedings pending before him.2. Respondent No.2 A.K.Roy filed a complaint against the petitioner before A.C.M.M. New Delhi on 27th January 1993, interalia, alleging that on the basis of reliable information that Pardeep Chand was indulging in illegal sale and purchase of foreign exchange a search was conducted at his house bearing No.E-5, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi on 2nd Janaury 1992 and certain incriminating documents were recovered from there by the officers of Enforcement Directorate. Upon further investigation, involvement of Ajay Bakliwal, petitioner came to light and hence, his presence was considered necessary. The petitioner was summoned by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 40 of Foreign Exchange Reg...
Shri Vinood Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT600; 2001(60)DRJ235
ORDERKhan, (J)1. Petitioners are seeking regularisation of their services on LDC/Stenographer post without being subjected to a competitive examination to be held by Staff Selection Commission (SSC) - a requirement under rules for filling of such posts on regular basis.2. Petitioners were engaged between 1987 and 1989 on adhoc/daily wage basis against the post of LDC/stenographer through Employment Exchange after they were screened and put to typing and stenography test in National Waste Lands Development Board. They were initially so engaged/appointed for 120 days or till regular incumbent joined the post whichever was earlier. However, neither any extension order was passed to extend their tenure nor were steps taken to fill up the posts help by them substantively under rules and as a result they continued working against the posts for as good as 10 years. Meanwhile their services were shifted to National Forestation & Eco Development Board under Ministry of Rural Development and the...
Umesh Gogia and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT760; 2001(59)DRJ652
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal Crl. M.(M)Nos. 1488/2001 filed by Umesh Gogia and Crl.M.(M)No. 1489/2001 filed by Jagdish Chand Gogia.2. In both the petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 9th February, 2001 passed by an Addl.Sessions Judge dismissing Crl.R.Nos.1/2001 and 2/2001 and 2/2001 filed against the summoning order dated 12th July, 1999. Without referring to the allegations made in FIR No. 107/00, it may be noticed that after competing investigation in the case, the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 420/506/120-B IPC against Jagdish Chand Wadhwa and Smt.Tripta Wadhwa. Names of both the petitioners had been shown in the charge sheet in column No.2. By aforesaid order dated 12th July, 1999, Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction over PC Karol Bagh took cognizance against the two petitioners holding that there were specific allegations against them of conspiracy Along with said Jagdi...
M/S. Impressioni Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Bank of Baroda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas575(Delhi); 93(2001)DLT861; 2001(60)DRJ69
ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J. 1. The appellant company has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10th February, 1999 by Additional District Judge dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of Rs. 4,14,865/-.2. The appellant company was allowed the Foreign Bill Purchase (FBP) and Packing Credit Facility (PCF) by the respondent bank to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs each. According to the appellants, the terms and conditions were not disclosed by the respondent bank at the time of granting of facilities and the appellant company was made to sign the unfilled bank documents. The appellant company had deposited with the respondent bank two bills - (i) bill NO. 90 D(502473) for US $ 21,467; and (ii) bill No. 91 C(503282) for GBP 13,500. They claimed that bill NO. 90-D was discharged under two bank drafts and the balance, if any, was required to be discharged from the margin money lying with the respondent bank. According to them, the bank wrongfully crystallised bill No...
Shri BipIn Kumar Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT704; 2001(60)DRJ256
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up to day for hearing.3. The petitioner by this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeks a Writ of Mandamus against the University of Delhi and its functionaries and in particular the provost of Mansarowar Hostel, University of Delhi.4. The prayers made in the writ petition are as under:'(a) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other order, writ or direction of like nature quashing the impugned notice dated 25/04/2001 (Annexure P-4) to the extent it supersedes the merit of the petitioner. (b) issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other order, writ or direction or like nature commanding the Respondent Nos. 3-5 to grant admission to the petitioner in the Mansarowar Hostel forthwith.' 5. The petitioner has claimed in the writ petition that one Shri Hirdey Pal Singh respondent no.6 herein, LLM 1st year Student figuring below the petitioner in the merit list, based on L...
Shri Satish Kumar Vs. Meena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC732; 2001(60)DRJ246
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an appeal against the Order dated 9th of December, 2000, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dissolving the marriage of the respondent/wife with the appellant/husband on the ground of cruelty.2. The Order under appeal also inter-alia directed in Para No.7 as follows:'On an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act), it was ordered that the respondent(the appellant)shall pay sum of Rs. 2000/- towards costs of litigation and Rs.1500/- p.m. towards maintenance pendent lite to the petitioner(Respondent)from the date of her application. The said orders were not complied with by the respondent. Hence, his defense was struck off vide order dated 30.10/2000. However, he was permitted to demolish the case of the petitioner by way of cross-examining her.'3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant herein while impugning the impugned Order of dissolution has not paid any maintenance to th...
Shri Kalyan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT480; 2001(60)DRJ769
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition seeks a mandamus directing and commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith provide security arrangements of (Z+ security) 'National Security Guards Force' (hereinafter referred to as NSG) as was made available to the petitioner prior to 29th June 2001. The petitioner's grievance is that the National Security Guards Force cover provided to him have been withdrawn. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit which shows that he has at present got 9 PSOs performing duty three at a time; 6 Watchers performing duty 2 at a time; three head constables 9 constables and 2 drivers as escort; 10 Kobra Commandos, out of which 5 perform duty at given time and 2 Platoon of PAC (regular Santry Duty), 4 wireless operators and 5 High Frequency Set (Static) for vehicles.2. The petitioner had send a representation on 3rd July 2001 complaining against what according to him was the down gradiation of his security by the removal of the National Securi...
Ganesh Plastic Vs. Lajpat Rai Sobti and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ390
Learned Single Judge proceeded to take up the defendants application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC wherein the defendants had prayed for vacating the ex parte order of injunction granted in plaintiffs favor. Instead of taking the said application Along with the plaintiffs application not only the learned Single Judge disposed of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by vacating the ex parte order of injunction but he even proceeded to pass an order of injunction against the plaintiff and also kept theapplication of the plaintiff pending. This procedure is not warranted in law. The course which learned Single Judge ought to have adopted was to take up both the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order 39 Rule 4 CPC together and ought to have disposed of the same by a common order. By granting an injunction against plaintiff and thereby keeping his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC pending has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the plaintiff. On th...
R. Dalmia (Decd.) by Legal Representatives Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR401(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C. J. 1.Pursuant to a direction given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the additional ground that the addition of Rs. 5,11,000 as income from undisclosed sources is covered by intangible additions of earlier years does not deserve to be entertained for the first time before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and/or before the Tribunal ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in depriving the appellant of the benefit of intangible additions of earlier years to cover the addition of Rs. 5,11,000 as alleged income from undisclosed sources ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1966-67.3. Essentially the ques...
R. Dalmia Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN547(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Pursuant to direction given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the additional ground that the addition of Rs. 5,11,000 as income from undisclosed sources is covered by intangible additions of earlier years does not deserve to be entertained from the first time before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and/or before the Tribunal ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in depriving the appellant of the benefit of intangible additions of earlier years to cover the addition of Rs. 5,11,000 as alleged income from undisclosed sources ?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1966-67.2. Essentially the questions referred, which are to be ans...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »