Delhi Court September 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.
Ram Kishan Vs. Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT145
Cyriac Joseph, J.(1) According to the petitioner, he was employed in Delhi Transport Corporation (Respondent No.2) as a conduction. He was removed from service by respondent No. 2 on 16th May, 1991. On 16th May, 1991 itself, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal No.II, Delhi, for approval of the respondent's action of removing the petitioner from service. The said application was considered on merits and was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on 15th July, 1995 refusing to grant approval to the removal of the petitioner from service. The Industrial Tribunal held that the management failed to prove that the workman was guilty of any mis-conduct. It was also held that the employer had not even complied with the mandatory requirement of sending one month's wages to the workman at the time of filing the application for approval. Through a representation dated 4th October, 1995, the petitioner reque...
Dalip Singh Sachar Vs. Maa Karni Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT604
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Dalip, Singh Sachar has filed the suit for rendition of accounts and mesne profits against the defendant M/s Maa Karni Coal Carries Pvt. Ltd. It has been asserted that plaintiff is the owner of two tipping trucks bearing No. MPH-2415 and MPH-2416. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant with respect to employment of two tipping trucks. Since the date of entering into the agreement with defendant company, it is asserted that defendant has failed to render any accounts with respect to the said trucks and failed to make the payment to the plaintiff in respect of the two trucks after making deductions in terms of the clauses of the agreement. On 24th May, 1996 the plaintiff requested the defendant with reference to his earlier correspondence to expedite the details and to furnish the business accounts of his tipping trucks. A notice even had been issued in this regard. The plaintiff had been requesting for the payment of the credit shown in Schedule ...
Prem Kumar and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT89; 2002(61)DRJ880
Usha Mehra, J.1. Since the appeal is of the year 1998 we order that the appeal be listed in the category of Regulars. At the same time we feel that qua appellant No. 1 Prem Kumar, matter should be remanded back to the Trial Court for recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At this stage Mr. Roopesh Sharma contended that matter is old. Appellant No. 1 spent four years in custody. It would not be in the interest of justice to remand his case back after 10 years. To support his contention he placed reliance on the following decisions of Supreme Court reported as Rautu Bodra and Anr. v. State of Bihar 1999 SCC (Cri) 1319; Ghulam Din Buch and Ors. v. State of J & K, 1996 SCC (Cri) 986; Kanhai Mishra @ Kanhaiya Misar v. State of Bihar 2001 SCC (Cri) 537; and Usha K. Pillai v. Raj K. Srinivas and Ors. 1993 SCC (Cri.) 824.2. So far as the case of Ghulam Din Buch and Ors. v. State of J & K 1996 SCC (Cri) 986 is concerned the Apex Court was dealing with a case where after the trial was...
Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Sh. Ved Parkash and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT827
ORDERVikramjit Sen, J. 1. By this Order I shall dispose off the three applications filed by the Petitioner (a) C.M. 1024/2001 for the restoration of the Civil Revision dismissed for non-prosecution; (b) C.M. 1025/2001 for staying dispossession of the Applicant/Petitioner and (c) C.M. 1026/2001 for condoning the delay in filing the application for restoration of the Civil Revision.2. The facts, in precis, are that over one decade ago a petition had been filed for the eviction of the Tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. By the impugned Order dated 15.10.1996, this petition was allowed and an Eviction Order was passed against the Tenant who is the Petitioner herein. Six months time was granted to the Tenant for vacating the premises. A few days before the expiry of this period of six months the present Revision petition was filed. At the initial hearing, a stay of dispossession was ordered which appears to have continued till 2.11.2000 when the Revision petition wa...
Vijendra Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ224
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioners have alleged that they had been employed with the Indian Oil Corporation for some time. There is no evidence supporting this bare assertion. It is not the case of the Petitioners that they were employed through the regular channel of recruitment. The averments made in para 7 of the writ petition call for reproduction:'That while the Petitioners have been continuously engaged for a sufficiently long period, however, the officers of the Respondent Corporation with an intention not to create an evidence for their continuous employment, have been devising very unimaginative and new methods for payment of their monthly salary. Some times the salary is paid on the bills prepared in the name of the officers under the Head 'Miscellaneous Expenses, Labour Charges and other Misc. Jobs'. At other times when one such employee is engaged continuously for a few months, the bills of his salary are made in some fictitious name so as to deny him the claim for a...
M/S Manohar Singh Sahny and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ155
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Disputes arose between the parties and the matter was referred by the respondent/DDA to Sh. V.R. Vaish, retired Director General of the CPWD. The Arbitrator gave his Award on 28.11.1991. Mr. Somasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset states that he does not press his objections except the objection with regard to the grant of pendente lite interest not granted by the Arbitrator., he has contended that after Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others vs . G.S. Roy, : [1991]3SCR417 is case decided by Supreme Curt the Arbitrator ought to have given pendente lite interest to the claimant. 2. On the other hand, Ms. Salwan learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also field objections. She has assailed the Award under various Claims. She has contended that a sum of Rs. 13,232/- under claim no.4 be set aside as there is an error apparent on the face of the Award. She has contended that it was incumbent on behalf of t...
M/S Nahta Limited Vs. M/S Raamraj Kala Mandir and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ796
ORDERB.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. By an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC(IA.8202/2001), plaintiff seeks an order of inunctions restraining the defendants from selling, transferring or allowing any person in any manner from exhibiting, telecasting or showing the film 'Giraftar' through any media. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,62,46,250/- alleging that as a financier it had advanced diverse sums aggregating Rs. 56.25 lakhs to defendant No. 1, a producer of cinematograph films, in connection with making of a film titled 'Ganga Jamuna Saraswati'. The sums advanced on different dates carried interest @ 23% p.a. In addition, certain other amounts accruing under the agreement, executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, are claimed payable by the defendant No. 1. 3. The defendant No. 2 was engaged by the defendant No. 1 for the purposes of processing negatives of all kinds and taking out release-prints etc. for delivering the same to ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central), New Delhi Vs. Dalmia ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)250; [2002]253ITR725(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of Revenue, following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') for opinion of this Court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act').'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessed company had any profit attributable to the production of limestone on which relief under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was admissible?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1972-73.2. Factual position, in a nutshell, is as follows:-assessed is a limited company engaged in manufacturing and sale of Cement. For the assessment year in question, assessed claimed a deduction of Rs.1,64,307/- under Section 80-I of the act in respect of limestone raised by it from its own quarries, taking the plea that limestone is an item included in Schedule VI of the Act as a priority industry. Assess...
Raj Kumar Vs. Vijay Laxmi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT265; I(2002)DMC174; 2002(61)DRJ485
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. ADMIT.2. Arguments were heard on the petition for final disposal on the request of counsel for the parties.3. This revision petition is directed against an order of Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 8.9.2000 by which he has fixed interim maintenance of the respondent wife at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month besides litigation expanses of Rs. 7000/- in a petition under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.4. Briefly stated the facts are that the parties were married on 28.4.1999 and lived together till 7.7.1999 when they separated. The petitioner husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent wife. The respondent wife filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance @ 5000/- per month plus Rs. 2000/- per month as rent of the accommodation taken by her for her residence and Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses and a further amount of ...
Satish Bahl Vs. Ritu Behl and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT849; I(2002)DMC363
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.ADMIT.1. Arguments were heard on the petition for final disposal on the request of counsel for the parties.2. This revision petition is directed against an order of Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 20.1.2000 by which he has fixed interim maintenance of the respondent wife at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act during the pendency of a divorce petition.3. Briefly stated the facts fare that the petitioner husband had filed a petition for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty against respondent wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On receipt of summons the respondent wife filed an application for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses.In the application she put counter blame on the petitioner. She alleged that she was treated with cruelty and was forced to leave the matrimonial home on 1.9.1997 and since then she is residing at her parental home wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »