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.
Aggarwal Samaj Shakur Pur (Regd) Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT317; 2001(60)DRJ268
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These three writ petitions are inter-linked and are, thereforee, disposed of by this common judgment. Grievance in all the three petitions, essentially, is to the decision taken by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short, MCD) and the Delhi Development Authority (in short, DDA) for opening a cremation ground in Khasra No. 19/26 (36-0), 27(24/8) measuring 60 Bighas and 8 bids was known as Beriwala Bagh, situated in the revenue estate of Shakur Pur Delhi. In Writ Petition No. 2659/98, prayer is to maintain the cremation ground situated in Khasra No. 180-181 in the revenue estate of Saleem Pur Majra, Madipur, Delhi and to maintain it like other cremation grounds in Delhi. In Writ Petition 2494/98, the prayer is for stoppage of construction work and completion of aforesaid cremation ground in Khasra No. 19/26 (36-0), 27(24/8) measuring 60 Bighas and 8 bids was known as Beriwala Bagh, situated in Shakur Pur Delhi.In Writ Petition No. 4503/2000, prayer is tha...
Smt. Baby Arya Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi50; 94(2001)DLT419; 2002(61)DRJ113
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'Act') seeking interim protection by way of restraining the respondent from in any manner recovering the amount of Rs.10,51,737.60 raised in the impugned bill either directly or indirectly and also from disconnecting, altering or otherwise affecting the continuous supply of electricity to the petitioner under the agreement dated 22/24 November, 1999 during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.2. By way of an experiment the respondent Delhi Vidyut Board (in short Board) decided to engage an agency or individual for getting the job of revenue Realizing from persons using electricity from the source in the designated area on the basis of payment of commission for the services rendered by the said agency or individual. In the instant case, the respondent-Board entered into an agreement with the petitioner Smt. Baby Arya in respect of designed H Block Sangam Vihar, New D...
Sh. S.K. Muttoo and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT394; 2002(61)DRJ146
Held :Coming to applicability of Section 211, it may be noticed that it would apply only when the injury intended to be caused, is by instituting or causing to be instituted criminal proceedings or by falsely charging a person with having committed an offence which is not the case here. Offence under Section 120--B is relateable to said two offences. Case of forgery punishable under Section 465 IPC is not made out. During the course of arguments the respondent No. 2--complainant was unable to point out as to which is the other offence(s) which can be said to have been prima facie made out against the petitioners on the facts disclosed in the complaint.K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners/accused who have been summoned to face trial for the offences under sections 193, 211 and 120B IPC by an order dated 11th May 2000 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate, seek quashing of complaint (Annexure A) filed by respondent No.2-Complainant.2. Submission...
Shri Dalip Kumar Vs. Shri Sadri Chauhan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT786; 2001(60)DRJ759
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The facts as they emerge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties are that the Respondent-Landlord has filed an eviction petition against the Petitioner/Tenant on the grounds of 14(1)(a) and (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. What is material for the present purposes is the assertion that the premises were let to the Tenant for residential purpose only but he was misusing the same without the consent of the Landlord by running a Restaurant/Dhaba from the tenanted premises. Mr. B.L. Mehra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant submits that his evidence was earlier closed but on filing an application he was permitted another opportunity to lead evidence and he examined Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The eviction petition was filed as far back as in July 1994. In the course of examining Respondents 3 and 4, it transpired that a 'No Objection' had been given in favor of the Tenant for running the Dhaba. There is no pleading to the effect that a 'No Objecti...
Mohd. Ishaq and Others Vs. D.D.A. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ699
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners, four in number, have filed this writ petition seeking a writ or direction, to the respondents not to demolish houses bearing No. 86-A to 86-A/IV on Khasra No. 17, Revenue Estate of Bhalol Pur Khadar, Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi. Petitioners also seek a prohibition on the respondents from dispossessing them from their houses. Protection and recognition of their civil rights is also sought.2. Petitioners' case is that their forefathers were residing in Kacha houses/Jhuggis built on the land, comprised in Khasra No. 17, prior to partition. It is claimed that the land forms part of the abadi of the village Sarai Kale Khan. The predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, it is claimed had sold part of the land. In the Jamabandi of 1948-49, name of Faiza, late father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, had been duly entered. A Mosque and a Madarasa were constructed on part of this land in course of time. Petitioners aver that the respondents are seeking to demolis...
Durga Nath Sharma and anr. Vs. Shyam Shanker Goela
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT545; 2002(61)DRJ848
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Defendants have filed this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by Shri R.K. Sain, Additional District Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 129/80 decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent and thereby granting a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell directing defendant/appellant to execute necessary sale deed within a period of two months during which period the defendants were asked to take necessary steps for completing necessary formalities towards execution of sale. 2. Facts in brief are that on 12.12.1979 plaintiff filed the suit claiming decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.3.197, inter alia, alleging that Delhi Development Authority had granted a lease of a big plot of land in favor of New Friends Co-operative House Building Society and the Society had granted sub lease in favor of its members. Durga Nath Sharma, defendant No. 1 being one of the members ...
Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi52
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner, by this writ petition, prays for allotment of a flat at Vasant Vihar (JNU) in terms of allotment letter bearing No.120(35)/84/SFS/VV/III dated 27.9.1984. Petitioners also makes a prayer to declare the re-allocation of flat at Saket vide letter dated 13.4.1987 as null and void and she be instead re-located at Vasant Vihar.3. The factual matrix of the case may be noted:-(i) Petitioner applied in the year 1982, for allotment of a category III flat at Vasant Vihar under the '1982 Fifth Self Financing Housing Scheme'. The draw of lot was held on 20.12.1983 and the petitioner was declared successful therein. The registration amount of Rs.15,000/- had been paid by the petitioner in due course. The allotment letter dated 27.9.1984 was issued to the petitioner intimating that she had been allocated a flat at Vasant Vihar (JNU) Ground and First floor. Petitioner, however, did...
Jas Rath Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT605; 2002(61)DRJ204
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. A common judgment is being delivered in these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since common questions arise for consideration as regards land situate within the same revenue estate which are acquired by successive notifications issued within a short span.2. Revenue Estate of Rithala had its own importance and was a very large revenue estate surrounded by eight villages, namely, Pooth Kalan, Pansali, Shahbad-Daulatpur, Samepur, Badli, Naharpur, Mangolpur-Kalan and Mangolpur-Khurd. Towards South being Samepur, Badli and Naharpur, towards East Being Pooth-Kalan and Pansali being towards West.3. A portion of land situate within the revenue estate Rithala was acquired for public purpose at public expense, namely, Planned Development of Delhi through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 24.10.1961. Along with the land situate in revenue estate Rithala some lands situate in Badli and Nahar...
Mahant Atma Ram Chela Mahant Sita Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT58; 2002(61)DRJ169
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. This appeal field under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is for further enhancement is amount of compensation payable to the appellant for a plot of land measuring 14 bids was comprised in Khasra No.71 situate at Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. 2. Appellant's land was acquired for planned Development of Delhi through notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 12.10.1983 for which declaration under Section 6 was made on 12.1.1984. 3. The Collector Land Acquisition offered compensation @ 1/- per sq. yard. Feeling dis-satisfied the appellant sought reference. The Reference Court assessed the market value @ Rs.75/- per sq. yard. Still feeling dis-satisfied the appellant preferred this appeal claiming compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per sq. yard. 4. The appellant had been in possession of the plot in question till 27.11.1975 when during emergency he was forcibly dispossessed there from. as the appellant had been disposses...
Gaya Prashad Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ493
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to confirm the petitioner in the post of Assistant Manager (Flight Operations) and to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager (Flight Operations) with all consequential benefits. It is also prayed in the writ petition that the respondents be restrained from reverting the petitioner to the post of Operations Superintendent. 2. The petitioner was working as Operations Superintendent at the Palam Airport, New Delhi, when his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager was considered by the respondents. On 19th April, 1994, an order was passed by the respondents promoting four officers, including the petitioner, to the post of Assistant Manager (Flight Operations). The said appointment was, however, made subject to the provisions of Service Regulation 9. it was also clearly stipulated in the said order that the confirmation of the petitioner would be subje...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »