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.
Virender Kumar Gupta Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ355
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Having met with an accident, the petitioner herein not only had to undergo physical and metal torture, but on top of that, he also lost his means of livelihood as he was prematurely retired by the respondents, by issuing an order dated 29th May, 1998.2. The petitioner while working as a Conductor with the respondent/Corporation was confirmed in the said post. On 24th December, 1996 the petitioner met with an accident consequent to which the petitioner was admitted to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and thereafter, he was transferred to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The petitioner remained under treatment in the said Institute and during the period of the aforesaid treatment the petitioner was granted medical leave without pay by the respondent. After treatment in the said Institute the petitioner was discharged and a medical certificate was issued to him by the authorities of the Institute certifying that the petitioner has recovered from his i...
Atree Associates Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ663; 2002(1)RAJ68
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The question which falls for determination in this case is as to whether the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act, for short) or that of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act, for short) would be applicable in respect of award dated 11th February, 1998 made and published by respondent No. 2 as sole Arbitrator. While the reference to Arbitrator was made by Order dated 20th February, 1995, when the old Act was in operation, hearings also started at that time but continued even after the new Act came into force (initially as Ordinance w.e.f. 25th January, 1996 and thereafter as an Act w.e.f. 16th August, 1996). The award was given on 11th February, 1998 when the New Act was in force. Relevant dates for appreciating the controversy may be noted first:-20.2.1995Referencemade to the Arbitrator.25.1.1996Ordinancepromulgated (which became New Act.)16.8.1996NewAct came into force.28.11.1996La...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Metal Forging (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR401(Delhi)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has 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 D (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not directing the Income-tax Officer to work out the deduction under Section 80J in accordance with said section as amended by Section 17 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1974-75 and while dealing with the question of deduction in terms of Section 80J of the Act, the Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessed's own case for the assessment year 1973-74 and granted the relief.3. In CIT v. Metal Forging (P.) Ltd. (I. T. R. No. 211 of 1983) one of the questions related to the application of Section 80J. Following the views expressed by the apex court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of...
The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (Now Known as ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC622; 2002ACJ1885; 93(2001)DLT772; 2001(60)DRJ762
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. Admit.2. This is an appeal by the insurance company against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 24th February, 2000 whereby the compensation in the sum of Rs. 60,868/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short the 'Tribunal'), Delhi by its order dated 30th April, 1980 in the favor of the heirs of the deceased respondent nos.1 to 4 was enhanced to sum of Rs. 3,84,000/-. The learned single Judge also directed payment of interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of 125 from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of the compensation instead of payment of interest at the rate of 6% awarded by the Tribunal. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are as follows:-The respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased, Sh. G.D. Garg, who died in an accident caused by truck No. DLL-5127. the accident took place on 8th October, 1971 at about 2.15 P.M. on the Ring Road near defense Colony. Respondent no...
The Punjab Migrants Welfare Association Vs. Dda and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT172
Manmohan Sarin, J 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. This is a writ petition filed by the Punjab Migrants Welfare Association, seeking quashing of public notice dated 13.1.2000, issued by the Delhi Development Authority with regard to the holding of draw of lots to the Punjab residents residing at the Peera Garhi Camp. In terms of the public notice, last opportunity was given to them to submit applications by 31.1.2001. The applicants, who applied by 31.1.2001, were to be included in the draw of lots on 16.2.2001.3. Petitioners claim that they had left their original place of abode about 14 years back and they had lost whatever roots they had in Punjab. In case they were to be uprooted once again from their camp, it would dis-locate their lives for a second time. It would adversely affect the education and bringing up of their children. The migrants from Punjab had made representations also to the National Human Rights Commission. The Nat...
Oamar Nisha and Others Vs. Mst. Hamida Begum
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT667; 2002(61)DRJ117
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts of the case are that the Respondent/Landlady had filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act). In the Petition itself it had been clarified that the premises demised to the Petitioner Tenant was the First Floor of House No. 492, Ward No.11, Gali Matia Mahal, Delhi, as shown in the 'red' in the Site Plan attached to the Petition. The Tenant, However, allegedly carried out unauthorised construction on the roof of the First Floor as shown in 'blue' in the Site Plan. Consequently, evection was sought in respect of the entire property. It also appears that a civil suit for permanent Injunction had been filed by the Landlady in respect of the unauthorised and illegal construction being carried out on the roof of the First Floor. A Local Commissioner had been appointed by the Court, who has submitted his Report to the effect that a room covered by Tarpaulin was in existence. A temporary injuncti...
Xlo India Limited Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ770
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'Constitution') inter alias challenging orders passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'B.I.F.R.') and the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'A.A.I.F.R.').2. The starting point of the controversy appears to be an application for reference made under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. 1985 (in short the 'Act'). By order dated 20th July 1994, B.I.F.R. held that the petitioner is a sick company and deserves to be wound up. The said order was challenged before the AAIFR, which into alias held by order dated 6th June 1995 that the reference was incompetent and premature. Thereafter another reference was filed on 24th December 1996 purportedly under Section 15(1) of the Act. There was a communication from the B.I.F.R. rejecting the said purported reference on the ground t...
Vindhya Telelinks Limited Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT865
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner entered into a contract for supply of PIJF telecom cables in 13 different sizes to the respondent/MTNL on 15.2.2000. On the request of the petitioner time for delivery of sizes of cables was extended by 31.3.2000 and the delivery was made. On further request of the petitioner for extension of time for supply of the remaining 6 sizes of cables, the respondent/MTNL extended the time of delivery in respect of only 4 sizes and the petitioner supplied them by the extended dated of 31.5.2000. The petitioner again requested the respondent for extending the time for delivery of remaining 2 sizes of the cables [2000/0.4(A) and 2000/0.4(UA) sizes] but the respondent instead issued a letter dated 26.6.2001 (annexure 'J' to the petition) that the competent authority had conveyed to short closure in respect of outstanding supplies of PIJF cables with liquidated damages charges of Rs. 7,43,907/- payable by the petitioner in respect of non-delivery of cables 2000...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. P.K. Mehrotra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2001
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT80; 2002(61)DRJ310
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, Mahanager Telephone Nigam Limited (in short MTNL) assailing the award dated 28.7.1999 passed by Mr. P.K. Mehrotra, Arbitrator as being vocative of Section 7-B(2) of Indian Telegraph Act (hereinafter called the Act). 2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent no.2 was provided a telephone No.583779 which was subsequently closed and a new number 5744090 was provided to him on 14.10.1991 with dynamic STD control facility. According to the petitioner the respondent no.2 was using this telephone for business, social and personal use. He was running a business in the style of M/s New Metals Manufacturing Co., Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi and has admitted the use of the telephone for business purpose also. The first bill dated 1.11.1992 after installation was issued for the period from 14.10.1991 to 15.10.1992 for a sum of Rs. 1,64,097/-. After cancellation of rent the net amount payable was Rs. ...
Annick Chaymotty @ Devayani Vs. Prem Mohini Mehra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT312; 2002(61)DRJ511
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. The short question that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether the rent of the premises in occupation of the appellant/tenant is Rs. 3620/- p.m. and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit filed by the respondent for the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises.2. The factual matrix of the case, briefly stated, is that the appellant is a tenant on the first floor of House No. 21A, Amrita Shergill Marg, Delhi under the respondent. She had initially rented this premises @ Rs. 1200/- p.m. which was later on increased to Rs. 1320/- p.m. In addition, she was paying Rs. 2300/- p.m. to the respondent for additional facilities provided in the premises. After terminating the tenancy of the appellant by service of a notice of quit, the respondent filed a civil suit for possession and recovery of mesne profit against the appellant. Subsequently, respondent gave up the claim of mesne profit. The appellant contested the suit by f...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »