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.
Ajay Jadeja Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT14; 2002(61)DRJ639
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This is an application in a pending writ petition where the respondents 2 and 3 seek a decision on the preliminary question of maintainability of this writ petition against them. This writ petition by a national cricket player, Shri Ajay Jadeja, inter alia, challenges the 5 years long ban imposed on him by Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as BCCI), respondent No.2. Apart from respondent No.2, the petitioner has filed the petition against Union of India, respondent No.1 through Secretary Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs and Sports, Shri A.C. Muthiah, President BCCI, respondent No.3, Shri Kamal Muraka, respondent No.4, Shri Ram Pershad, Member Disciplinary Committee, BCCI, respondent No.5, Shri K. Madhavan, respondent No.7 and Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, respondent No.7 and CBI, respondent No.8. The writ petition also challenges the show cause notice dated 22nd December 2000 issued by respondent No.1, seeking to withdraw the Arjun...
Ajit Bali and ors. Vs. Arjun Singh Mansukhani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT548; 2002(62)DRJ596
Vijender Jain, J. 1. This is an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed by defendants 1 to 5 for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 5. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the defendants has contended that by the present application, defendants has contended that by the present application, defendants 1 to 5 seek to amend their written statement and want to add additional pleas. Broadly speaking the first amendment sought for by the defendants/applicants is that the plaintiff have a right by virtue of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as predecessor-in-interest of the defendants came in occupation of the property after executing the agreement to sell dated 23.7.1961 and pursuant to an irrevocable power of attorney dated 15.9.1961 issued by R.C. Bali in favor of Mrs.Gunwati Singh, sister of predecessor in interest of the defendants.2. The second amendment is based on Section 202 of the Contract Act. It has been contended that in ...
Abdul Qadeer Vs. Mohd. Saghir and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT647
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This revision petition is filed assailing the order of a Civil Jude dated 24.5.2001 whereby he had restored a civil suit under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and has condoned the delay in filing the application for restoration under Section 5 of Limitation Act.2. Ms. Saiden Begum (who has died and is represented by her legal representatives, the respondents) had filed a civil suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the petitioner in 1987. The petitioner has contested it. Ms. Saiden had filed another civil suit against one Mohammad Hafeez. Proceedings in both the suits were being conducted on the same day one after the other. These suits were fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 17.5.1999. On that day one of the plaintiffs was present. One witness was also present. But due to the absence of their counsel, the case Along with the second suit was adjourned to 8.9.1999 for evidence of the plaintiff. Inadvertently, the adjourned date was wrongly noted by the ...
Allianz Aktiengesellschaft Holding Vs. Allianz Capital and Management ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC177(Del)
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. In these above-mentioned two suits, there are injunction applications and other ancillary applications relating to granting of injunction sought by both the parties in their favor and against the opposite party. Since the dispute is confined to use of the word 'ALLIANZ' claimed by both the parties in these two suits. All the applications in these suits are taken together. Apart from the applications for injunction, there are applications under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC for taking certain documents on record. They are also being disposed of accordingly in these petitions.2. Allianz Aktiengesellschaft Holding is a German company and the plaintiff in S. No. 1162/95, while the defendant in S. No. 393/95. Allianz Capital & Management Services Ltd. is the Indian company. These two companies in the two suits will be called for short 'the German company' and 'the Indian company' respectively.3. According to the German company, it is incorporated in accordance with the law of Federa...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Pradip Oil Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT442; 2002(65)DRJ586
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether an agreement for erection of oil storage tank together with pump house, chowkidar cabins, switch room, residential rooms and verandah for storing oil decanted from the railway tankers, which bring petroleum products to the site at which they are decanted, would amount to lease or license, is the question which falls for consideration in this batch of Letters Patent Appeals, which arise out of various judgments and orders passed by learned Single Judges of this Court.2. The said question arose in view of the orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in various house tax appeals filed under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, (in short the Act) against the orders passed by the Assessing Officers in terms whereof rateable value of the properties in question were enhanced on the ground that the said constructions do not come within the definition of 'building' attracting house tax under the said Act.3. Before adverting to the question ...
Sunaina R. Mathani Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2001
Reported in: 95(2002)DLT362; 2002(61)DRJ439
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the prayers made are as under:- 'a) call for the records of the case in Complaint Case No. 454 of 1998, pending before the court of Sh. V.K. Goel, Metropolitan Magistrate, patiala House Courts, New Delhi and after examining the same this Hon'ble court maybe pleased to quash the said proceedings; b) quash the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner on 2.11.2000 and 25.1.2001 by the court of Shri V.K. Goel, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi in Complaint case No. 454 of 1998. c) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the further proceedings before the learned Trial court in Complaint Case No. 454 of 1998 be stayed; d) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the execution of the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner in Complaint case No. 454 of 1998 be stayed; e) pass ex parte ad-interim order/orders in terms o...
Sunil Kumar Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1284; 93(2001)DLT804; II(2001)DMC705; 2001(60)DRJ657
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR No.265/1996, P.S. Tilak Marg, under Section 498-A/406 IPC and consequent proceedings thereon and for quashing of the order dated 24.9.1996 issuing proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., and the order dated 4.10.1996, decelerating the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are: on 7.3.1996, Ms.Bina lodged a report alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner on 14.2.1994, who was employed as an electrician at Muscut in Oman. After the marriage when her husband went abroad, she started living with family of the elder brother of her husband; her husband after going abroad did not write any letter to her nor sent any money, to meet the household expenses. One day, elder brother of her husband complained, to her father that in the marriage they were not given scooter, colou...
itender Singh Chadha and ors Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT426; 2002(61)DRJ591
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 2nd December, 1999 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi taking cognizance of the offences under Section 323, 341 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 511/1997, Police Station Okhla Industrial Area. 2. I have heard Mr. D.C. Mathur, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners and Mr. M.S. Butalia, Advocate for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acted in violation of the provisions of Section 319 of the Code by taking cognizance against the accused petitioners without recording any evidence whatsoever. He submits that where in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of an offence, it appears from the evidence that any ...
All India Lawyers Union (Delhi Unit) Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 93(2001)DLT501; 2002(61)DRJ92
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. By this order we propose to deal with the question whether or not the Chemical trade is to be shifted from the walled city. The traders are not interested in moving out of the walled city as in their present location they are well entrenched in the Chemical trade. The question which arises for our consideration is whether the traders are justified in their stand.2. The walled city is to historical importance. It once represented the culture of Delhi and was a part of the traditional housing. The ambience and the beauty of the city has been destroyed by over population and large scale commercial use of the same. As a result of very population and large scale business transactions which take place in the area it is infested with heavy traffic. As per the Master Plan for Delhi, August 1990, the walled city contains industrial units using acids, Chemicals and inflammable materials. It has become centre for trade in noxious and hazardous substance. The Master Plan envis...
Jasbir Singh Bajaj Vs. Gurdeep Singh Bajaj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2001
Reported in: 94(2001)DLT169
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Plaintiff Jaisbir Singh Bajaj has filed the present suit seeking a declaration that he is the sole owner of lease hold rights of Plot NO. 16, Block No. 48, Malcha Marg Commercial-cum-Residential Premises, New Delhi. 2. The facts alleged are that plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 4 are brothers. They are sons of late Inder Singh Bajaj who died on 24th July, 1987. The wife of Shri Inder Singh Bajaj had already died on 4.10.1985. Inder Singh Bajaj and Narinder Kaur had executed Wills dated 16.12.1985 and 3.5.1983 according to which they bequeathed their share in immovable property to plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 besides certain amounts given to the daughters. There were various conflicting claims and counter claims with respect to the moveable and immovable properties. For the sake of peace and preservation of honour and dignity of the family and through the good offices of Harbajan Singh Narula the plaintiff and defendants in order to resolve all family disput...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »