Delhi Court November 2002 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.
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Rama Minerals and Chemicals and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC388; [2003]115CompCas883(Delhi); 2003(66)DRJ550; [2003]42SCL1(Delhi)
S.K. Agarwal, J. IA. No. 5971/2001 1. This order will dispose of application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 20.2.1998 moved by defendant No. 6 as per amended memo of parties (defendant No. 5 as per original memo of parties).2. The plaintiff, Punjab and Sind Bank, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,69,340.36 together with interest thereon. The amount is recoverable by selling the immovable properties mortgaged by defendant No. II with the bank. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte. On 20th February, 1998 ex-parte decree was passed. It is pleaded that the defendants were never served summons/notices. The defendants became aware of the decree only on receipt of the recovery notice from the Recovery Office after execution proceedings were initiated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal No. 2, Delhi. It is pleaded that the applicant was residing at Saharanpur, where he was working since 1968; as per the service report, defendants including ...
Sikha Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.D. Adlakha Trust and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT478; 2003(66)DRJ117
S. Mukerjee, J.IA No. 99/20011. This application has been filed by the plaintiff for treating issues No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as preliminary issues. At the outset when the learned counsel started their submissions in the matter, it was agreed by both counsel, that issue No. 4 no longer survives for consideration and that neither of the parties is pressing for this issue to be decided.2. The objections of the learned counsel for the defendant, is primarily on the point that in this case the issues were framed as far back as on 12th March, 1999 where after even dates of trial were fixed for 12th and 13th December, 2000, and that even though trial could not commence,yet this request has come at a belated stage.3. Learned counsel for the defendant also refers to the dismissal as withdrawn of another application filed by the plaintiff, for framing of additional issues. He submits that after the case has been posted for trial and regardless of whether the trial has actually started or not, it is no...
Harish Sharma Vs. Ramesh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT679
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this sit for permanent injunction against the defendants from selling, assigning, parting with possession, letting out etc. the whole or part of property Nos. 737 to 739 (New No 9/6919) Gali Arya Samaj, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi as shown in red in site plan attached (hereinafter 'the suit property').2. The plaintiff is a grand son of Babu Lal who died on 13.9.1982. He had three sons, namely Bishan Dayal, Shankar Lal and Rajender Pal and two daughters, Saroj and Bimla. Bishan Dayal one of his sons died during his lifetime, leaving behind his wife and one son. Plaintiff is the son of Rajender Pal. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are the Legal Representatives of Shankar Lal and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are the Legal Representatives of Bishan Dayal. Babu Lal was the owner of property No. 737-740, Gali Arya Samaj, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Gali Arya Samaj, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.3. The plaintiff's father on the basis of the Will executed by Babu lal, inherited property No. ...
Ch. Chatter Singh Saini and Co. Vs. Delhi Jal Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ73
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the eligibility conditions No.1(b) stipulated in NIT No.6 (2002-2003). By this NIT, tenders are invited for P/L and Jointing Sagarpur Trunk Sewer (500-1800mm dia) NP3 Class RCC Pipes for Palam Group of Colonies. The estimated cost of the work is Rs. 5,09,16.861. Para-1 of the aforesaid NIT stipulates three conditions which are required if fulfilled by intending contractor before he becomes eligible to apply. This para reads as under:'(a) Should have satisfactorily completed works of providing and laying of sewer lines of 500mm dia and above costing Rs. 50 lacs or above during the last seven years.(b) Should have average annual financial turnover or Rs. 250 lacs of Civil Construction work during the last three years.(c) Should have a solvency of Rs. 500 lacs.'2. As mentioned above, the petitioner has challenged Condition No.1 (b) as per which contractor should have average annual financial turnover of Rs. 250 lacs of civil con...
Ex-signalman Shri Bhagwan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secreta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT269; 2003(3)SLJ303(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. By this judgment and order, we propose to deal with the matter relating to grant of disability pension to Army personnel below officer rank so that several similar petitions raising similar questions as have been raised in this petition are disposed of.-I-Facts 2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution lie in a narrow compass. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Army as a regular combatant on 11th January, 1984. Before his enrolment, he was subjected to a detailed medical examination. The Petitioner was found medically fit at the time of his joining the Army.3. In the year 1990, the Petitioner developed neurotic depression. He was admitted to the Army Hospital on 7th December, 1990 at Nazirabad. Thereafter, he was transferred to a hospital in Jodhpur on 30th December, 1990.4. On 10thApril, 1991, the Petitioner was recommended for being invalided out from the Army by the Medical Board. The Graded Specialist (Psychiatry) opin...
Mr. Jai Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ677
S.K. Agarwal, J.This order will disposes of objections filed by respondent-Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') challenging the Arbitrator's award dated 3rd June, 1994, which is sought to be made as a rule of the court.1. Facts in brief are that petitioner is a contractor carrying on business under the sole proprietorship concern M/s. J.S. Constructions; DDA awarded a contract for construction of 496 MIG houses at Mansarovar Park including internal development thereof to the petitioner; during execution of the contract disputes arose between the parties and as per agreement, Engineer Member DDA vide letter No. EM2 85/91/arbn.11950-54 dated 14th September, 1991 appointed Shri S.S. Kaimal as the sole Arbitrator to decide and make an award in respect of disputes falling within the purview of Clause 25 of the contract (hereinafter the 'The agreement'); on 3rd June, 1994, the Arbitrator gave his award directing the DDA to pay to the claimant/petitioner Rs. 5,07,106/- (Rupees five l...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Del)378
ORDER1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal does involve substantial questions of law, 2. Admit. 3. The following questions of law are framed for adjudication : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to recompute the assessed's income by adopting the changed method of accounting (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed-firm was entitled to the full depreciation as claimed in respect of vehicles acquired and leased out by it on 30th Sept., 1993/31st March, 1994, even though the said vehicles were not put to use during the accounting period ?' 4. Insofar as proposed question No. (c) is concerned, the Tribunal has merely upheld the order passed by the CIT(A) remanding the matter back to the AO for reconsideration of the question of depreciation in case the assessed produces the re...
Krishna Vanti Vs. Modi Overseas and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT482; 2003(67)DRJ1
S. Mukherjee, J. is NO. 177/02 1. This application has been filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by the defendants, primarily on the ground that there is a bar in law to the entertaining of the present suit, in terms of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act which reads as under:'50. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant there from or to any other matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted by any civil court or other authority. (2) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is any suit or proceeding pending in any civil court for the eviction of any tenant from a...
Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ509
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner by this writ petition challenges the order dated 10.12.2001, passed by the Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. An order of eviction had been passed pursuant to the order of cancellation of allotment of the quarter in favor of the petitioner.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation of the allotment of the petitioner was not proper as the petitioner had not sub-let the premises. The Authorities had carried out an inspection on 28.4.2000, when one Shri Rajender with his family was found to be staying in the quarter allotted to the petitioner. The occupant duly signed the said inspection report. He claimed to be a friend of the petitioner. It is the respondents' case that thereafter a public notice was taken out, calling upon all employees to remove the breaches and any sub-letting or parting with possession of public...
Social Jurist Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT523
ORDER1. The Government of India (GOI) and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Government of NCT of Delhi) have been allotting land to various hospitals free of cost or on concessional rates. It is estimated by Qureshi Committee that about 400 hospitals were given land either free of cost or on concessional rates with the condition that 25% of the total number of beds in Indoor Patient Department (IPD) and 40% of the total number of patients in Outdoor Patient Department (OPD) shall be treated free of charge. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that the aforesaid condition has been observed in breach by most of the hospitals. Despite the fact that the condition was not being complied with, the authorities have not taken any action against the institutions to whom land has been given free of charge or on concessional basis. The Qureshi Committee with regard to free treatment facilities to the poor and the needy by these hospitals has made certain recommendations. 3. Acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »