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.
Shri B.L. Dhaluka, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(154)ELT59(Del)
D.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. Since a short point of law is involved, with the consent of counsel for the parties, we proceed to dispose of all these matters finally at this stage itself.3. The issue raised in these writ petitions being identical, for the sake of convenience, these are taken up together and this order shall govern all the cases.4. Challenge in all these writ petitions is to a consolidated order, dated 7 August 2002, passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), New Delhi, under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act), on applications filed by the petitioners seeking waiver of pre-deposits as a condition precedent for entertaining their 24 appeals. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the penalties imposed in each of the orders impugned before it, within eight weeks of the date of receipt of the order.5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the material...
Shri Raj Kumar Chopra Vs. Delhi Development Authority Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT719
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the allotment and disbursal of plots done by the respondents in Naraina Industrial Area Warehousing Scheme and has sought a writ of Mandamus for allotment of plots to the petitioner in the said Scheme.2. The petitioner claims that he is an iron and steel merchant and has been carrying on two different businesses under the name and style of M/s Alita at 10188 Loha Mandi, Motia Khan and as M/s Raj and Company at T-885 Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj. The business is stated to have been carrying on since 1947. The business at T-885, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road was on the site of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, on payment of Tehbazari charges to the respondent corporation.3. The Delhi Development Authority published advertisements in newspapers on 29.10.1965 inviting applications for allotment of industrial plots in different areas from those whose business was located in non-conforming areas of Delhi and the petitioner made two appl...
Aidsa Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT464; 2003(66)DRJ213
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: 'a) issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to publish all the non-statutory administrative instructions/orders, memoranda etc. governing the terms and conditions of service/pensions of persons in Armed Forces and military pensioners within 3 months: b) issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to make the said publications freely available to public; c) in the alternative issue writ of mandamus directing respondents to supply all the administrative instructions/orders and memoranda etc with up to date amendments to the Petitioner with permission to publish at their cost and right to sell the same; and d) pass any other order or further orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.' 2. The terms and conditions of service of Armed Forces are governed by the statutory acts and regulations framed therein. The conditions of service of the Armed Forces are also contained...
Ranjit Dixit Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT782
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of allotment of flat No. 10, Block B, Pocket-5, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi in favor of the petitioner vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 24.9.1991 and prays for allotment of a similar flat in the same area on the same terms and conditions and price with fresh block dates for payment at which earlier flat was allotted to him.2. The petitioner applied for allotment of an MIG flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 in the year 1979. Registration number of the petitioner was 9959 and priority number was 9592. On 18th February, 1991, the petitioner was allotted MIG Flat No. 10, Block B, Pocket-5, Sector 15, Rohini on cash down basis. The petitioner did not receive the allotment-cum-demand letter. However, on 9.5.1991, the petitioner learnt that the said flat had been allotted to Kanwar Bhan Malik when he received the notice from the Court in CW 1509/91. This Court vide order dated 7.5.1991 had directed t...
M.C.D. Vs. Shri Manohar Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT292; 2003(66)DRJ246
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The common question of law arises in these petitions as to whether land value of commercial lands can be taken into consideration for determination of rateable value in respect of land for which designated use is residential but the same is being used for commercial purposes.2. The writ petitions have been filed impugning the order of the appellate authority in terms whereof the appellate authority has been that where a property meant for residential use is being used in part or full commercial purposes, it is not permissible for the assessing authority to take the land rates meant for commercial activities whether proportionately or in full. The appellate authorities were of the view that unless the land has been notified or declared by the Government or any of its agencies as meant for commercial activities, the market price of land in respect of the same cannot be taken by treating the same as meant for commercial activity while fixing the rateable value.3. ...
Om Parkash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT613
ORDER1. The prayer made in the application is to clarify/modify the judgment dated 24.8.2001 and to hold the appellants also entitled to interest on the additional amount payable under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) along with interest on solarium, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has answered the reference, which was made to a Larger Bench in Sunder v. Union of India 93 (2001) DLT 569.2. The appellants in the judgment dated 24.8.2001 were held entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The Supreme Court had not answered the reference which was made as regards interest on solarium and additional amount. Accordingly in the judgment by the Supreme Court it was provided that as and when the reference is decided and interest is held payable on solarium the appellants will also be paid interest. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that since the appellants were also held entitled to the addition...
Dalip Singh Oberoi Deceased Through His Legal Representatives, Vs. Sta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ306
Madan Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) is aggrieved by an order dismissing him from service as far back as in 1986.2. The Petitioner was appointed with Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the Bank) and confirmed as a Grade-I officer on 1st August, 1976. When the State bank of India (Determination of Terms & Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 came into force, the Petitioner was placed in the grade of Junior Management Grade Scale-I (for short JMG Scale-I).3. While the Petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the Jwalaheri, Paschim Vihar branch of the Bank, certain irregularities came to the notice of the Respondents. Accordingly, on or about 9th May, 1984 the Chief Regional Manager of the Bank asked the Audit Verification Cell to look into the irregularities. A detailed report was prepared by the Audit Verification Cell and submitted to the Chief Regional Manager on 22nd May, 1984.4. While the report was under considerati...
Yogesh Prasad Soti Vs. Ram Narayan @ Balti Baba
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT669; 2003(67)DRJ7; (2003)134PLR29
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC.2. Briefly the facts are that the defendant died on 9.4.2000 which came to the knowledge of plaintiff on 11.7.2000 during the course of hearing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. It is stated that the earlier counsel of the plaintiff did not take timely steps for impleading the legal representative of the defendant. It was only in October 2000 that the plaintiff was asked by his earlier counsel to sign two applications, one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the other under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for bringing on record the legal representative of the defendant. The said applications were got attested on 3.11.2000 and were stated to have been filed on 6.11.2000 vide diary No. 76832 as would be seen from Annexure P-3 to the present application. However, as the same had been stated to be misplac...
Aarohi Builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Shri Rajeshwar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT686; 2003(67)DRJ169
C. K. Mahajan, J.1. These are the applications filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order 22 Rules 4 and 5 for bringing the legal heirs of defendant No.1 on record and to set aside the abatement, and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing I.A. 1197/2000.2. Defendant No.1 expired on 11.2.1999. Plaintiffs claim to have knowledge of the death on 23.9.1999 when the counsel for the defendants made a statement in Court. The plaintiffs filed the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC on 27.1.2000, i.e., after a lapse of more than four months along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC.3. The applicant contends that due to lack of communication, the information could not be passed on to the plaintiff and application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC could not be filed. It is also stated that on 25.1.2000 when the files were taken out for the next day, i.e., 27.1.2000 t...
Shri K.G. Bhandari Vs. Delhi Jal Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT938
ORDER It has been observed by C.T.E. that sometime documents are being made part of the contract agreement which are purely 'Internal'. All officers are requested to exercise due care in preparing the Contract Agreement, so that irrelevant papers do not form part of the Contract Agreement. (a) Commissioner's letter (called preamble) should not be placed on agreement, however, Resolution and Annexures should invariably form part of the Agreement. (b) Comparative Statement of tenders need not be made part of the Agreement. (c) Sometime duplicate copies of papers submitted by the Contractor are also found placed in the Agreement File. This should be strictly avoided. 8. The matter has been further examined in the light of observations of C.V.C. (CTE's Organisation) contained in their letter dated 6-11-1991 and suggestions made by them in the above mentioned letter. Following amendments are issued to all concerned for strict compliance for finalising the Contract Agreement in the Delhi Wat...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »