Delhi Court December 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.
Sohan Singh Hotels Ltd. and ors. Vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC120
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the records.Even according to the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellants, their application for setting aside the ex parte final order dated 22.2.2002 was dismissed on 3.6.2002, and they had not filed any appeal against this order within time. Without doing so, even according to the appellants, they filed a second application along with an application for condonation of delay before the learned Presiding Officer to set aside the same ex parte final order. The learned Presiding Officer considered their application and dismissed it by order dated 16.10.2002.2. While considering the earlier application, he observed that the applicant/appellants were proceeded ex parte on 1.6.2001, that, on a application to set aside the order setting them ex parte, the said order was set aside by order dated 17.10.2001 subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost. He has pointed out that the costs were not paid.Earlier by order dated 2.3.200...
Ram Niwas Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT146; 2003(67)DRJ211
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This Criminal Writ Petition has been preferred against the order dated 1.2.2002 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police and the same which was later affirmed by the Ltd. Governor vide his order dated 203.2002.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under.3. It is alleged that the petitioner has been a victim of conspiracy because of his involvement in politics. It is alleged that in order to malign the reputation of the petitioner the rival party and its workers have been getting false cases registered against him in connivance with the local police. Since 1995 the following cases have been registered against the petitioner:-S,No. FIR No. & DateSection of LawPolice Station 1. 455 dt, 3.9.95147/148/149/45/ 342/426 IPC & 27 Arms ActBhajanpura 2. 624 of 1996324/341/506/34 IPCSeelampur. 3. 233 of 200025/54/59 Arms ActShahdara. 4. 39 ,of 2001341/307/34 IPCNand Nagri 5. 452 of 2001341/506/323/34 IPCSeelampur.4. In a...
Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Marut Nandan Overseas Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(87)ECC36; 2003(156)ELT175(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. M/s Marut Nandan Overseas Ltd., who is respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, filed Suit No. 1900/2000 on the original side of this court which is still pending adjudication. This suit is for declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of loss, damages and compensation. The prayers made in the suit are to the following effect:a) pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 9,50,644/- towards the loss and damages and compensation against the defendants No. 1, 2 and 6 severally and jointly, along with interest pendentelite and future at the rate of 24% p.a.b) pass a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 2 to immediately release the goods after deposit of the customs duty by the plaintiff as assessed and without any demurrage/detention charges and the defendant No. 3 & 4 be restrained from auctioning the goods.c) declare that the plaintiff is not liable to pay the demurrage/detention charges and other incidental and ancillary charges ...
Kuldip Singh and Ram Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 67(2003)DLT17
H.R. Malhotra, J.1. These are two sets of appeals; one preferred by the appellant Kuldip Singh (being Criminal Appeal No. 315/2001) and another composite appeal by the appellant Ram Singh and Om Prakash (being Cr. Appeal No. 476/2001).2. All the three appellants were tried by the Court of Session for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 and also under Section 386 and 460 of Indian Penal Code. They were held guilty for these offences vide impugned judgment dated 28th April, 2001. Learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the appellants on the point of sentence and awarded life imprisonment to all the three appellants besides imposing of fine of Rs. 500/- on each of them. All the three appellants were also sentenced to undergo 7 years imprisonment besides fine for commission of offence punishable under Section 460/34 IPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment they have preferred th...
Rama Tube Company and Sanjay Steel Tube Company Vs. Jay Rapid Roller L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT672; [2003]44SCL555(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. CP 332/2000 1. This winding-up petition has been filed on the allegation that the Petitioner, who is engaged in the business of steel pipes, M.S. Pies and various other steel items, had been supplying these items to the respondent who is engaged in the manufacture of rubberized and steel rollers consumed in the printing, textile and paper industries. In paragraph six of the petition it has been pleaded that - 'On account of the supply of the material, a current and running account was being maintained by the petitioner in respect of all the transactions had with the respondent-company'. It is the Petitioner's case that payments were to be made within thirty days failing which interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum would be chargeable. The Statement of Accounts has been filed as Annexure 'A' showing an amount of Rs. 27,62,585.03 due and payable on account of principal amount of Rs. 31,01,934/- towards interest, aggregating to Rs. 58,64,520 outstanding in favor ...
Media Transasia Ltd. and anr. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT237
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE8. It was primarily argued by the appellants before the learned Single Judge that all over the world the in-flight magazine is identified as the brand ambassador of the concerned Airline and as such has characteristic of exclusivity. It was also argued that the respondents could not undertake publication of another magazine 'DARPAN' during the subsistence of agreement dated 14.5.1998 between the appellants and IA. Thus agreement dated 10.5.2002 between Alliance Air and respondent No. 3 was in breach of the appellants' agreement and the exclusivity reserved for them in respect of their magazine 'SWAGAT'.9. The case of the respondents on the other hand was that no such exclusive agreement was entered into between the appellants and is nor was there any such negative covenant in the agreement. thereforee, is was free to have another in-flight magazine on its aircrafts. Same was the stand of Alliance Air as well as respondent No. 3. Both these respondents a...
Vishnu Dev Bhagat and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ64
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule 2. Petitioner, numbering, 2, who are allottees of shops at Vasant Vihar Shopping Complex have filed the present petition, seeking a writ/direction to restrain the respondents from cancelling their licenses and recovering the license fee from the date of allotment of the shops. It is also prayed that the payment of license fee be waived till the water and electricity is made available for the shopping complex, without which it is impossible to carry on business activities.3. Petitioners submit that the Directorate of Estates, Marketing Section had called for sealed tenders for allotment of shops/stalls at Vasant Vihar Complex in July, 1998. Shops/stalls were allotted to the highest bidders. Respondent had also fixed a minimum fee and as such the bidder had to quote a figure higher than the minimum/reserved fee. Petitioners' grievance is that while inviting tenders, respondents did not disclose that water and electricity were not available. Upon issuance of all...
Smt. Champa Gulati and anr. Vs. Commissioner, Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi268; 102(2003)DLT504
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The scrounge of rampant unauthorized construction and misuse of residential properties for commercial use permeates almost all over Delhi. This has resulted in an attitude of the builders and owners that despite breaking all rules and regulations for construction and user of the property, no action would be taken. The only answer of such people is that others are also doing the same thing. They have become law unto their own selves. This brazen violation of all norms necessary for the maintenance and planned development of Delhi must be put down with a firm hand and no indulgence is liable to be shown to such persons in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The present case is one such case where the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 23rd July 1987 has been impugned.3. The property in question is bearing No. H-10 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and building plan for construction of a residential structure was sanctioned on 17...
Ram Gopal Nayyar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ545
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioners, Ram Gopal Nayyar Son of late Lachman Dass Nayyar and Mr. Harish Nayyar son of Mr. Ram Gopal Nayyar have filed the present writ petition seeking number of reliefs. Petitioners assail the demand for payment of unearned increase by the L & DO, as a condition for grant of consent for transfer as un-warranted under the terms of perpetual lease and under the provisions of the Government Grants Act.2. During the course of the hearing of the writ petition, Mr. K.N. Kataria, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner, on instructions from Mr. Ashok Marwaha, Advocate and petitioner Mr. Ram Gopal Nayyar, who was present in court, stated that the petitioners would be satisfied, if the unearned increase is charged from them at the rates, which were prevailing upon the date of application made for seeking consent for transfer.3. It would be relevant at this stage to note the facts in brief:(i) The L & DO had executed a registered perpetual lease deed in respect of ...
Poonam Chopra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT804; 2003(67)DRJ35; 2003(1)SLJ212(Delhi)
Khan, J.1. Petitioner, an Arjuna award holder and an Inspector in the CISF, was dismissed from service by order dated 16.4.1998 for her alleged unauthorised absence of 138 days. She has filed this petition for setting aside this order and for her reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.2. Petitioner was first appointed as Head Constable in sports quota in the CISF on 24.4.1992 and posted at Bhilai. She was then attached to the Head Quarters at Delhi for participation in major Judo competitions. She was promoted as Sub-Inspector and later as Inspector on 15.9.1996 for her remarkable performance in the Judo competitions and for earning gold, silver and bronze medals for the Force. She says that she was not required to attend to any of the duties or trainings attached to the Force but was left free to train in the judo to perform well and earn medals for the Force. This coupled with her other achievements aroused jealousy of some of her colleagues leading to registration of a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »