Delhi Court March 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 P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State Through Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2401; 97(2002)DLT452; 2002(63)DRJ331
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao and Shri Buta Singh have filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 638 of 2000 and 621 of 2000 respectively challenging the findings of the Special Judge holding them guilty of the charges framed against them while the Rastriya Mukti Morcha has filed Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2001 challenging the acquittal of Capt. Satish Sharma, Shri V. Rajeshwar Rao, Shri H.M. Revanna, Shri Ramalinga Reddy, Shri M. Veerappa Moilu, Shri D.K. Audikesavulu, Shri M. Thimme Gowda, Shri Bhajan Lal and Shri Ajit Singh, charged and tried along with the appellants. 2. The relevant facts of the case, as noted by the trial court are: "1. That in the general election of 10th Lok Sabha in 1991, Congress (I) emerged as single largest party. It formed the government at the centre under the leadership of accused, P.V. Narasimha Rao (A-1). Monsoon Session of 10^th Lok Sabha was to commence on 26.7.93. A "No Confidence Motion" was moved against the Govt. by Shri Ajay Mukhopadhya, a C.P.I. ...
Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar Vs. Delhi School Teachers Co-operative Hou ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi330; 2002(3)ARBLR458(Delhi)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.1981 passed in Suit No. 29-A of 1977 by the learned Single Judge. The appellant, M/s Kishan Chand Surendra Kumar moved a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in which it is incorporated that the respondent gave the contract of development of its land measuring 666 bighas and 17 bids was situated in Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi for the purpose of a residential colony. A cheque for Rs. 50,000/- was given to the appellant, but it was dishonoured. Subsequently the respondent paid two cheques of Rs. 5,000/- each to the appellant.2. On 19.11.1967 the appellant learnt that the respondent had entered into arrangement for development of the same land with another contractor. Under these circumstances the appellant alleged that the respondent had committed breach of agreement dated 18.5.1967 and asserted that the agreement contained an arbitration clause. Under these circumstances the appellant moved a petit...
Lama Transport Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ARBLR218(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT874; 2002(64)DRJ350
B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. Against an award dated 19.7.1988, the applicant/respondent, Union of India, filed its objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which came up for hearing on 7th of April, 1997. There was, however, no appearance on behalf of the applicant/respondent. Its objections were, thus, dismissed. The award was made rule of the court and a decree was passed in terms thereof.2. The applicant/respondent filed an application being IA. No. 7209/01 under Order IX Rule 13/Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC on 2nd of August, 2001. It was accompanied by an IA. No. 7210/01 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of Delay in making the said IA. 7209/01. Another IA. No. 7211/01 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC had also been filed for stay of operation of the decree dated 7.4.1997.3. The applicant/respondent being stationed at Dantak, Bhutan, with no office in Delhi, had allegedly been dependent on the Litigation Branch at Delhi for prosecuting its objecti...
Delhi Financial Corporation Vs. Shri Harish Chander Gulati
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)256; [2004]120CompCas223(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT577; 2002(62)DRJ705; [2004]55SCL11(Delhi)
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. The Short question that arises for adjudication in this civil main petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the petitioner Delhi Financial Corporation can resort to both of the remedies available under Section 31 and Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1956 (the Act in short) for recovery of any loan or advance outstanding against the industrial concern. 2. The factual metric of the case as disclosed by the pleadings of the parties are as follows. The petitioner Delhi Financial Corporation (the Corporation) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- to M/s. Durgesh Copper & Brass Rolling Mills, Delhi, of which Mr. Durgeshwar Parshad Bhatnagar was the sole proprietor, against hypothecation of its property. Mrs. Renu Bhatnagar, w/o Mr. H.P. Bhatnagar and Mr. Harish Chander Gulati, (who is respondent herein) stood sureties for due repayment of the loan advanced. Out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- the borrower a...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Central Distillary and Breweries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR32(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT275; 2002(63)DRJ516
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The virus of Rule 21 of the Delhi Country Liquor Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1962 is in question in this LPA and connected writ petition.2. The basic fact of the matter, which is similar in all the cases, is not much in dispute.3. However, for the purpose of disposal of these cases, we may note the fact of the matter from CWP 1253/2000.4. The writ petitioners have been grated license for wholesale supply of liquor in form CLW-1/L-9. In terms of the conditions of the said license, liquor was to be supplied in the bottles at the rates specified therein. The petitioner deposited the security amount and license fees in terms of the Terms and Conditions thereforee. In terms of Clause 20 of the Terms and Conditions of the Contract, the licensee is required to hold such stocks of liquor as are considered by the Collector of Excise to meet day-to-day requirements of the country liquor vends and failure on his part to do so would entail him to pay penalty not exceeding Rs. 2/- pe...
Cce Vs. Schablona India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC819Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 17.2.1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Ceramic Transfers falling under sub heading 4901.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short Act) and are availing modvat facility under Rule 57-A/57-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short Rules). The respondents availed modvat credit under Rule 57-Q on Air Cooled Air Conditioners and Environment Control systems imported by them to the tune of Rs. 4,67,845/-which was disallowed on the ground that the goods were not used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product and as such, do not come under the purview of definition of capital goods given in Explanation to Rule 57-Q. A penalty of Rs. 4,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173-Q(bb) of the Rules.2. The learned JDR Shri B...
Ashutosh Dawar Trust Vs. Director of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)82ITD593(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Director of IT (Exemptions) (hereinafter referred to as 'DI') rejecting the application for registration made under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961 by the appellant trust.2. One of the conditions stipulated for granting exemption from income-tax to a charitable or religious trust or institution is that the institution in question must be registered under Section 12A. Prior to 1st April, 1997, the filing of such an application was a mere formality since the only requirements were that the application be made in accordance with the requirements of Section 12A r/w Rule 17A of the IT Rules, 1962 and that Form No. 16A was properly filled up. An order of registration was not necessary and mere filing was considered as due compliance with the legal provisions.3. With effect from 1st April, 1997, the registration of a trust or institution was made mandatory as per the procedure laid down in Section 12AA. Under Clause (a) of Section 12...
Castrol Limited and anr. Vs. Mr. Subhash Kapoor and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)327; 97(2002)DLT896; 2002(24)PTC628(Del)
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction arising out of infringement of trade mark and passing off. Though initially the relief of rendition of accounts of profits and delivery was also sought but it has now been given up. The case of the plaintiff is based on the following premise:-2. That the plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated under the laws of England and has been carrying on its business on large and extensive scale in the manufacture, processing and marketing of high grade lubricating oil products in the united Kingdom and in several countries all over the world under the trade mark CASTROL of which it is a registered proprietor.3. That the plaintiff No. 2 is engaged in the business of processing and trading in high grade automotive and industrial lubricants, greases, brake fluids, wood preservatives, metal cleaning compounds and various speciality products in India. It is also the registered proprietor of the trade mark INDROL registered under Clause 4 in ...
Sh. Sadhu Ram Singla Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)97; [2002]111CompCas52(Delhi); 2002CriLJ2760; 97(2002)DLT556; 2002(62)DRJ351
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. This order will govern the disposal of Crl.M.(M) Nos. 4492, 4731, 4673, 4732 and 4173 of 2000 filed by the same petitioner seeking quashment of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act').2. In Crl.M.(M) 4492/2000 quashment is sought of 7 complaints filed by Raunaq Finance Ltd. In Crl.M.(M) 4731/2000 quashment is sought of one complaint filed by Daewoo Motors Ltd while in Crl.M.(M) 4673 of one complaint filed by Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Fortis Financial Services Ltd is the complainant of the complaint whereof quashment is sought by filing Crl.M.(M) 4732/2000. In Crl.M.(M) 4173/2000 quashment is sought of a complaint filed by DCM Sri Ram Leasing and Finance Ltd. In complaints filed by said Raunaq Finance Ltd, Daewoo Motors Ltd, Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd and DCM Sri Ram Leasing and Finance Ltd, the petitioner has been imp leaded as accused No. 2. In the complaint filed by Fortis Financial Services Ltd, petitioner has be...
Mr. S.K. JaIn Vs. Mr. P.S. Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)596
Usha Mehra, J.1. The employees of the Delhi University were governed by the rules known as The University Non-teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Services) Rules 1971 (hereinafter called the Rules). These Rules provided for creation of posts, recruitment, appointment and seniority of the staff of the University. Schedule of posts were indicated by the Executive Council from time to time. Prior to the passing of these Rules such matters were governed by the Regulations which were approved by the Executive Council. In the Schedule of posts under the Rules as well as under the Regulation there existed a post of Superintendent. According to the Resolution of the Executive Council No. 36 dated 20th April, 1964 Steno-Typists as well as Stenographers were eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants and Superintendents. The eligibility condition was that they must be Graduate and should have good confidential reports. However, the Executive Council by its ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »