Delhi Court March 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Dr. Vivek Banyal Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)47; AIR2002Delhi251
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petitions are taken up for disposal.2. Civil Writ petition No. 4794/98 has been filed by Dr. Vivek Banyal, who was the Doctor on duty, managing Intensive Coronary Care Unit (ICCU) on the fateful night of 5th and morning of 6th February, 1997.Petitioner in the second civil writ petition No. 6369/98 is the Hospital, Sunder Lal Charitable Hospital.3. Dr. Vivek Banyal, petitioner in CW.No. 4794/98, seeks the relief of setting aside and quashing of the enquiry report i.e., annexure C to the writ petition, which a per the petitioner indicts him. Further directions are sought for restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned indictment of the petitioner.4. In CW.No. 6369/98, Sunder Lal Charitable Hospital, has again sought quashing of the report of the three member enquiry Committee and in particular the observations relating to the petitioner's hospital, as reproduced in para 7 of the writ petition, to be notice...
Rishab Agro Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)838
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The Central question which arises in this appeal is regarding the effect and interpretation of 'excepted matters' clause in the agreement. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.7.1995 dismissing its petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act has preferred this appeal.2. Brief facts relevant to dispose of the appeal are mentioned in the flowing paragraphs.3. The respondent invited tenders of for the supply of milk on annual contract basis for the period from 1.1.1994 to 31.12.1994. The appellant was awarded the contract. According to the terms of the agreement the contract period could be further extended for a period of ninety days on the same terms and conditions at the sole discretion of the General Manager of the respondent. The relevant Clause 5 of the agreement reads as under:-(5) PERIOD OF CONTRACT : The contract shall be operative for the period from 1st January, 1994 to 31st December, 1994. You are required to ...
Ex. Const. Badan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)553; 97(2002)DLT986; 2002(64)DRJ849
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Despite the passage of a quarter-century since the AIDS/HIV infection was diagnosed, the stigma that surrounds it has not subsided. The number of persons who have become victims of this affliction has swelled to such staggering sums, that its pestilential proportions have accused a global effort to be made to combat it. However, the prejudice against the victim of AIDS is easily discernible form the indurate stand that is most often taken by the Authority concerned, in terms of its lack of alacrity to grant relief, as also in the extent or amount of relief allowed to the sufferer. The present petition is an example of this apathy, which is the result of a belief that HIV is the consequence of an immoral act. In this case it is admitted that the petitioner's wife is HIV; and that the parties have a child. Innocence, thereforee, loses all relevance.2. The facts in this unfortunate case are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Border Security Force on 12.6.1990. In...
Shri K.K. JaIn Vs. Federation of Indian Export Organisations and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)793; AIR2002Delhi408; 2002(62)DRJ605
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. An interesting mixed question of law and fact has cropped up for determination in the instant application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The question is whether a person holding an office of a fixed tenure but subject to the fulfillment of the eligibility condition can be allowed to hold the office to complete the tenure in the case he ceases to be eligible for holding that office even for a short while though subsequently by way of re-election becomes eligible for contesting the election of the said office.2. The application seeks stay of the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of defendant no.1-Federation of Indian Export Organisation (in short 'FIEO') in the meeting held on 30.10.2001. The relevant excerpt is as under:-'Mr. K.K. Jain during his tenure as President, FIEO ceased to be a member of the Managing Committee. Consequently he also ceases to be President of FIEO. He is thereforee not eligible to hold the Office of President, FIEO unless he is r...
Vijaya Gurunath Vs. D.T.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)811; 2002(62)DRJ701
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This appeal challenges an order dated 29.1.1987 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi by which a petition filed by the appellant under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation was dismissed. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that accordingly. g to the appellant on 25.12.1977 at about 3.30 p.m. she along with her two children was traveling on a motor-cycle, which was being driven by her husband. They were proceeding from India Gate side towards C-Hexagon on Shahjahan Road. While her husband was trying to take a turn towards right on Pandara Road crossing, suddenly a speeding DTC bus No. DHP-2243, which was being driven by respondent No. 2, appeared from their left side and hit the rear portion of their motor-cycle, as a result of which they were thrown off.2. The appellant alleged that this accident had taken place on account of negligence of respondent No. 2 and had caused serious injuries o...
Colonel Aniltej Singh Dhaliwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ854
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner prays that the Respondents/Army Authorities be directed to reinstate him into service; they be directed to release his arrears of pay and allowances and all other consequential benefits; that they be further directed to release 'TA/DA and other allowances for requiring him to report back for duty'. The response of the Respondents is that 'there is no requirement of an order for reinstatement since the conviction by General Court Martial (for short 'GCM') and subsequent promulgations are wiped off by the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Petitioner is still subject to the Army Act as per Section 2(2).' However subsequently it has been pleaded by the Respondent in paragraph 13 of the Counter Affidavit that 'it is denied that as a result of the Apex Court's decision Petitioner is deemed to be in service and as such is required to be reinstated is contradictory. That the Petitioner is not deemed to be in service but as a result of setting aside ...
Ram Chander Aggarwal Vs. Hans Raj Banga
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)453; 97(2002)DLT564; 2002(63)DRJ7
Usha Mehra, J.1. Shri Bhagwan Dass, predecessor in interest of the appellant was in occupation of a shop at Qutab Road, Delhi. The Ministry of Rehabilitation decided to raise new construction on the said site with assurance to the evictees from the area that they would be given alternative accommodation in the new construction thus made. After evicting Bhagwan Dass and others,k Ministry of Rehabilitation constructed shops/flats known as New Qutab Road properties. The shops were allotted on ownership basis to the displaced persons and allotted on rent basis to the evictees like Bhagwan Dass and others.2. Bhagwan Dass was allotted shop No. 114 New Qutab Road vide allotment letter dated 6th August, 1955 Ex.D-1. His eligibility was confirmed by the Government of India vide letter dated 8th August, 1955 Ex.D-2 and with that he was given the terms of tenancy for the shop in question vide Ex.D-3. The tenancy with the terms as offered by the Government of India was accepted by Bhagwan Dass vid...
Shri Shiv Shankar Rustogi Vs. Shri Uma Shankar Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)702; 99(2002)DLT775; 2002(62)DRJ686
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The avowed intention of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as contained in its preamble, is to provide for control of rents and evictions in Delhi. It is indeed paradoxical that in the present case the protection of the Act is sought by Shri Uma Shankar Sharma (Respondent/tenant herein) in respect of the tenancy granted to him by Shri Shiv Shankar Rastogi (Petitioner/landlord herein). This in respect of a part of the premises bearing No. 5770, Jogi Wara, Nai Sarak, Delhi. Shri Sharma, who is hereinafter referred to as Tenant, is the himself a landlord, being the owner of residential flat No. 114, First Floor, Chilla Dhallupura, New Delhi by virtue of his being a member of the Leiah Group Housing Society. The Tenant has sought exemption from eviction for a period of ten years by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1)(hh) of the Act. The Petitioner/Landlord had successfully contended before the Additional Rent Controller that ...
Shri Ujjagar Singh Vs. Ms. Iqbal Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT646; 2002(62)DRJ7a
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Revision is directed against the Judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, (hereinafter referred to as 'ARC') Delhi in a petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control (hereinafter referred as DRC) Act, 1958. The judgment is lucid, well reasoned and had dealt with all the relevant questions that have arisen in these proceedings.2. The facts are that the Appellant's tenancy commenced on permission being granted under Section 21 of the DRC Act. The Petition had been filed by Smt. Lajwanti Devi, the mother of the Respondent Smt. Iqbal Kaur. The uncontrovertable assumption that can be immediately drawn is that late Smt. Lajwanti Devi was the owner of the premises since this factor cannot be assailed by the tenant as he had been placed in possession of the demised premises by her. Secondly, it must also be assumed that the premises were let for residential purposes only. If the purpose of letting was subsequently changed it ...
Shri Kuldip Mahajan Vs. Smt. Krishna Uppal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)61; 97(2002)DLT619; 2002(62)DRJ521
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as 'the ARC') against the proceedings initiated under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In the impugned Order the ARC has, in the carefully structured judgment, considered all the necessary aspects in the eviction petition for bonafide requirement. The interference of the High Court in its Revisionary jurisdiction is not called for unless the finding of the ARC are perverse, or contrary to an established principles of law. It should be borne in mind that the Legislature has found wisdom in the removal of rights of Appeal, in the interest of an expeditious disposal of claims in the eviction of tenanted premises on the bonafides need of the owner of the premises. 2. The ARC has concluded that the Petitioner/ Landlady, namely, Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the premises in question and has rejected the tenant's averment that her brother w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »