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.
Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking Vs. Bhimandas Ambwani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)934; 2002(63)DRJ429
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. An important question of law as regards interpretation of different provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to (SIC) Appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.11.1982 passed by a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble S. Ranganathan, J., as he then was) of this Court.2. A land measuring 3 bighas 3 bids was comprised in Khasra No. 307 in Village Kilokari was the subject matter of the writ petition. The writ petitioner, i.e., respondent No. 1 herein purchased the said land on 03.03.1962. The sale deed was registered on 06.06.1962. He got the said land mutated in his name on 17.08.1964. Prior thereto a notification dated 05.03.1963 was issued purported to be in terms of Section 4 of the said Act in relation to the land admeasuring 139 bighas and 2 bids was situated in the said village stating that the land was likely to be required to be taken by the Government on a public expense for a public purpose, namely, planned development of Del...
Delhi Stock Exchange and anr. Vs. K.C. Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)432; 98(2002)DLT234
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Several question of importance are involved in this Letters Patent Appeal which arise out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court dated 7th July 1999 wherein the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein questioning termination of his services has been allowed.FACTS: 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The first respondent was appointed as General Manager of the appellant herein on or about 5th May 1992. His services were confirmed on 13th November 1993. The terms and conditions of service contained a provision whereby services could be terminated by either of the parties upon giving three months' notice or salary in lieu thereof. The writ petitioner respondent contended that he had been satisfactorily and diligently performing his duties where for he received appreciations and rewards. It has been contended that he being on honest and upright person, took stern decisions by imposing heavy penalties on erring companies and brok...
Indian Telecom Service Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)746
S. Mukerjee, J. 1. The petitioner association has preferred this writ petition praying for quashing of a letter/office order dated 8.5.2000 issued by respondents 1 and 2 seeking option from the Members of the Petitioner association for their permanent absorption in the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as MTNL). The brief background of certain essential facts as apparent from the undisputed pleadings of the parties, may be capsulated at the outset:- 2. On 1st April, 1986, Government of India transferred the Telecom Operations in Union Territory of Delhi, Bombay, New Bombay and Thane Municipal Area, constituting what are described to be the 'creamiest layer' of consumers from Department of Telecommunications to the newly incorporated Government Company known as Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. For the above purposes, the Government of India, Ministry of Communications had vide its letter dated 18th March 1986 transferred the staff of the Department of Telecomm...
Sh. R. Kapur Vs. Director of Inspection Rsp and Pr Income Tax and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)118
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This case has a chequered history. The petitioner retired from the post of Director General (Income-Tax) in February, 1986 and is still litigating for release of his terminal dues. The first application was filed by the petitioner for this purpose before the Central Administrative Tribunal way back in June, 1987. Certain payments were made to him. The petitioner had also to approach the Supreme Court earlier and by order dated 29th September, 1994 the Supreme Court directed grant of interest at the rate of CWP NO: 2143/2001: 18 per cent per annum on the dues belatedly. 2. It may be mentioned that there was some dispute about the non-vacation of the staff accommodation allotted to the petitioner and the respondents wanted recovery of penal rent from the petitioner for over-staying in the premises. The Supreme Court in its order dated 29th September, 1994 accordingly permitted the respondents to recover damages under Fundamental Rule 45-A while granting payment of inter...
A. Amrender Reddy Vs. Indian Agricultural Research Institute
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT712
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner did his B.Sc in agriculture in 1993 and M.Sc. in the year 1996. The petitioner stood first in All India Entrance Examination for the Ph.D in the respondent institution held in September 1996 and pursued his research from September 1996 to June 2000. The petitioner initially started his research under the supervision of the Chairman Dr. Selvarajan who left the respondent organization and thereafter Dr. Chotan Singh was made the Chairman. The petitioner apparently requested for the change of the Chairman. At the request of the petitioner Dr. R.K. Pandey was appointed as the Chairman.4. The controversy in the present matter arose due to the allegation that Dr. Pandey had been rude to the petitioner and a complaint was made by the petitioner on 1.6.2000 to the following effect:'As my chairman is not only co-operative, but he is sexually abusing, wh...
R.K. Shewaramani Vs. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ141Del
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The services of the petitioner were terminated by an order dated 08.01.1991 purported to be in terms of Rule 30(A) of the IDPL, Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules').2. It is not in dispute that the first respondent herein is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India (in short, 'the Constitution'). The writ petitioner herein at the material time was a medical Representative working under the first respondent. He was a joint convenor of the trade union from the very beginning and, according to him, he, thus, became eye sore of the management, who had been looking forward for an opportunity to victimize him.3. He was transferred from Delhi to Eluru in the State of Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 17.06.1989. Allegedly a number of office bearers and active members of the Union had been transferred. Such a stand, according to the petitioner, had been taken to break down the trade union and t...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. R.S. Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ508
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. By an order dated 23rd May 1996 in LPA No. 125/96 a Division Bench of this Court referred the matter to a Larger Bench, stating therein as under:We are finding repeatedly cases coming to this court wherein allottees of plots or flats from DDA are not conforming to the dates fixed in the orders of allotment for payment of consideration. Parties are coming after the expiry of the due dates and in some cases, after a delay of years. They say that they are prepared to pay the amount now with interest. The point here is that the grant of indulgence in such cases is seriously interfering with the various schemes of allotment brought in by the DDA in various localities under various schemes. It has, thereforee, become necessary to give an authoritative pronouncement as to whether it is permissible to give indulgence to those who have not conformed to the schedule relating the payments. The matter will be placed before the Full Bench of three Judges. On this limited issue, i...
Dr. B.L. Wadhera Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT484
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Non-user of the Refuse Incinerator-cum-Power Generation Plant (hereinafter called 'the plant' in short) which was imported at a cost of Rs. 20 crores from a Danish supplier is the subject matter of this writ petition which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. 2. The supply of the said plat was to enable the State to generate electric energy from garbage. The Ministry could not enter into any understanding with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi/Delhi Vidyut Board for the said purpose. Allegedly, no demonstration was given by the said Danish supplier as regards its successful operation. Disputes and differences having arisen between the Central Government and the said Danish supplier, the matter was referred to arbitration in London. The London Arbitration Tribunal gave its award in 1993 against the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources and in favor of the said Danish supplier. In the year 1999, the Ministry initiated fresh attempts through issue of ...
Sudhir Goel Vs. S.P. Sabarwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: [2003]41SCL325(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. A notice of an arbitrator appointed by this Court in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') was questioned by the appellant herein by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2000.2. The appellant herein was employed with respondent No. 2. A dispute arose as regards enforceability of a bond executed by the appellant for his refusal to serve respondent No. 2 for a period of 7 years which is said to be the condition for being sent to Japan.3. A noticed dated 21.09.2000 was served upon the petitioner by the company, i.e., respondent No. 2 directing him to serve the company for 7 years or pay damages amounting to Rs.66,72,000/-.4. According to the petitioner, the said notice did not conform to the provisions of Section 21 of the said Act.5. The appellant contended that there did not exist any arbitration clause for ...
Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. Vs. Alutec Inc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT428; [2003]41SCL334(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. A judgment and order dated 14.09.2001, passed in an application filed by the respondent herein purported to be under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being A.A. No. 236 of 1998 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, is the subject matter of this writ petition.2. Having regard to the question involved in this writ petition, it is not necessary to state the facts of the matter in great details.3. The parties herein entered into a service agreement on 25.11.1994 in terms whereof the respondent was required to provide consultancy services for the 'Due Diligence Process' and project implementation activities for engineering, technological, environmental, economic, financial and legal analysis of the three targeted companies identified through the 'Search & Screen Process.'4. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said agreement, services of sub-consultants were taken to prepare 'Due Diligence Report' where af...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »