Delhi Court April 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.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Colet Steels Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT819
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. These are the applications moved by defendant Nos. 3 & 4 for rejecting the plaint against them for non-disclosure of cause of action or in the alternative, deletion of their names being unnecessary parties.2. Admittedly, defendant Nos. 3 & 4 were once directors of defendant No. 1-Company. Defendant No. 2 is the promotor. Suit has already been decreed against defendants 1 & 2.3. The main contention is that both defendants 3 & 4 had resigned from the directorship of defendant No.1 Company on 29.8.1996 and 14.1.1997 respectively. Their resignations were accepted by resolution of the Company and intimation about their resignations were also sent to the Registrar of Companies. It is contended that transactions in question took place much after their resignations, they were no where connected with the affairs of the Company and moreover as per own showing of the plaintiff, cause of action to file suit arose against the defendants from May, 1997 onwards. It is further conten...
Sahibe Alam Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)427; 98(2002)DLT167; 2002(62)DRJ791
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition by the accused has been preferred against the order dated 29th May 2001 ordering framing of charge under Section 120B IPC as also the charge framed pursuant thereto on 27th June 2001 against him by an Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No.445/99 PS New Friends Colony.2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. On 20th July 1999 at about 9.10 PM four persons snatched a brief case containing amount of Rs.5,10,450/- from Mool Chand, uncle of the informant and after chase one of them, namely, Abdul Faheem was apprehended with brief case while remaining three persons were successful in fleeing away. In his statement Abdul Faheem disclosed that Mohd. Yusuf, Mohd. Rizwan, Sajid and Anwar Pahalwan were his accomplices and conspiracy to commit robbery was hatched at the house of petitioner. Mohd. Yusuf and Mohd. Rizwan were arrested on 15th August 1999 and in their disclosure statements they also stated that conspiracy to commit offe...
Puran Mal Aggarwal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)205; 98(2002)DLT203; 2002(63)DRJ394
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7th May 2001 of an Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal against the order dated 28th March 2001 of a Metropolitan Magistrate whereby amount of surety bond was sought to be recovered by issuing warrant of attachment against the property of petitioner-surety.2. Facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are that the petitioner stood surety for Sri Dev Mahto against whom FIR No.173/97 under Sections 279/338 IPC was registered at PS R.K.Puram and executed a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- before the police (I.O) on 28th February 1997. Since said accused was declared PO and petitioner too did not appear pursuant to the notice issued by Metropolitan Magistrate seized of the matter the amount of surety bond was sought to be recovered from the petitioner by issuing warrant of attachment of his property by the order dated 28th March 2001. Appeal taken out by the petitioner against this order was dismissed b...
Gyan Chand Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)982; 98(2002)DLT194; 2002(62)DRJ782
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.2.2002, passed by the court of Sh. S.N. Gupta, ASJ, Delhi, while setting aside the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420 read with 511 IPC and reducing the sentence awarded to petitioner under Section 471, from one year to six months RI and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default S.I. for three months, in case FIR No. 54/90, under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.2. Facts in brief are: that on or about 23.10.89 petitioner produced a domicile certificate bearing No. 1413 dated 5.8.89 purported to have been issued by Sub-divisional Officer, Haldwani (Civil); knowing the same to be a forged document for seeking some exemption in height for selection as sub-inspector in Delhi Police; and claimed himself to be a person belonging to hill area. Before the petitioner could be appointed, on a suspicion being raised, certificate was got verified and the same was fo...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mahesh Chand and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)249; 98(2002)DLT118
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This petition is directed against a judgment an order dated 10th July 1998 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in OA NO. 722/97 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the respondent was allowed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.3. The respondent was working as Rakshak in the grade of Rs. 825-1200. He was medically de-categorized by an order dated 12th October 1994. He later on was absorbed as a Parcel Porter in a lower grade being Rs. 775-1025 on 4thMarch 1995 upon having been adjudged suitable by a Committee appointed thereforee. A post of Ticket Collector fell vacant. The respondent applied for the said post against promotion quota. He qualified in the written test as also in the interview. However, he was not sent for medical examination. An Original Application was thereforee, filed on an apprehension of the petitioner t hat he might not have been declared medically de-categorized in terms of Para 573 of the Indian Railway ...
Sumer Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ410
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Aggrieved by an order dated 29thNovember 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 637/99 whereby and whereunder the petitioner had been posted back to the Division wherein he held his lien in Group D post, the writ petitioner, has filed this writ petition.2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondents as casual worker. He allegedly was given a temporary status. The contention of the petitioners herein is that they were engaged as blacksmiths form the very beginning, which is a substantive post and they should have been regularized against 25% quota allotted thereforee.3. The petitioner claimed the afore-mentioned relief purported to be in terms of Rule 2007(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol.II. Which is in the following terms:'Casual labour engaged in work charged establishment of Certain Departments who get promoted to semiskilled, skilled and highly skilled categories due to non-availability of regular depar...
G. Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)241; AIR2003Delhi120; 98(2002)DLT800; 2002(64)DRJ140
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 30th September 1996 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. The factual matrix of the matter is not in dispute.2. An auction was sought to be held in respect of plot No. 200 at Shankar Road, New Delhi by the respondent herein. The appellant participated in the bid and became the highest bidder. The total amount of the bid was Rs. 29,35,000/-. He deposited the requisite earnest money of Rs. 7,33,750/-. A demand notice asking for deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 22,12,095/- was issued in May 1995.3. The due date for the payment of the said amount was 1st July 1995. It has been accepted by the petitioner that he was owner of plot in Block No. D-1030, New Friends Colony, New Delhi which was sold by him to one Shri Amar Singh by way of General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell dated 9th August 1978. According to him, on the date of acceptance of bid,...
Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Rajpal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT385; 2002(64)DRJ181; 2003(1)SLJ130(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Interpretation of Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1980 is in question in this writ petition which arises out of a judgment and order dated 4th February 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1161/1996 dismissing the petitioner's Original Application whereby and whereunder he had questioned an order of dismissal dated 15th January 1991 passed by the disciplinary authority as also an order dated 10th April 1991 passed by the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal preferred by him.2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows:The petitioner, at all material times, was posted as Constable in Delhi Police. Allegedly, he had gone to the jhuggi of Smt. Ram Murthi and outraged her modesty and on her protest and statement to the effect that she would disclose the same to her husband, he allegedly threatened that in that event, her husband would be assaulted. On the basis of the ...
Udhha Lal Meena Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)599; 99(2002)DLT715; 2002(64)DRJ260; 2003(3)SLJ281(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 29 the May 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 1372/99 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The short facts leading to the passing of the said order are as follows:The petitioner was charge-sheeted on an allegation that on 1 st March 1998 at about 4.00 PM, he under the influence of liquor, started beating and abusing Constable Satbir Singh who was returning from duty, without any cause or provocation, as a result whereof, latter sustained injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner reached the Reporting Room and started shouting unnecessarily while he was under the influence of liquor. He was medically examined in the hospital where the doctor opined vide MLC 001764 (smell of alcohol). The afore-mentioned Constable Satbir Singh had also been medically examined in that hospital when the doctor opined his injury as simple an...
Amrendra Kumar Pandey Vs. Staff Selection Commission and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ674
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This wit petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 18th September 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1350/2001 whereby and whereunder Original Application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. An advertisement was issued by the respondent calling for the applications for filling up the posts of Junior Hindi Translators, the qualifications where for were stated to be as under:'(c). EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: Master's Degree in English/Hindi with Hindi/ English as a compulsory and elective subject at Degree level; OR Bachelor's Deg. with Hindi & English as main subject (which includes the term compulsory and elective).Not-I: Those candidates who have passed B.A. (Hons.) in English/Hindi with Hindi/English as subsidiary/MIL subject, are eligible for the post of Jr. Hindi Translators.2. The petitioner herein was a student of Bhagalpur University. He passed his 3-year's degree course from the said University. In the said c...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »