Delhi Court May 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.
Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. the P.O., Indul. Tribunal No. 1 a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT339; [2002(95)FLR27]; (2002)IIILLJ511Del
Sanjay Kishan Kaul,J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 15.3.1999 rejecting application of the petitioner for framing of additional issue and for treating the same as a preliminary issue in respect of the jurisdiction of the reference itself to the Industrial Tribunal. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is the Central Govt. and not the State Govt. which is the appropriate authority to make the reference.2. In terms of the impugned order the Tribunal has not decided this controversy on merits but has come to the conclusion that the filing of the application was an attempt on part of the petitioner to un-necessary delay the proceedings.3. It is observed in the impugned order that the petitioner continued to participate in the proceedings and only an adverse order was passed against them on 11.9.97 that they came up with request vide application dated 10.10.97 that they be allowed to held a fresh enquiry into the charges against respondent ...
The Hindustan Times and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT304; 2002(63)DRJ693
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order will dispose of four petitions under Sections 397/401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), challenging the order dated 10th March, 1998 summoning the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 2(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment (Amending) Act, 1990 (for short 'the Act') and the order dated 6th November, 1999 dismissing application of the prosecution seeking withdrawal of the complaint.2. Facts in brief are that on 8th January, 1998, Government of NCT of Delhi filed a complaint under Section 2(2) of the Act against The Hindustan Times, its publishers and editor, M/s. Lloyds Finance Ltd., Managing Director of the Lloyds Finance Ltd. and M/s. Moulis Advertising Service (P) Ltd. and its Director (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') alleging that in Hindustan Times, English daily newspaper, dated 21st April, 1997 in the advertisement of M/s. Llyod Finance Ltd. issued through M/s. Moulis Advertising Service (P...
Shri Raj Bhaskar Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT12
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non release of his pension which he claims he is entitled to and seeks a writ of mandamus for the same along with interest @ 18% p.a. up to the date of payment.2. The petitioner joined the services of respondent No.1 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 1.1.1960 and rose to the post of Manager. It is stated that on 21.1.1976 by a gazette notification the General Insurance (Termination, Superannuation and Retirement of Officers and Development Staff) Scheme 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said scheme') was brought into operation and the same was amended form time to time. The last relevant amendment is stated to have been carried out on 23.12.1991 and the said scheme provided both for voluntary retirement and determination of service. The relevant clause deals with these two modes of cessation of service in the scheme are as under:'(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub paragraphs, an Officer or a...
Ram Phal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT564
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The original applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') are the writ petitioners herein.2. They were engaged as casual labourers in 1984-85 in the Office of Permanent Way Inspector (PWI), Northern Railway Jakhal Junction by the respondent No. 3 herein. Their services were terminated.3. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that although their juniors had been re-engaged, despite the fact that they worked for lesser number of days than the petitioners, they had not been given the said benefit. 4. The contention of the respondents inter alias was that the application was barred by limitation.5. It is not in dispute that the question of limitation had been considered by a Full Bench of the Tribunal in Mahabir and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2000 (3) ATJ 1 in O.A. No. 786/96 disposed of on 10.05.2000.6. The question of limitation is also covered by a decision of the...
Shiv Shankar and anr. Vs. Ashok Pahava and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ221
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The appellant had filed an application (CCP No. 89/2000) seeking initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') against the respondents in not complying with the order passed on 3.11.1999 by learned Single Judge in CW.No.6692/99. The said application was dismissed on 8.9.2000 by the following order:--'08.09.2000Present: Mr. P.Banerjee for respondents.CCP 89/2000It is stated by the Ld. counsel for respondents at bar that petitioners grievance stands redressed and that they were paid the arrears of salary for relevant period.,Petitioners have gone unrepresented today. However, given regard to the statement made by respondents counsel nothing survives in the petition which is dismissed. Proceedings are dropped.(B.A.Khan) J.'2. As the order was passed in the absence of the appellant or his counsel, the appellant applied for recalling of the said order by filing C.M.No. 856/2000. The said application was also dismissed by the orde...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Ashish Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC597
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Bakelite mouldings. Officers of the Revenue visited the factory of the Respondents and it was found that they were manufacturing branded goods and was supplying the same to M/s. Tecumseh India Pvt. Ltd. and the goods manufactured by the Respondents are used as refrigerating/air-conditioning parts. Show cause notice was issued for demanding duty on the branded goods as the Respondents are not entitled for the benefit of Small Scale Exemption notification. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty. The respondents filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the ground that the goods in question are being used as original equipment by Tecumseh India. The contention of the Revenue is that as the Appellants are clearing branded goods, they are liable to pay duty on such ...
Sh. Bishamber Dayal Gupta Vs. General Manager, Dms
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT379
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the respondent transferring the allotment of the petitioner from booth No. 279 to another booth. Further, a writ of prohibition is sought to restrain the respondent and its officers from illegally and forcibly taking possession of the booth in question and terminating the agreement without following the due process of law.2. Petitioner, who had been selected as Concessionaire for selling milk and milk products, was allotted milk booth Depot No. 279, located at Nehru Market, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, vide allotment letter No. 7-3(1459)/2000-V dated 21.10.2000. Petitioner claims that after the allotment, he commenced his business from 23.11.2000 and satisfactorily carried out the same. There was no dispute between the parties till 27.2.2001. Petitioner was not notified of any complaint or short-comings in the running and functioning of the milk booth. Petitioner claims that vide letter dated 21.11.2000,...
Prakash Jewellers Vs. A.K. Jewellers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT244; 2002(63)DRJ712
Khan, J. 1. The short question that falls for determination is whether petitioner's demand notice was served on respondent and whether trial court had wrongly or rightly dismissed his complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act for non-service of this notice. 2. Petitioner filed a complaint No. 13/99 before ACMM under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act complaining of dishonouring of cheque No. 538722 dated 7.8.1996 for Rs. 1.54 lacs executed by respondent. Side-tracking other issues, trial court converged on the issue of service of demand notice and held that the requisite notice was not served on the respondent and dismissed petitioner's complaint for this. It held:- 'CW-3 in his examination in chief has stated to the following effect with respect to service aspect: 'The said notice sent through Speed Post, Regd. Post and UPC...... In cross-examination, this witness stated as follows: 'I did not receive any AD card or information regarding service of notice upon M...
Shri D.P. Vats Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 99(2003)DLT167; 2002(64)DRJ29
Khan, J.1. One ministerial visit has bred registration of two rival FIRs -FIR No. 677/01 Under Section 186/353/34 IPC lodged by petitioner and rival FIR No. 678/01 under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 r/w Section 323 and 341 IPC filed against him. Petitioners wants completion of investigation in the first FIR and quashing of the second one and that is how this writ petition. 2. It all happened on 4.6.2001 when Health Minister A.K. Walia visited Sultan Puri Area. Petitioner was in attendance and so were some political activists including the local MLA Sushila and her husband Ex-MLA Jai Kishan. There are two versions to the incident and hence two FIRs. Petitioner's version is that when the MLA and her husband asked him about his plans for removing encroachments from MCD parks, he told them that he was determined to so they got infuriated and they incited their supporters who assaulted him and beat himup. He was later rescued by his staff and got away with some injuries. For this he lo...
Shri Abhay Nath Dubey Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-15-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT114; 2002(64)DRJ126
Khan, J.1. The matter raises an interesting issue viz. whether recourse to inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. obviates the requirement of registration of FIR and whether negative inquest report closes the case for good and operates as bar against such registration and follow-up investigation.2. Petitioner's son, Markandey Dubey died in alleged suspicious circumstances. He was married to one Neelam on 7.2.1991 and was living with her at his father-in-law's place with one Ram Nandan, a tenant there. Petitioner claims to have received a telephonic message on 6.6.1996 that his son was in a serious condition taken to RML Hospital where he was declared brought dead. He alleges that, even though, he had informed police officials of P.S. Patel Nagar about the suspected murdered of his son but his pleas went unattended. He later approached them for registration of FIR, but no action was taken. He then waited for 20 days or so and formally lodged a complaint in writing with Delhi Pol...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »