Delhi Court May 2002 Judgments

Smt. Shakuntla Bhatla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)550; 99(2002)DLT703; 2003(3)SLJ279(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Director of Education has given hearing to the petitioner and disposed of the representation of the petitioner. The stand of respondent no. 5, i.e. school is that the petitioner retired as principal. Counsel for respondent no. 5 has contended that the liability of respondent no. 5 is 5% and 95% is of the Directorate of Education. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court respondents 3 & 4 had filed additional affidavit, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is not entitled to pension which is to the paid to the principal as the petitioner drew the salary of the Principal in terms of interim order passed by this Court. Along with the additional affidavit which has been filed by respondents 3 & 4, minutes of the DPC, which was held on 14th March, 1991 which are crucial for determination of the controversy, has also been filed by respondents 3 & 4. The same are to the following effect: 'A meeting of the D.P.C. was held on...

Krishna Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(3)ARBLR508(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT593; 2002(64)DRJ252

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Admittedly one of the Clauses of the agreement between the parties namely Clause 25 provided that subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any tatutory modification or re-enactment thereof and the rules made there under and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause.2. The old Act of 1940 was repealed and substituted by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The new Act came into force on 25.1.1996. Admittedly arbitration proceedings took place under the old Act of 1940 but the award was made after the enforcement of new Act of 1996. It was made and published on 10.5.1996.3. Under the old Act the Award was liable to be set aside under the provisions of Sections 30 & 33 of the Act. After being noticed, an aggrieved party was required to file objections challenging the award within thirty days. Under the new Act, award can be challenged under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. The objections fo...

Palm Print Textiles (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. British MilleraIn Co. Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)95; AIR2002Delhi497; 98(2002)DLT832

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. After having heard learned counsel for the parties on 7.5.2002 and 8.5.2002 short operative order was dictated in Court on 8.5.2002, stating that for detailed reasons to follow later, the respondent shall stand restrained from proceeding with its suit in English High Court proceedings-Claim No. HQ 02X00183 British Millerain Co. Limited v. Harish Ahuja and (2) Palmprint Textiles (India) Limited. The appeal and the miscellaneous application stood disposed of. We are now supplying the reasons in support of our order.2. The plaintiff/appellants felt aggrieved by the order passed by learned Single Judge on 19.4.2002 when, on their application (I.A. 3869/2002), ex-parte ad-interim order of restraint against the defendant/respondent, was not issued and instead the application was adjourned to 20th May, 2002. In the said application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, the plaintiff had prayed as under:-'Pass ex parte ad-interim order restraining the defendant and/or its...

Dr. Sandeep Vohra Vs. the State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)179; 98(2002)DLT273; 2002(64)DRJ86

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No. 112/2002, under Sections 329/498A/120-B/34 IPC, P.S. Parshad Nagar, Delhi. FIR number and sections were not initially mentioned in the petition. On oral prayer made by leaned counsel for petitioner, petitioner was permitted to add FIR number and sections etc. on the petition with signatures.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an M.B.B.S. from University College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and M.D. in Psychiatry from Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi. He is a senior Consultant Psychiatrist Indraprastha, Apollo Hospitals and a Consultant Psychiatrist on the Panel of Fresh and German Embassies. He is also running a Neuropsychiatry Centre at Patel Nagar, which has now been registered in pursuance of the advertisement by the State Government in the Times of India newspaper dated 27.1.2002; that the patient had paranoid problem; that petitione...

Mahesh Kumar Modi Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]256ITR621(Delhi)

Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated September 17, 1991, passed by the appropriate authority--the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.2. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated July 3, 1991, with respondent No. 3 for the purchase of agricultural land measuring 2,716 sq. yards falling in Khasra No. 641/1, 642/2 situated in the revenue state of Village NebSarai, New Delhi. The total sale consideration of the land was fixed at Rs. 35 lakhs. The petitioner in pursuance of the agreement performed his part of the contract and paid the entire consideration to respondent No. 3 as per the terms of the agreement and respondent No. 3 handed over the vacant and physical possession of the plot to the petitioner.3. Since the sale consideration was more than Rs. 10 lakhs at the relevant time, the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act were attracted and the parties before getting the sale deed registered were required to submit an application under ...

M.K. Modi Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 102(2003)DLT705

Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17.9.1991 passed by the appropriate authority - the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.2. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 3.7.1991 with respondent No. 3 for the purchase of agricultural land measuring 2716 sq. yards falling in Khasra No. 641/1, 642/2 situated in the revenue state of Village Neb Sarai, New Delhi. The total sale consideration of the land was fixed at Rs. 35 lakhs. The petitioner in pursuance to the agreement performed his part of the contract and paid the entire consideration to respondent No. 3 as per the terms of the agreement and respondent No. 3 handed over the vacant and physical possession of the plot to the petitioner.3. Since the sale consideration was more than Rs. 10 lakhs at the relevant time, the provisions of Chapter XX-X of the Income-tax Act were attracted and the parties before getting the sale deed registered were required to submit an application under Chapter XX-C i...

Horlicks Limited and ors. Vs. Uttam Sadhukan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(25)PTC504(Del)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. In this suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and copy right, passing off, damages, delivery up etc., a decree is sought restraining the defendant, his servants, agents and representatives from : (i) manufacturing, selling and offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly, dealing in chocolates, sweets, confectionery or other related goods under the trade mark 'Horlicks' or mark 'Horlieks' or under any other mark which may be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark 'Horlicks'; (ii) re-producing, printing or publishing any label or packaging which is a colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of plaintiffs' 'Horlicks' packaging; (iii) manufacturing and selling and offering for sale confectionery or any other goods under the trade mark 'Horlicks' or 'Horlieks' or any other mark deceptively similar to plaintiffs trade mark 'Horlieks', get up with a lay out, colour scheme and arrangement of features that resemble th...

Cit Vs. Trivem Engineer Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Del)144

ORDERBy the Court :Admit.2. The following question of law is framed :'1. Whether the Tribunal (ITAT) and Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,93,051 being the amount collected by the assessed towards Molasses Storage Fund?'3. In view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1993) 110 CTR (Delhi) 25, the third and the fourth questions have really become academic in nature.The appellant shall file within three months five copies of the cyclostyled paper books, containing all documents an. which reliance was placed before the Tribunal, including any order/orders, either in the case of the assessed itself or in case of any other assessed, which has been followed by the Tribunal.The appeal be listed for hearing on 4-9-2002 along with ITA Nos. 9/1999, 23/2000 and 24/2000....

Mahesh Kumar Modi Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)422

Dalveer Bhandari, J.This petition is directed against the order dated 17-9-1991, passed by the Appropriate Authority the Deputy Commissioner.2. The petitioner entered into an agreement, dated 3-7-1991, with respondent No. 3 for the purchase of agricultural land measuring 2,716 sq. yards falling in Khasra No. 641/1, 642/2 situated in the revenue state of Village Neb Sarari, New Delhi. The total sale consideration of the land was fixed at Rs. 35 lakhs. The petitioner in pursuance to the agreement performed his part of the contract and paid the entire consideration to respondent No. 3 as per the terms of the agreement and respondent No. 3 handed over the vacant and physical possession of the plot to the petitioner.3. Since the sale consideration was more than Rs. 10 lakhs at the relevant time, the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act were attracted and the parties before getting the sale deed registered were required to submit an application under Chapter XX-C in Form 37-I of ...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gulshan Kumar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). is directed against order dated 11.2.1998 passed by Nand Nagri District Forum in Complaint Case No. 598/1997 entitled Shri Gulshan Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., whereby appellant Company was directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 33,025.70 p. with 12% interest with effect from 1.1.1996 till realisation and also to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that he was registered owner of vehicle No. DL-IL-A-6369. That the vehicle was comprehensively insured for a sum of Rs. 2,49,000/- with the appellant Company from 28.2.1995 to 27.2.1996 vide Policy No. 31/20993. Under the said insurance policy, the respondent got covered the risk of the aforesaid Tata Truck 407 No. DL-IL-A-6369. On 12.5.1995, the aforesaid truck was going on National Highway No. 24...