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.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)769; 2002(3)ARBLR575(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT204; 2002(64)DRJ94
Sharda Aggarwal, J. 1. The petitioners have moved present petition under Section 9 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for interim relief. Petitioner No.1 is a Company in the field of manufacturing of all types of summer and winter cloth having a turn over of more than Rs.300/- crores. Petitioner No. 2 M/s Sandhya Textiles is duly constituted as institutional coordinator representing petitioner No. 1 company specifically for the tender floated by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (for short MTNL), the respondent. Reference to the petitioner would hereinafter mean petitioner No.1. 2. MTNL invited tenders from those who had minimum turn over of rupees three hundred crores for supply of cloth for summer and winter uniforms for Group 'C' and 'D' of its employees. Notice inviting tenders (NIT) was for cloth for the following five types of uniforms:- SL.NO. ItemsApproximatequantity (In Meters)Indicative(Rs) Per rntrs.1 .Cloth for shirts (Summer)330...
Miss Ragani Vs. Shri Raju and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC209; 2003ACJ1109; 2002VAD(Delhi)3; 98(2002)DLT65; 2002(63)DRJ459
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 22nd September, 1999 passed by learned MACT, New Delhi, by which the appellant's claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act was allowed and a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded in her favor. The appellant is aggrieved by the assessment of compensation and prays that it should be enhanced.2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No. 3. I have gone through the records.3. The facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated are that on 25th October, 1995, the appellant, a girl aged about 13 years, sustained serious injuries in a road accident while crossing the road. The injuries were caused by a Maruti Van which was being driven by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 was alleged to be the owner and respondent No. 3, the insurer of the said Van. According to the appellant-petitioner, she suffered grievous injuries in this accident and was admitted t...
Dr. (Miss) Manila Gaddh Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)42; 99(2002)DLT346; 2002(63)DRJ689
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The question arising for determination in this petition is whether the 22.5% reservation for SC/ST candidates is to be applied on the full 100% seats or on 75% after excluding the 25% seats for which entrance test is conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences?Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a direction to the University of Delhi to apply the 22.5% reservation for Scheduled Caste (15%) and Scheduled Tribe (7.5%) candidates, on 75% seats i.e. 252 seats for post graduate decree/diploma course for admission to University of Delhi. The examination has been conducted for the Session 2002 and the counselling commenced on 9.4.2002 for SC/ST and on 10.4.2002 for general category candidates.2. The Case of the petitioner is that University of Delhi has in all 327 seats for Post Graduate Degree course out of which 25% of these seats i.e. 85 seats comprising 60 seats in Post Graduate Degree course and 25 seats in graduate diploma, are filled by the Governme...
Mohit Bansal Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)169; 2002CriLJ4184; 98(2002)DLT173; 2002(64)DRJ190
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.' for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 646/2001, under Sections 342/354/365/376/34 IPC. P.S. Rohini. First application being Crl.M.(M). No. 4082/2001 for grant of same relief was dismissed as withdrawn on 14th December, 2001.2. Brief facts are that above-noted case was registered on the statement of Ms. Kavita, who has stated that she was in B.A. 1st year studying in S.P.M. College, Punjabi Bagh; on 7th September, 2001 while she was walking towards bus stand Rohini to go to her college at about 8.40 A.M. When she reached at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, petitioner was standing there on his red colour motorcycle; and on seeing her he threatened her and made her to sit on his motorcycle and took her to flat No. 11, Rohini where the co-accused. Raju was also present. Another boy, who was referred to as Rana by Raju and the petitioner also cam...
Hector M. Mehta Vs. Crb Capital Markets Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)47; 98(2002)DLT127; 2002(63)DRJ408
Sharda Aggarwal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of defendant No. 1's two applications being IA. 822/02 under Order 37 Rule 2 CPC for filing appearance and IA. NO. 823/02 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order 37 Rule 3(vii) CPC for condensation of delay in filing the appearance. 2. Defendant No. 1 was served with summons of the suit under Order xxxvII CPC on 25th August, 2000. These summons were served through the Official Liquidator as the defendant No. 1 company had gone in liquidation and the Official Liquidator was appointed as the Provisional Liquidator of the Company. The Official Liquidator entered his appearance through counsel Shri S.C. Sharma, Advocate on 3rd August, 2001. The reason for condoning the delay in filing the appearance is that summons and the copy of the plaint got mixed up with huge and voluminous cases filed by the company which were pending in the Company Court. It is submitted that the delay is inadvertent and unintentional. The plaintiff has o...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT86; 2002(63)DRJ24; [2003]260ITR6(Delhi)
S. Mukerjee, J. 1. The grievance of the Union of India (Department of Telecommunication) as a writ petitioner, against the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.2.2000, is that the said impugned judgment goes totally contrary to the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court reported as UOI v. R.S. Sharma : (2000)IILLJ1271SC . The Tribunal in the impugned judgment had proceeded upon the earlier view of the Apex Court as laid down in UOI v. KV Janakiraman, : (1991)IILLJ570SC , for returning the finding that since up to the date of the promotion order dated 27.3.1994 no charge memo had been served on the private respondent in the present case in the course of any departmental inquiry, nor was he charge-sheeted in the CBI case till that time as such the said order has to be given effect to within a period of two months from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal Along with consequential benefits. 2. In the latest decision of the Apex Court in R.S. Sharma's case (supra), the earlier view a...
Anees Ahmed and anr. Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi440
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. As the facts and the issues that arise for our consideration in these writ petitions are similar, we propose to take up all these writ petitions together and dispose of the same by thiscommon judgment and order.CW. 3412/97 This writ petition is filed by the petitioners by way of public interest litigation for a direction to respondent No. 1/Delhi University to take disciplinary action against all Full TimeLaw Teachers of the Delhi University, who are practicing in the courts and also praying for adirection to prohibit all Full Time Law Teachers of the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi from carrying on legal practice/profession and also from appearing in the courts of law in any manner. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the Delhi State Bar Council, respondent No. 3 to cancel the enrolment/license to practice given to Full Time Law Teachers.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an Advocate practicing in the High Court of Delhi and he has stated th...
Shri T.S. Oberoi Vs. Union F India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ454
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks refund of Rs.51,200/- together with interest up to date. This respondents the amount charged by respondent No. 2, Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as EHIRC) over and above package rates, for the open heart surgery, undergone by petitioner on 31.1.1995.Respondent No. 1 Union of India made a payment of Rs. 89,000/- being the package rates, specified in Office Memorandum dated 20.4.1994, leaving the petitioner to pay the charges over and above the package rates.2. Petitioner is a retired Additional District Judge, who last served as a Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Petitioner is a patient of CAD (Coronary Artery Disease). Petitioner was unwell and the Head of the Department of Cardiology, Safdarjung Hospital upon examination referred him to the G.B. Pant Hospital for Angiography treatment. Angiography was got done immediately on 24.1.1995, which showed Triple Vessel Disease w...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late Sh. Gulshan Kumar Through L.R.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT44
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal').2. Brief facts which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are recapitulated as under.3. The respondent assessed on 27.8.1987 filed his income tax return declaring an income of Rs. 3,60,448/- for the assessment year 1987-88. On 27.3.1990 this amount was revised to an income of Rs. 4,18,400/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.3.1990 and the total income was assessed at Rs. 16,31,125/-.4. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 18.3.1991 and in compliance of the said notice the assessed filed return on 2.7.1991 declaring income of Rs. 4,18,400/- for the assessment year 1987-88.5. On 7.6.1986 and 5.8.1986 the respondent assessed had transferred 1250 fully paid up shares and 5000...
Sarika Saxena and anr. Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(69)DRJ699
K.S. Gupta, J. Crl. M. No. 1814 of 2002 in Crl. M. (M) No. 397 of 2002 1. Having heard the parties counsel, applicants who are also the accused in FIR No. 44/302, are allowed to be imp leaded as petitioners 3 to 8.2. Amended memo of parties stand filed Along with the application.Crl. M. (M) No. 397 of 2002 3. Sh. Sharma has handed over banker cheque for Rs. 50,000/- towards the balance agreed amount to petitioner No. 1 today in court.4. Sh. Malik states that charge-sheet has not been filed so far.5. Heard arguments. Order during the course of day. Crl. M. (M) No. 397 of 2002 6. In this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C, it is alleged that petitioner No. 1 was married to petitioner No. 2 on 11th October, 2000. Due to temperamental differences both of them started residing separately w.e.f. 26thJanuary, 2001. Petitioner No. 1 lodged FIR No. 44/2002 under Section 406/498-A IPC with PS Malviya Nagar. It is further alleged that pursuant tosettlement reached on 27th January, 2002, pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »