Delhi Court May 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.
Prominent Builders and Investors (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Author ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT430
C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of this petition, petitioner assails the letter dated 4th April 1977 demanding interest and the notice dated 6th July 1977 calling upon the petitioner to deposit Rs. 93,047/- by way of interest failing which the plot would stand cancelled. 2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner bid for a commercial plot No. 59 situated at Nehru Place on leasehold basis in an auction held on 6th February 1973. The petitioner's bid for Rs. 30,10,000/- was accepted. A sum of Rs. 7,52,500/- being 25% of the premium was deposited on the spot on 6.2.1973. Petitioner was required to make payment of the balance payment of 75% of the premium within 120 days of the intimation of the acceptance of the bid under Clause 2(6) of the terms and conditions of the auction. The bid was accepted by the respondent-DDA and the acceptance was conveyed to the petitioner on 12.3.1973. The petitioner was required to make full payment by 11th July 1973. The petitioner vide letter dated 12th July ...
Mehar Chand Vs. N.D.M.C. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT184; (2002)IIILLJ720Del; 2003(2)SLJ77(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner assails the order of the Labour Court, by which it rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and regularisation. The Labour Court reached the finding that the petitioner had not worked fora total period of 240 days, to be entitled to stake his claim. Petitioner assails the order on the ground that muster roll card itself was issued on 26.3.1990 and in the written statement, respondent had admitted that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis w.e.f 270301990 to 31.5.1990. Learned counsel, thereforee, submits that with the muster roll card having been issued on 26.3.1999 and the factum of the appointment being w.e.f. 27.3.1990, if the total number of days were to be computed, they work to 240 days. The question arising for consideration is as to what is the affect of the muster roll card having been issued on 26.3.1990 and the averment in the written statement of appointment on temporary basis being w.e.f. 27.3.1990. 2. The Lab...
Shri Mohd. Yameen Vs. Mohd. Saleem Khan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT476; 2003(66)DRJ268
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only) is directed against an order dated 7th May, 2001 passed by the Additional Rent Controller in Petition No. 209/2000 dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondents under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the respondents who are brother and sister respectively filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act against the petitioner-tenant alleging that their father later Munawar Khan was the owner of House No. 3135, Gali Azizuddin Vakil, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi. After the Death of their father, they had inherited the aforesaid property wherein the petitioner was a tenant in respect of one room and open space in front thereof. The premises were let out for residential ...
Yog Raj Arora Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT675; 2002(64)DRJ89
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner is seeking setting aside of order dated 26th April, 2001 passed by the court of Shri S.S. Rathi, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi summoning the petitioner as an accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420/467/471 IPC on the private complaint filed by respondent No. 2-Teka under Section 420 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was an attorney of the complainant in respect of some portion of his revenue lands and he had authority to sell the land. As per allegations while executing a sale deed in respect of the land of which he was the attorney some khasra number pertaining to three bighas and eleven bids was of land was wrongly mentioned. Assuming that the petitioner had no authority to sell that piece of land, it is submitted that after the petitioner was summoned, he explained the correct position and the matter had been sorted out. There was some clerical mistake in th...
Mr. J.L. Khanna Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT782; 2003(3)SLJ252(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner has impugned the disciplinary proceedings, charge sheet/memo dated 12.7.1988 and the show cause notice dated 5.8.1997 on the ground that the person issuing the charge sheet and show cause notice was not competent to be the disciplinary authority for the petitioner since he was holding a current duty charge and additional charge respectively. 2. The petitioner was working as an Inspector in the Meter Testing Department with respondent No. 1 when a complaint was filed against him. A memo was issued to the petitioner on 12.7.1988 and thereafter departmental proceedings were initiated and Mr. S.N. Jha was appointed as an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted the report dated 6.5.1996 finding the charge against the petitioner partly proved. The petitioner was served with a memorandum/ show cause notice dated 5.8.1997 as to why services of the petitioner should not be terminated by imposition of a major penalty and thereafter filed the presen...
Maqsood Ahmed and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ476
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged legality and validity of Rule 14(c) and Rule 18 of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as vocative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 and seeks direction against respondents to enhance the maximum age limit from 32 years to 35 years for being eligible to appear in the Delhi Judicial Services examination and to give benefit of reservation of 27% to the other backward classes, in view of the guide-lines laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1993SC477 by amending the Rules, more particularly Rules 14-C and Rules 28. Rules 14 and 28 of the Rules read as under:- 14. A candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination if he is: (a) a citizen of India: (b) a person who has practiced as an Advocate for not less than 3 years on the last date prescribed for the submission of application; and (c) not more than 32 years of age on the 1st day of January following...
Jitender V. JaIn and anr. Vs. Living Media India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC230(Del)
Usha Mehra, J.CMs. No. 450 & 451/2002 in FAO(OS) No. 181/2002 1. Exemptions are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.CM No. 449/2002 & FAO (OS) No. 181/2002 2. After hearing counsel for the parties, it is ordered that as an interim measure, the appellant may print the newspaper with different logo than that of the respondent. That the word 'KHABREIN' will be written in bold letters and the word 'AAJ TAK' be in small letters. Further the appellant will print on the front page Along with the word 'KHABREIN Aaj Tak' the disclaimer. 3. This order is without prejudice to the light of the parties in the appeal. It is only as an interim measure that this order has been passed. The appellants will produce the sample of the logo as well as sample as to how he is going to use the word. 'KHABREIN AAJ TAK' and of disclaimer on the next date of hearing i.e. 29th May, 2002.4. In the meantime, impugned order shall remain stayed....
Shree Ram Food Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC725
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common order-in-original dated 18-4-2000 vide which the Commissioner as adjudicating authority has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 15,69/046/- against the firm appellant No. 1 with penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-, and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on appellants Nos. 2 and 3.2. The facts are not in dispute. The firm appellant No. 1 got its unit registered as 100% export oriented unit and obtained permission in that regard from the Government of India, Ministry of Industries.Accordingly, the firm was required to export 100% of their production for 10 years as per Exim Policy. The production of the firm was to be treated as manufactured in bond. The firm was engaged in the manufacture of dehydrated onion, falling under sub-heading 701.90 of the CETA and were fully exempt from the payment of central excise duty.The firm, also, filed requisite declaration and availed exemption from the operation of Rule 174 of the Central Exc...
Akay Cones Private Limited Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC566
1. This appeal of M/s Akay Cones Private Limited is directed against Order-in-Original No. 4/2002 dated 15.1.2002 of the Commissioner of Customs, Jawahar Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai. Under the order the Commissioner confiscated a consignment of Printed Flock Fabric imported by the appellant under Sub-sections 111(I) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and gave the appellant an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs.10 lakhs. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on the appellant. In addition, the Commissioner ordered the assessment of the imported goods to custom duty based on the unit value of US $ 1.08 CIF per yard as against the declared value of 0.90 per yard. The present appeal challenges both the confiscation of the goods and enhancement of assessable value. The confiscation of the goods was on the basis that the part of the dutiable goods had not been included in the bill of entry filed for the clearance of the goods [Sub-section (1) of Section 111] and that ...
Borg Instrumentation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC828Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Borg Instrumentation Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE., dated 1-3-86 is available to the goods manufactured by them and whether the demand of Central Excise duty is hit by time limit specified in Section 11 A(1) of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Borg Instrumentation India with two partners was started in 1986 for manufacturing domestic electrical appliances; that they had filed declarations under Rule 174A of the Erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the financial years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 as value of clearances of the goods effected by them being less than Rs. 7.5 lakhs; that two more partners joined the partnership firm in June, 1989; that in the same year the factory in Delhi was also started and the unit at Faridabad was closed on 31-3-90; that with effect from 1-4-90, the firm was converted into a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »