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.
K.K. Modi and anr. Vs. K.N. Modi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas671(Delhi); 2002(64)DRJ538; [2003]45SCL509(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Modipon Limited has two divisions, Chemical division and Fibre division. Chemical divisionis controlled and managed by Group 'A' company which is represented by Mr. M.K. Modi, defendant No. 2. Fibre Division is controlled by Group 'B' company which is represented by Mr. K.K. Modi. Mr. K.K. Modi owns 12.65% shares whereas Mr. M.K. Modi owns 9.07% shares. The litigation landed them in Supreme Court where on 7.1.1998 following interim order on the application of Mr. M.K. Modi was passed which reads as under:-'For a period of eight weeks from today, neither Mr. K.K. Modi nor Mr. M.K. Modi will acquire directly or indirectly any further shares of Modipon Limited nor take any steps that would in any way directly or indirectly destablise the control and management of the Fibre Division of Modipon Limited by Mr. K.K. Modiand of the Chemical Division of Modipon Limited by Mr. M.K. Modi. Liberty to apply for variations if circumstances change.' 2. The appeal against the said o...
Vijay Kumar Bansal Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT651; 2003(66)DRJ277
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was initially filed as a Writ Petition and by order dated 6th December, 2001, Registry was directed to register it as Criminal Misc. (Main). Thereafter the matter was listed before this Court. By this petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 19th November, 1999 passed by the Court of Shri R.K. Gauba, CMM, Delhi declining the prayer of the petitioner to dismiss the complaint on account of absence of the complainant Shri S.N. Dhingra, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, under Section 256 Cr.P.C.2. Facts in brief are that a civil suit was listed for hearing before the Court of Shri S.N. Dhingra, Addl. District Judge; statement of DW-1 was being recorded; in the course of cross-examination, petitioner alleged to have raised slogans in the Court, at a high pitch against the Presiding Officer; his conduct was noticed in the deposition sheet and the accused...
M.L. Gupta Vs. Kripal Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT683
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This petition filed under proviso to Sub-section(8) of Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) is directed against an order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 15.1.2001 by which hehas allowed the petition filed by the respondents for eviction of their tenant, the petitioner herein, from premises bearing no.E-24, First Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi under Section 14(1)(e) read withSection 25B of the Act. 2. The facts which have given rise to this petition are that the respondents have sought the eviction of the petitioner from the premises bearing no.E-24,First Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi under clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act on the averment that the : # : CR 535/2001 premises were let out to the petitioner vide lease deed dated01.4.1992 fora period of three years which expired on 31.3.1995. The premises were let out for residential purpose and it was required bonafide by petitioner no.2 (hereinafter respondent no.2)/owner...
Chandan Capital Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Mid East India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT643; 2002(64)DRJ430
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the application registered as I.A.Nos.3114/1999 and 7322/2001, filed by the defendants under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.2. The plaintiff herein filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,41,64,771/- against the defendants under the summary procedure as provided for under Section xxxvII of the CPC. In the said suit, an ex parte decree was passed by this Court by judgment and order dated 18th August, 1998. Thereafter, the defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared and filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC praying for setting aside the ex parte decree. The aforesaid applications registered as I.A.Nos. 10368/1998 and 10370/1998 are pending for consideration. However, thereafter, another application was filed by the defendants being I.A.No.3114/1999 under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, which was filed on the basis of the reference communi...
Dr. L.R. Nath and ors. Vs. Delhi University and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi393
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Question arising for consideration in this writ petition is the validity of a decision taken by the University of Delhi to discontinue the via voce course i.e.D.M./M.Ch.This writ petition has been filed by doctors who have done their M.D. and are aspirants for a seat in the D.M./M.Ch. Course. The Post Doctoral Course i.e. D.M./M.Ch. is a super-specialty course of 3 years duration. The petitioners seek writ of certiorari for quashing the selection process for admission as it does not include a via voce test or interview and is confined to the written test. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that all along till the year 2001, in addition to the written test, via voce/interview was held. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the candidates who have completed their MBBS and M.D. are assigned to handle critical patients in their field of speciality and they gain valuable practical knowledge and experience. The practical knowledge and experience is also of importance ...
Daewoo Motors India Limited Vs. Prof. Dr. Brijendra Prasad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi2
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The defendant No. 4 was once employee of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is his brother who is aself-styled Chief Director General of Public Interest Issues Research Academy. The Northern Region Chapter of this Academy has been shown as the residential address of defendant No. 4. Accordingly to the plaintiff the services of defendants were terminated on 15th May, 1998 whereas the defendant claims that he had resigned and the resignation was accepted on the said date itself. After having severed his relationship as that of employee and employer the defendant allegedly started vilification campaign against the plaintiff which is a multi national company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Cars and Commercial Vehicles.2. Through this suit permanent injunction has been sought restraining the defendants and their agents, servants etc. from indulging in or repeating any act which is likely to, directly or indirectly harm or damage the reputation, honour and go...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ418; [2002(94)FLR408]; (2002)IIILLJ424Del
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This matter arose pursuant to suo motu notice taken by us in relation to the then on going strike by the Residents Doctors Association of AIIMS in the month of August, 2001.2. Taking note of the observations of the Apex Court in Surjeet Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1996 (2) Sup 11, it was felt that the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, would include the right against denial of treatment or even from being presented from availing the services of any doctor or any other member of the staff from attending to patients and rendering medical assistance to them. In doing so, we also relied upon the judgment in Vincent v. Union of India : [1987]2SCR468 ; Consumer Education and Research Centre and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1995)IILLJ768SC ; and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. : AIR1996SC2426 . Learned Additional Solicitor General Sh. R.N. Trivedi was also requested to assist the C...
Subhash Kapoor Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)537
S. Mukerjee, J.1. The petitioner has challenged an order dt. 31st Dec., 1982, passed under Section 18B(1) of the WT Act dismissing his petition for waiver of penalty for late filing of WT Returns.2. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, considering the nature of the relief being inherently discretionary and it being the admitted position that there had been repeated and successive defaults on the part of the petitioner, as such no interference is called for by way of writ proceedings. It may also note that in the chart annexed at p. 42 of the paper book, the major amount of Rs. 66,928 has already been cancelled by the WTO and the other amounts for the other four years are relatively smaller.3. A period of almost 20 years have elapsed and no stay order had been granted. Accordingly no useful purpose will be served in keeping this writ petition pending and same is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs....
Indian Printing Press Works Vs. Union Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT217; 2002(64)DRJ289; [2002(95)FLR301]; (2002)IIILLJ560Del; 2003(2)SLJ93(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 10th December 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1872/00, whereby and hereunder, an application(CW 9314/01) filed by the respondent herein purported to be in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') has-been disposed of directing:'The petitioner is hereby directed to pay the respondent the wages last drawn by him within four weeks from today. The wages should not be less than the minimum wages applicable from time to time, for the period from the date of the passing of the Award, that is, 6.9.1999 till his reinstatement, on 8.9.2001.'2. Mr. Satender Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the said direction is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 17-B of the Act and thus is liable to beset aside. Per contra Ms. Sunita Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, wo...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Lekh Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ948Del
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Interpretation of Clause 3 of paragraph 2007 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-II (in short 'IREM') is in question in this writ petition which arises out of a judgment and order dated 29th April 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 431/92, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner herein had been directed to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for his regularisation in the post of Store Issuer against 25% promotion quota after holding screening test on and from the date the first vacancy arose or from the date of filing of the said Original Application. 2. The basic fact of the matter was not in dispute. 3. First respondent allegedly was appointed as Casual Labour in Group-D category but as he had been discharging the function of Store Issuer he had been given a temporary status. As his services had not been regularised he filed the afore-mentioned Original Application (O.A. No. 431/92) praying, i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »