Delhi Court August 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.
Ms. Geetika Panwar and Delhi High Court Bar Association and anr. Vs. G ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi317
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Delhi Act No. 5 of 2002) passed by the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi on 20.12.2001 further to amend the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (Act No. 1966) and the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which received the assent of the President of India on 21.2.2002 and was published in Part II of the Delhi Gazette Extraordinary on 13.3.2002 is under challenge in these two writ petitions on a number of grounds.2. On 19.4.2002, while issuing rule, considering the nature of the writ petitions and the questions raised therein, the same were referred to a larger Bench in order to have an authoritative decision on the following points:-(a) Whether the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Delhi Act No. 5 of 2002) is ultra virus of the Legislative Assembly of National Capital Territory of Delhi. (b) In any event whether Section 2 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Delhi Act No. 5 of 2002) is ultra virus...
Wig Brothers (Builders and Engineers) Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT187; 2002(64)DRJ532
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. The plaintiff by this application under Order 23 Rule 1(1) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') is seeking to abandon/withdraw its suit against the defendants. The defendants have filed reply opposing the same. Facts necessary for the disposal of this application are not in dispute. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against defendants restraining defendant No. 1, (Punjab National Bank) from encashing and/or remitting any amount to defendant No. 2 (National Thermal Power Corporation Limited) under the bank guarantees detailed in para 9 of the plaint and for restraining defendant No. 2 from invoking or making demand upon defendant No. 1, for encashment of these bank guarantees and for mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 2, to discharge and return the bank...
Shri Amrit Sachdev Vs. Shri Varendra Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi97; 101(2002)DLT131; 2002(64)DRJ495
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. These two applications under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been filed by the plaintiff with the prayer to review the orders dated 9.1.20001 passed by the Registrar of this Court in compliance with the orders passed by the Court on 23.8.1999 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act. It is also prayed that the delay in the filing of the review application may be condoned. The defendant has filed replies to both these applications and has opposed the prayers made by the plaintiff. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of those two applications, briefly sated are, that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of a receipt Exhibit P-1 pleading that the said receipt contained the terms of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and as such, the property, which is the subject matter of the agreement to sell embodied in the said receipt, is liable to be sold by the defenda...
Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ411
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company holding license under the Insecticide Act, 1971 for storage and sale of insecticides and petitioner No. 2 is the director of petitioner No. 1 company. They filed the writ petition for quashing of complaint No. 136/97, instituted against them by the Plant Protection Officer/Licensing Officer, respondent No. 2, under Section 29(1)(a) read with Sub-clause (i) of Clause (k) of Section 3 of the Insecticides Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the Act, for manufacturing, selling and distributing misbranded Insecticides/Mats. The complaint was also filed against the Retailer as well as Manufacturers, respondents 3 to 6. By orders dated 9th April, 2001 passed by Division Bench, the writ petition was registered as a Crl.M.(Main).2. Facts in brief are: on 22.9.1995 the Notified Insecticide Officer, Government of NCT of Delhi visited shop and sale counter of M/s. Singhla Agencies (respondent No. 3...
Ravinder Kumar Rishi Vs. Sushma Rishi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi81; 2003(67)DRJ97
S. Mukerjee, J.I.A. No. 9792/00 in S.No. 1797/97 1. A Very interesting point has arisen for consideration viz whether court fee is payable on a compromise application under order 23 Rule 3 CPC or the compromise decree drawn up pursuant there to whereunder a large amount happened to be paid to the defendant. 2. In the present case a plaint containing the following prayer was registered as a suit:- 'In the facts and circumstances of the case it is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a decree that the Defendant deliver to the Plaintiff vacant possession of the portion, more fully described in yellow in the site plan annexure herewith, of property bearing municipal number A-54, Kailash Colony, New Delhi of which portion the plaintiff has been' dispossessed without consent and otherwise in due course of law.' 3. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that defendant had allegedly trespassed into the suit property on 20.7.1997, and has forcibly dispossessed the ...
Shri Bihari Lal and anr. Vs. Shri V.M. Bansal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT115
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The contempt petition as been filed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 30.07.1993, 21.01.1997 and 27.10.1997 passed in CW No. 4106/1991 and in review application 10/1997 filed in the said writ petition.2. A further prayer is also made to restrain the respondents from evicting the bona fide residents of jhuggi jhonpri in Sawan Park until the directions made in the aforesaid orders are complied with.3. The decision rendered by the Division Bench in CW No. 4106/1991 on 30.07.1993 dealt with the issue of allotment of plots to the occupants of the Sawan Park Colony and the draw of lots held for allotment in November, 1991. The Division Bench held that the project for re-settlement of weavers in Sawan Park was not confined to these weavers whose jhuggis were affected on account of construction of storm water drainage road passing through jhuggis. A writ of mandamus was thus issued...
Samachar Coop. G.H. Socy. Ltd. Vs. N.K. Sareen and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT113
Khan, J. 1. Petitioner society feels aggrieved of the orders passed by Co-operative Tribunal overturning the award passed by Registrar for recovery of Rs. 1.41 lacs and odd against R-1. 2. R-1 became a member of the society and was allotted Category 'A' flat No. 195. It appears that the cost of the flat was estimated at Rs. 2.48 lacs or so out of which he is said to have paid only Rs. 1.58 lacs and odd. It is alleged that the society borrowed loan from DCHFC Limited and out of this credited Rs. 1 lac to his account which he was to repay in quarterly Installment of Rs. 3,564/- but which he failed to do within time causing loss to the society and subjecting it to penal interest. Petitioner society filed a claim petition against R-1 on this raising a demand of Rs. 33,657/- initially up to December 1991 and subsequently increasing it to Rs. 50,475/-. The arbitrator passed award dated 6.3.1993 finding Rs. 50,475.66 due against R-1 and directed the society to recalculate payable area categor...
Surinder Kairam and Tarun Kairam Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1491
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. By this common order these two petitions; one filed by Surinder Kairam (Crl.M(M) No. 2021/02) for grant of regular bail and the other petition filed by Tarun Kairam (Crl.M(M)No. 2053/02) whereby he has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail will be disposed of as both of them are filed in the same case. Surinder Kairam is the father and Tarun Kairam is his son.2. The case was registered on the complaint of Satish Kumar Sharma. The allegation against these two petitioners and their co-accused is that in execution of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the petitioner Surinder Kairam and other members of his family, including the son Tarun Kairam, they have cheated the complainant of more than Rs. 1.5 crores. Prosecution case is that in the year 2000-2001 the accused fraudulently and dishonestlypursuaded the complainant to become a partner through his company M/s A.S.& Sons (P) Ltd. in a partnership firm M/s Saat Sur Enterprises on the pretended object of carrying out ...
Kamlesh Vs. Sh. Kundan Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT649; I(2003)DMC47
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard.2. Divorce petition of the appellant on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal, the present appeal has been filed.3. The appellant was married to the respondent on 17th April, 1996 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. The said marriage was consummated. However, no child was born from the said wedlock. The appellant was treated with cruelty. Prior to the marriage the parents of the appellant were informed that the respondent was earning handsome income and had sufficient means to maintain the appellant and to provide her the necessities of the life. But all these representations were found to be false.4. The appellant was a research scholar and was getting Rs. 3,500/- per month as scholarship. Even this amount was taken away from her by the respondent and her parents and it was used for meeting household expenses. The respondent and his family members treated the appel...
Sugan Chand Gupta Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT538
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner, who happens to be the President of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Deepali Pritampura, at the relevant time, has preferred this writ petition, seeking quashing of the proceedings including the damages levied by respondent No. 2 that is Forest Officer in case No. 8(73)/C.O.T./F.S./96 dated 14.11.1996. A communication was addressed from the office of Forest Officer stating that the petitioner had illegally cut down green trees while constructing the temple, which was a cognizable offence.2. Petitioner was called upon to deposit the value of the trees along with compensation within 7 days, failing which action would be taken under the Delhi Tree Protection Rules, 1994. In the event, fine of Rs. 30,000/- was levied and Rs. 17,000/- was demanded as cost of the trees; in all a total sum of Rs. 47,000/-. The petitioner was communicated this vide a notice dated 18.7.2001 issued from the Assistant Collector notifying that a sum of Rs. 4...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »