Delhi Court September 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.
Smt. Kamlesh Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi88; 2003(67)DRJ240
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The above three writ petitions entail common facts and questions of law for consideration and are, thereforee, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioner Smt. Kamlesh Aggarwal widow of late Shri K.K. Aggarwal, had been given the agency by the National Savings organisations in respect of Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojna (CW No. 3510/2001). She had also been appointed the authorised agent for the Public Provident Fund Scheme (CW No. 5448/2001). Petitioner additionally had the agency under standardised agency system for the sale of National Savings Certificates and for obtaining deposits in the Post Office Time Deposit Scheme (CW.No. 5464/2001).3. Petitioner is aggrieved by three similar orders all dated 2.8.2000, passed by respondent No. 2 terminating the above agencies of the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the said terminations have been done either without any notice or an opportunity being given to the petitioner to expl...
Shri Ashok Chopra and anr. Vs. Shri Rohit Aggarwal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ675
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Awaiting disposal is an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC by the plaintiffs, namely, Shri Ashok Chopra and Shri Syed Wasi ul Hasan in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction seeking a restraint order against the defendants in terms of prayer made therein.2. A plot of land bearing No. 7, Lancer Road, Banarasi Dass Estate, Timarpur, Delhi, owned by one Smt. Uma Sethi, was purchased by Smt. Prakashwati, Shri Khushal Chand and Smt. Panna Devi by means of a sale deed dated 8.5.1958. A two and half storeyed building was constructed by them jointly on the said plot of land. At a later point of time, after the death of Panna Devi, her sons, namely Shri Dharmendra Kumar, Shri Virendra Kumar and Shri Surender Kumar in the year 1974 filed a suit bearing No. 446/74 for partition of the property. After passing of a preliminary decree, on 8th of January, 1975, an application being IA. 1689/75 setting out a mutually agreed scheme of partition was filed by the p...
Satbir Singh and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT85; 2003(66)DRJ775
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Whether the provisions of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, is still in force and in any event has been impliedly repealed by Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, are some of the questions involved in these writ petitions.2. The petitioners herein are the owners/Bhumidars in respect of non-agricultural and agricultural land in the Revenue Estate of Kanjhawala, North West District of Delhi. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of Notification dated 8 9.1993 issued by the Lt. Governor Delhi intending to make a scheme for reconsolidation of holdings purporting to act under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act No. 50 of 1948 (as extended to Delhi) (Consolidation Act) and also for consolidation scheme under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 thereof.3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have averred that the Notification dated 8.9.1993 under S...
Bureau of Indian Standards Laboratory Employees Association Through Sh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)SLJ86(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule.2. This petition has been filed by the members of the petitioner association impugning the action of the respondents in not granting the revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- (pre revised) vide office memorandum 2/1/90-CS-IV dated 31.7.90 w.e.f. 1.1.86. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that with regard to Assistant and Stenographers a writ petition (C.W. 1663/96) was field. The said writ petition was allowed on 21.4.99. Against that order, respondent preferred an appeal being LPA No. 232/99 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 1.8.2000. Against the said order the respondent filed special leave petition in Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 12.1.2001.3. Mr. Sengh counsel for the petitioner has contended that the nature of duties are comparable with that of the Assistant who have been given the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- (pre revised), which has been denied in the case of the members of the petitioner as...
Ex. Hav Jai Narayan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 107(2003)DLT576; 2004(2)SLJ307(Delhi)
B.A. Khan, J. 1. Petitioner was invalided out of service on 1st of September, 1986 with 20% disability. He was sanctioned disability pension @ 20%, which he received from 1.9.1986 to 12.1.1998. He was, thereafter, subjected to the Re-Survey Medical Board, which again assessed his disability at 20%. But PCDA(P), Allahabad reduced it to ranging between 11 to 14%. He was, consequently, not paid any disability pension from 13.1.1998 to 4.2.2002. Meanwhile, he was again subjected to the Re-Survey Medical Board on 2nd of November, 2002 which found his disability less than 20% disentitling him for grant of any disability pension from 2nd of November, 2002 onwards.2. Petitioner's grievance still remains for the period between 13.1.1998 to 1.11.2002 for which his percentage of disability was assessed at 20% by the Re-survey Medical Board but was reduced to between 11 to 14% by PCDA(P), Allahabad. It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that this action of PCDA(P), Allahabad ran counter to the d...
Sepoy Bijender Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)SLJ244(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The facts of this case are in narrow compass and mostly undisputed. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 3.3.1980 in the Regiment of Grenadiers. While performing his duties on 11.8.1995 and doing rocket launcher fire he suffered bleeding from both ears and he was admitted in Command Hospital at Lucknow. He was diagnosed as a case of blast injury of both ears. His medical examination was conducted and on 21.8.1995he was placed in low medical category CEE (temporary) for a period of six months. Thereafter, however, his discharge from service on 31.3.1996 was sanctioned and on that date he was discharged from service. By that time he rendered 16 years service in the Army. The case of the petitioner is that as per the policy in the Army, the Release Medical Board proceedings are not provided to the individuals. He was released on the basis of Release Medical Board and discharge certificate of the petitioner was prepared in accordance with provisions of Section 23 of...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shashank Steel Industries (P) Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi110; 100(2002)DLT66; 2003(66)DRJ1
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Interpretation of various provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the DMC Act) as regards the liability of the lessee to pay property tax is the question involved in this batch of writ petitions.2. The order of reference was made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahinder Narain, vide order dated 16.12.1986 differing with the judgment passed in CW 942/80 wherein it was held that even if a lease is not registered, the liability to pay tax would arise.3. With a view to determine the rival contentions raised by counsel for the parties before us we may notice the fact of the matter from CWP 1336/90.A deed of lease was executed by the President of India and Mohan Cooperative Industrial Pvt Ltd as the Lesser and Shashank Steel Industries Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Shashank Steel) as the sub-lessee, respondent No. 1 herein, in terms whereof 1721.25 sq yds of industrial land had been given on perpetual sub lease, w.e.f. 8.2.1997. For the f...
R.S. Tokas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT740
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the Adverse Confidential Reports recorded against the petitioner for the years 1977, 1978 and 1981. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Central Industrial Security Force. He is said to have attended and successfully completed several training courses. In the year 1980, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector (Executive). He was superseded. The reasons for his supersession appear to be the adverse remarks recorded against him for the aforementioned years. For the year 1977, the following adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner : 'Sub: Communication of adverse remarks occurring in the ACR for the year 1977 The following adverse remarks appear in your ACR for the year 1977. 16. Leadership (iii) Organising ability to work in a team. Poor18. Maintenance of discipline. Poor This officer sometimes misbehaves with his subordinates. (10) Temperament (a) He ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)85; [2003]260ITR91(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. These two appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), are directed against the two orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in I. T. A. No. 119/Delhi of 1990 and I. T. A. No. 3101/Delhi of 1991, pertaining to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89, respectively.2. Since a common issue is involved in both the appeals, these are being disposed of by this order.3. The assessed, a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India is engaged in the business of general insurance. In its returns of income for the relevant assessment years, the assessed did not include the amount of interest outstanding on term and bridge loans, etc., on the plea that the debtors had defaulted in making payments and the recoveries were outstanding for more than one year. While completing the assessments, the Assessing Officer, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT...
Cit Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN1094(Delhi)
judgmentD.K. Jain, J.These two appeals by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') are directed against the two orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in ITA No. 119/Deld 1990 and ITA No. 3101/Del./1991, pertaining to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89 respectively.2. Since a common issue is involved in both the appeals, these are being disposed of by this order.3. The assessed, a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India is engaged in the business of general insurance. In its returns of income for the relevant assessment years, the assessed did not include the amount of interest outstanding on term and bridge loans etc., on the plea that the debtors had defaulted in making payments and the recoveries were outstanding for more than one year. While completing assessments, the assessing officer, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT , held that the said ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »