Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2003 Page 19 of about 205 results (0.026 seconds)Dina Nath Malhotra and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi92; 2003(67)DRJ543
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners, by this writ petition, seek a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from recovering the alleged dues as arrears of land revenue or otherwise. Petitioners seek a restraint on the respondents from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the alleged dues except in due course of law and/or without getting the same finally adjudicated from a Civil Court. Petitioners also seek a declaration that the order issued to the Collector for recovery, be declared to be without jurisdiction and be quashed. Further, petitioners seek a direction for release of postal articles belonging to M/s. Hind Pocket Books Pvt. Ltd. and Gharelu Library Yojna and other postal mails/articles including letters, envelopes, business reply cards, registered letters, money orders etc., belonging to the said concern, withheld illegally. 2. The facts in brief culminating in filing of the present writ petition, may be briefly noted:-- (i) Petitioner M/s. Hind Pocket Books Pv...
Tag this Judgment!Heera Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3819; 104(2003)DLT224; 2003(68)DRJ122
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The petitioner stands arrested in case FIR 50/2002 registered at PS Narcotics Branch, Kamla Market under Section 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) on the allegations that on 10.8.2002 200 gms. of smack was recovered from him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail mainly on the ground that the quantity allegedly recovered from the petitioner was not commercial quantity. It is also argued that the FSL report in the present case does not give the percentage of diacetylmorphine and as such it cannot be said as to what was the actual quantity of the contraband recovered from him. In support of his contention he relies upon a judgment of this Court in Mohd. Sayed v. Customs reported in 2002 (2) JCC 1293. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petitioner's application for bail on the ground that although the contraband recovered from the petitioner was less than commercial quantity yet it was substantial...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpam International (P) Ltd. Vs. All Indian General Mazdoor
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT425; 2003(67)DRJ686; (2003)IILLJ797Del; 2003(3)SLJ460(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.3. By a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the dispute relating to the termination of services of four workmen was referred for ad-judicator to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the workmen filed the statement of claim and reply to the same was filed by the management. Issues were framed and the matters was thereafter listed for evidence. The workmen filed their affidavits and the case was fixed for cross-examination of the workmen on 21.2.1995. Since no one appeared on behalf of the management on 21.2.1995, themanagement was proceeded ex-parte. The Labour Court by the impugned award dated 1.9.1999, after holding that the workmen had filed their affidavits held that they had proved that their termination was Illegally done by the Management. One of the workman, namely, Mr. Ram Narain did not appear before the Court and In his case, no...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Bhatia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)403; 104(2003)DLT489; 2003(70)DRJ568; 2003(3)SLJ473(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioner was working as a Senior Inspecting Engineers (RITES). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and an inquiry under the relevant Rules was held. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 4.11.1999 holding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved.3. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the same and directed further inquiry to be held on the basis of the charge sheet issued to the petitioner. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the holding of the de novo inquiry on the grounds as contained in paragraph 57 of the writ petition and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.4.2001, whereby the Disciplinary Authority had directed fresh inquiry to be held from the initial stage and for setting aside and quashing the appointment of the new I...
Tag this Judgment!V.B. Julka S/O Shri J.M. Julka Vs. the Delhi Transport Corporation, Th ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 106(2003)DLT600; 2003(71)DRJ23; 2004(2)SLJ268(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. The petitioner initially joined in 1972 after qualifying All India Competitive Examination as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Border Security Force. In 1980 petitioner joined respondent No. 1 and worked as Vigilance Officer, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Senior Vigilance Officer in February'1985. 2. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 23.2.1987. The date of this charge sheet is important as the earlier Chairman-cum-Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as 'CMD') of the respondent No. 1 retired on 17.1.1987. Two charges were framed against the petitioner. The matter was referred to the Central Vigilance Commission, the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries was appointed as Enquiry Authority, second charge was not proved as per the report of the Enquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. respondent No. 1 also agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Authority in relation to the second charge leveled against the petitioner. The co...
Tag this Judgment!Shri M.P. Bansal Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ311CAT
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the committee's order dated 4.5.1998 passed by the respondents whereby the respondents have imposed on the applicant the penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of three years. He has also prayed for quashing the order dated 19.4.1999 regarding recovery from stagnation increments with a direction to the respondents to calculate his full amount of pension, gratuity and other pensionary benefits without giving effect to the impugned order dated 4.5.1998. He has also prayed for interest at 18% per annum to be paid to him from the date of his retirement i.e. 30.11.1992 till the date of actual payment.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant, who retired from service with the respondent-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS)-as Principal on 30.11.1992, was posted on deputation as Director of Education, Lakshadweep Administration during the years 1986-88.During that period, according to the respondents, there was a complaint against him ...
Tag this Judgment!Anu Enterprise Vs. State Bank of Mysore and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)506; 102(2003)DLT579; 2003(66)DRJ434
B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. Though not a party to the suit, M/s.Anu Enterprise(appellant) has filed instant appeal seeking to challenge a judgment and decree dated 21.4.1998 of the learned Single Judge passed in S.No.1044/96 in favor of M/s.Hindustan Photo films Manufacturing Company Limited(respondent No.2/plaintiff) and against the State Bank of Mysore(respondent No.1/defendant) for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs with costs and interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 1st October, 1993 until filing of the suit as well as pendente lite and future interest.2. Relevant facts may be noticed first.3. M/s.Hindustan Photo films Manufacturing Company Limited(Respondent/plaintiff) was dealing in photo sensitized products. It appointed M/s.Anu Enterprise(appellant) as their stockists in respect of Graphic Art products and Still Photo Products. They entered into agreements initially for a period of five years, which were subsequently renewed in the year 1989 for a further period of five years. In terms of th...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Mahashabdey Vs. Delhi Development Authority,
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)305; 103(2003)DLT88; 2003(68)DRJ102; 2003(3)SLJ367(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the continuance of a departmental enquiry initiated against him in January, 1991. The Facts2. The Petitioner was working as a Deputy Director with the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) at the relevant time. According to the DDA certain lapses had occurred in issuing an occupancy certificate in respect of Plot Nos.13, 16, 17 and 18, Preet Vihar Community Centre. The DDA was of the view that the Petitioner was responsible for the following lapses:1. The buildings on Plot No.16, 17 & 18 were constructed by joining three plots from basement to typical floor. 2. Separate staircases were sanctioned in all the buildings but only one staircase was provided and area of two staircases was converted into saleable area. 3. Only one toilet was provided in Plot No.16 and the remaining area of the toilets have been converted into saleable area. 4. Lift has been provided in Plot No.18 in about 6.04 sq. mtr. area. 5. Additional area of 1...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Electricals Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)536; 2003(1)ARBLR375(Delhi); 102(2003)DLT493; 2003(66)DRJ426; 2003(1)RAJ374
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The solitary issue of territorial jurisdiction circumscribes the scope of instant appeal, which aims at assailing an order dated 12.9.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940(for short, `the Act') of the appellant, for lack of territorial jurisdiction and, thus, declining appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the alleged disputes between the parties, arising out of various contracts.2. The relevant factual background giving rise to the question of territorial jurisdiction may be noticed briefly.On 21st August, 1991, the General Manager, Telecommunications(for short, `GMT'), Srinagar, Kashmir, floated a tender for supply of PVC insulated twin galvanised wires. M/s.B.R.Electricals, appellant, made an offer/bid in response thereto by submitting its tender which was eventually accepted. An agreement dated 8.10.1991 was executed between the appellant and the GMT, which was followed by supply o...
Tag this Judgment!Pokhrayan Alums and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)459; 2003(2)ARBLR48(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT138; 2003(2)RAJ221
S. Mukerjee, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The respondent has preferred objections against the Award dated 6.6.1996 passed by Shri S.P. Rai, Sole Arbitrator. The objections have been registered as is no. 3012/1997. 2. The background facts are in a very narrow compass. An agreement had been entered into between the parties for supply of 'Alumina Ferric', required for purification of water by what is now the Delhi Jal Board (which at the relevant time was a part of the MCD). Admittedly, one of the main raw materials requiring for the manufacture of Alumina Ferric, is Sulphur. 3. At the relevant time, Sulphur happened to be a canalised item for which MMTC was the canalising agency under the statutory orders to that effect issued by the Government of India.4. Amongst other clauses governing the terms and conditions between the parties, there was a price escalation clause as quoted below:-'2(a) Price Escalation: The basic rate of Rs. 1545/PMT is...
Tag this Judgment!