Delhi Court February 2003 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.
Mrs. Kanchan Bedi and anr. Vs. Shri Gurpreet Singh Bedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)252; AIR2003Delhi446; 103(2003)DLT165; I(2003)DMC458; 2003(67)DRJ297; 2003RLR229
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This is a petition filed by Smt. Kanchan Bedi and her son Master Aman Bedi born on 1.7.2000 alleging that Smt. Kanchan Bedi was married to Shri Gurpreet Singh Bedi, the Defendant herein, on 22.9.1999 at Gurudwara Hemkunt Saheb. The husband, Shri Gurpreet Singh Bedi Defendant No.1 and Plaintiff No.1 are stated to have come back to Delhi on 27.9.1999 and to have started residing together at AG-557-D, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. The Defendant has denied that any marriage has taken place between him and Smt.Kanchan; and that she had liaisons with other men; and that he has not sired the child, Master Aman. It has also been alleged in the Written Statement that Ms.Kanchan was previously married. This is not disputed and a photocopy of her Decree of Divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed today. There appears to be no documentary evidence to substantiate that the marriage took place at Hemkunt Saheb on 22.9.1999. For the present, even if it is ...
Major Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretary, Mi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)109; 103(2003)DLT105; 2003(68)DRJ21; 2003(3)SLJ383(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1774/97 decided on 29th April, 1997. Col.Digamber Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge has not adverted to the fact that on account of Confidential Report initiated in CFL, Delhi for 1988-89 and 1989-90 in which due to subjective assessment on account of petitioner's uprightness, not towing the line of action with the Commanding Officer, the petitioner was given lukewarm ACR in revenge. It was contended that the Selection Board acted in violation of the well-settled law laid down by the Supreme Court that selection Boards will not take cognizance of any uncommunicated adverse remarks which disturbed the overall record of the service of the petitioner and the objective assessment for selection to the post of Lt. Colonel. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition simply by observing that the statutory complain...
Raj Bahadur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)73; 103(2003)DLT30; 2003(71)DRJ785; 2003(1)SLJ219(Delhi); 2003(6)SLR137
B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. The petitioner was selected by B.R.O. Agra, at Agra and enrolled in the Army on 151.1999 in the trade of Clerk (General Duty). He reported to Brigade of the Guards Regimental Centre, Kamptee, Nagpur, Maharashtra for training on 16.1.1999. His training started w.e.f. 15.2.1999. After completion of Basic Military Training he was to undergo Clerks training. Before this he was, however, to pass the Aptitude Test scheduled in the 10th week of his Basic Training. 2. After completion of Basic Training of 19 weeks, the recruits who had passed all requisite tests were sent on recruit leave as per schedule. Nine recruits including petitioner were, however, held back as they did not qualify in the Aptitude Test conducted on 14.5.1999 by a Board of Officers. Having failed in the Aptitude Test, the petitioner could not qualify for Clerks training. He was given the option for change of trade in terms of Army Headquarters letter No. A/20335/1 /GS/MT-21 dated 5.7.1996, but he co...
Kamal Jit Singh Pahwa Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)736; 103(2003)DLT420
ORDERRule. 1. With the consent of Counsel for the parties I propose to dispose of the petition.2. The present petition is directed against the failure to the respondent No. 2, Director of Education, in taking action against respondents 3 and 4 on the complaint of the petitioner dated 13th September, 2002.3. The petitioner's son Arjun Singh Pawha was admitted in Delhi Public School, Dwarka in Class VII in the academic year 1999-2000. The respondent No. 2 School at the time of admission requested the petitioner to part with Rs. 40,000/- as loan. The said respondent school had promised to refund the said amount to the petitioner at the time of leaving of his child from the school.4. The petitioner had withdrawn his son from the school in April, 2001. The petitioner made repeated requests to the respondents to pay him the said sum of Rs. 40,000/-. As the petitioner received no response from respondents 3 and 4, he filed a complaint with the respondent No. 2 on 13th September, 2002 in this ...
Ecil Rapiscan Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)779; 103(2003)DLT521
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. ECIL Rapiscan Ltd., which is the petitioner in CWP No. 6615 / 2002 is joint venture of Electronic Corporation of India Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking and Opto Sensors Incorporation, USA. Tender submitted by this petitioner for supply of 220 colour XBIS- X-ray baggage inspection system has been rejected and order is placed on respondent No. 3 for supply aforesaid system. The petitioner is challenging rejection of its bid and award of contract in favor of respondent No. 3 in this writ petition.2. Opto Sensors has two subsidiary companies, namely, Rapiscan Security Products Ltd., U.K. and U.S.A. and Opto Sensors, Malaysia. One of its subsidiaries, namely, Rapiscan Security Products Ltd., USA had also submitted its bid pursuant to same tender which met the same fate. Accordingly, this petitioner, namely, Rapiscan Security Products Ltd., USA has also filed CWP No. 7240/2002 praying for same relief i.e. quashing of the order rejecting its bid and award of contract ...
Ansal Hotels Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)239; 104(2003)DLT142; 2003(68)DRJ625
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A company under the name and style of M/s. Ganapati Ansal Hotel Pvt. Ltd. purchased a hotel plot in District Centre, Saket, New Delhi in pursuance to a perpetual lease deed executed on 16.4.1996 in its favor by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a consideration of Rs. 36 crores. The possession of the plot was handed over on 12.4.1996.2. The name of M/s. Ganapati Hotel Pvt. Ltd. was changed to M/s. Chancellor Club Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter to M/s. Ansals Hotels Ltd., the present petitioner.3. The respondent Corporation issued a notice of assessment dated 15.3.1995 to M/s. Chancellor Club Pvt. Ltd. under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the said Act') proposing a rateable value of Rs. 1.8 crores for the year 1995-96. The petitioner filed objections thereto on 26.4.1995 and the petitioner was called upon to furnish certain documents by the respondent Corporation.4. The petitioner claims that it receive...
Om Parkash and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)251; 104(2003)DLT1024
Devinder Gupta, A.C.J. 1. On 26.3.1983 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued seeking to acquire considerable land situate within revenue estates of villages Shahibabad Daulatpur, Khera Kalan, Siraspur and Samepur. Provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act were also made applicable thereby dispensing with the requirement of filing objections under Section 5A of the Act. On the same day i.e. 26.3.1983 declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also made. Interested persons preferred their claims. Collector, Land Acquisitions proceeded to pass separate awards offering compensation to the claimants for their lands situate in four different revenue estates as under :Nameof the villageAwardAmountof compensationShahibabadDaulatpur26/83-84A.Block - Rs. 13,000.00 Dated1.8.1983B.Block - Rs. 6,000.00KheraKalan39/83-84A.Block - Rs. 10,000.00 Dated29.8.1983B.Block - Rs. 7,000.00Siraspur58/83-84A.Block - Rs. 10,0...
Pratap Chand Chaswal Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)427; 106(2003)DLT484; 2003(68)DRJ767
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. By our order dated 8.1.2003, we had disposed of the Writ Petition with the directions as indicated therein. We had in particular directed the respondents to take, as expeditiously as possible, a decision in accordance with law on the opinion rendered by the CAG, which decision in any case was to be taken on or before 20.1.2003 and to act upon the said decision forthwith for which it was for the respondents to approach the Ministry of Finance well in advance for release of the requisite funds. We had also taken on record the undertaking given on behalf of the members of the association of Chemists that they would resume supply of medicines with effect from 10.1.2003 subject to the decision to be taken by the respondents as mentioned above. We had also expressed our hope and expectation that considering the urgency, the Ministry of Finance would sympathetically consider the request made by the respondents for release of requisite funds. We had also directed that...
Kamal Naresh and ors. Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)163; 2003(68)DRJ607
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The Petitioners in this Petition are students of Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi (Respondent No. 1 herein). They seek a writ, direction or order from this Court to direct the Respondents to promote them to the second year of LLB ( Bachelor of Law) Course. The admitted facts are that the petitioners appeared in the first year Annual Examinations in the year 2002 and their results which were declared on 30th July, 2002 were as under:-Sr.No. Name of student Roll No. No.of papers failed Aggregate marks1 Kamal Naresh 02LLB12 two 461/10002 Aaga Khan 02LLB1 two 469/10003 Manoj Kumar 02LLB13 three 443/10004 Sajid Ali 02LLB26 two 477/10005 Ahmad Waseem 02lLB2 two 493/1000 2. From the above it is clear that all the five petitioners have failed in not more than three papeRs. It is also clear that all of them have obtained aggregate marks which are less than 50%. In this fact situation the question that faces me is whether the petitioners are entitled to promoti...
Shampa Tikait and ors. Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)473
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The Petitioners in this Petition are students of Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi (Respondent No. 1 herein). They seek a writ, direction or order from this Court to direct the Respondents to promote them to the third year of LLB ( Bachelor of Law) Course. The admitted facts are that the petitioners appeared in the second year Annual Examinations in the year 2002 and their results which were declared on 30th July, 2002 were as under:-Sr.No. Name of student Roll No. No. of papers failed Aggregate marks1 Shampa Tikait 2K1LB36 one 391/8002 Kulbir Singh 2KLLB8 two 392/8003 Akmal Hussain 2KLLB3 one 392/800 2. From the above it is clear that all the three petitioners have failed in less than three papeRs. It is also clear that all of them have obtained aggregate marks which are less than 50%. In this fact situation the question that faces me is whether the petitioners are entitled to promotion to the Third Year LLB Course or not? The answer to this question ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »