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.
Shri Rajender JaIn and Jaina Properties and Finance Ltd. Vs. Delhi Dev ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)716; III(2003)BC79; 105(2003)DLT284; 2003(71)DRJ698
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the aggrieved petitioners whose successful bid for plots in the Transport Nagar, Rohtak Road in the auction held on 4.5.1987 has been cancelled on the ground that they had advertised for selling space and had thus violated the terms and conditions of allotment. 2. CWP No. 2408/87 is in respect of plot No. 116 while CWP No. 2431/1987 is in respect of plots No. 113, 118, 119, 120, 125, 126 and 127. The factual matrix is more or less common since the auction was held on the same day of 4.5.1987 and the petitioners were the successful bidders and deposited 25% of the amount on the fall of the hammer. On 19.5.1987 the formal acceptance was communicated to the petitioners and demand was raised for balance 75% of the amount to be deposited within 90 days of the communication of the acceptance (i.e., on or before 10.8.1987). 3. An advertisement appeared in the newspaper in the following terms :- ORIGINAL BOOKINGOPENS TODAY With Att...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. J.R. Gangwani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)272; 2003CriLJ2575; 104(2003)DLT387; 2003(68)DRJ561
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings for contempt may be briefly noted. One Durga Devi had filed a petition impleading Anupam Gardens Friends Association as respondent No. 1 Chairman of Delhi Pollution Control Board later on substituted by Delhi Pollution Control Committee and the DVB as respondent No. 2 and 3. Smt Durga Devi claimed that she was legal heir of the Bhumidar who owned a plot of land of 176 sq. yards in Khasra No. 119inSaidulajaib.The said plot had been handed over to respondent No. 1 Anupam Gardens Friends Association under an agreement to sell, power of attorney and receipt of possession etc. Grievance of the petitioner was that instead of using the said plot of land for horticulture purpose, it was being misused for non-agriculture purpose in contravention of Delhi Land Reforms Act. Diesel generators were being run which were causing pollution. 2. Show cause notice had been issued to the respondent. DPCC after an inspection filed an af...
Satwinder Singh S/O Balbir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 105(2003)DLT177; 2003(69)DRJ358; 2003(90)ECC100; 2003(2)JCC1249
D.K. Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.2. The petitioner, Satwinder Singh, challenges in this habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the order made by and in the name of the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA). The order of detention, dated 22 March 2002, was served on the same day along with the grounds of detention of even date, formulated by the Detaining Authority, based on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future.3. The brief facts, as can be culled out from the grounds of detention, are as follows:On 29 December 2001, when the petitioner arrived from Dubai by an Emirates Flight, he was intercepted while walking through the green channel, after collecting the checked-in baggage, which included one microwav...
Faridabad Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT898TriDel
1. Shri J. Vallepally, Sr. Advocate, mentioned that the applicants M/s.Faridabad Metal Udyog (P) Ltd. has filed this application for rectification of mistake in Final Orders No. A/749-750/2001-NB, dated 25-9-2001 [2001 (138) E.L.T. 1021 (T)] in December, 2002; that the applicants have filed a supplementary application on 11-2-2003 for rectification of mistake in the said Final Orders. Mrs. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, raised preliminary objection that the Final Order is dated 25-9-2001 and the Misc. application has been filed in December, 2002 which is time barred under Section 35(2) of the Central Excise Act; that as per the provisions of Section 35-C(2), the rectification of mistake can be done only within 6 months from the date of the order; that as the application itself has been filed after more than one year the same is not maintainable. The learned SDR also pointed out that the applicants had earlier also filed an application for rectification of mistake which has been rejecte...
Sidwal Refrigeration Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT1013TriDel
1. This is an application filed by M/s. Sidwal Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. 329/02 B dated 1.8.2002 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, 2. Shri Ascharaj Lal, learned Consultant, submitted that the Superintendent of Central Excise under letter dated 12.10.2001 illegally demanded duty amounting to Rs. 48,26,241; that the appeal filed by them has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appeal was filed against a communication which is not valid appealable order under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act; that the Appellate Tribunal also vide Final Order No. 329/02-B dated 1.8.2002 rejected the appeal holding that the communication sent by the Superintendent was neither an order nor a decision and any demand of duty is to be preceded by issue of a show cause notice which the communication was not; that in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan v. CCE, Patna, 2001 (129) ELT 780 (T), the communication sen...
Rattan Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC116
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 8.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing the application filed by the appellants herein to set aside the ex parte final order passed on 22.10.2001 in O.A.312/98. Aggrieved, the appellants, who are defendants 4 and 5 in the O.A, have filed this appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this appeal.2. I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.3. The respondent/plaintiff-Bank filed O.A. 312/98 against the appellants (who are defendants 4 and 5) and three others, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed in his final order that the defendants have been served by publication of the notice in the newspaper 'Statesman', but despite service, the defendants did not appear, and, therefore, were proceeded ex parte. Accordingly, he passed the ex parte final order against the appellants and others for Rs. 66,83,928/...
Hitaishi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC178
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 26.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing the application filed by the appellants herein to set aside the ex parte final order passed on 22.10.2001 in O.A.312/98. Aggrieved, the appellants, who are defendants 1 to 3 in the O.A., have filed this appeal. The respondent Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this appeal.2. I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.3. The respondent/plaintiff Bank filed O.A. 312/98 against the appellants (who are defendants 1 to 3) and two others, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed in his final order that the defendants have been served by publication of the notice in the newspaper 'Stateman', but despite service, the defendants did not appear and, therefore, were proceeded ex parte. Accordingly, he passed the ex parte final order against the appellants and others for Rs. 66,83,928/- wi...
Aga Medical Corporation Vs. Mr. Faisal Kapadi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)351; 103(2003)DLT321; 2003(26)PTC349(Del); 2003(2)RAJ86
R.C. Jain, J. 1. The above-named plaintiff has moved this application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants, their officers, servants, agents, promoters, dealers, distributors and any one acting for and on their behalf from (i) manufacturing, selling, offering for sale any of the Occlusion devices including the Blockaid Devices which are a three-dimensional reproduction of the drawings of the plaintiff's Amplatzer products/devices thereby constituting infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the said drawings (ii) restraining the defendants from using the impugned brochures or any other material/brochures which are a substantial reproduction or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's brochures thereby constituting infringement of copyright in the said brochures, and (iii) selling, offering for sale any of the Occlusion devices which resemble the plaintiff's devices in any manner and from making any represen...
Shri K.K. Modi and anr. Vs. Shri M.K. Modi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 106(2003)DLT307; 2003(68)DRJ5
S. Mukerjee, J. 1. By this common Order, we propose to dispose of FAO (OS) 462/01 & FAO(OS) 492/01 both filed against the same order dated 8thOctober, 2001 passed by Ld. Single Judge of this Court.2. The suit from which present appeals arise, is mainly a dispute between two groups of the same family. The dispute is between the sons of late Shri Gujarmal Modi and Shri Kedarnath Modi. The three sons of Shri Kedarnath Modi are in one Group (hereinafter to be referred to as Group A) and five sons of Shri Gujarmal Modi are in another Group (hereinafter to be referred to as Group B). 3. The Modi family had interest in many companies which are popularly known as the Modi Group of Companies. The said Modi Group of Companies had been under the management and control of Gujarmal Modi and his sons on the one hand and his younger brother, Mr. Kedarnath Modi and sons on the other. 4. After the death of Shri Gujarmal Modi in 1976, as per the averment made by the parties, the Modi Group of companies ...
Indian Associates Vs. Shivendra Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)437; AIR2003Delhi292; 104(2003)DLT820
S. Mukerjee J.1. The appellant claims to be the purchaser of property 'Padma Bhawan' situated at Raipur, Chhatisgarh, which is a part of the estate of late Rani Padmawati Devi, who died intestate on 12.4.87.2. It is the contention of the appellant that it had negotiated and entered into a sale deed dated 11.l0.1988 for purchase of the said property for a total consideration of Rs. 35 lacs, with the Administrator of the Estate being one of her sons viz. Raja Shivendra Bahadur Singh (now deceased).3. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 17.1.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting appellant's application (I.A. No. 490/99) filed under Order I Rule 10, CPC, with the prayer to be allowed to intervene, or to be made a party in the pending proceedings for grant of letters of administration without Will.4. The said petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act filed by Shivendra Bahadur Singh for grant of letters of administration to the estate or Ran...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »