Delhi Court April 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.
Jai Prakash Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Director, Cbi,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)576; 104(2003)DLT723; 2003(68)DRJ293; 2004(1)SLJ32(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner was working with the Photo Division of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. However, since he was infected with pulmonary tuberculosis, he was transferred on medical grounds to the Document Division in August 1986. Thereafter, the Petitioner was transferred from the Document Division to the Chemistry Division by an order dated 27th September 1993. He started working with the Toxicology Branch in the Chemistry Division with effect from 1st October 1993. 2. On or about 4th October 1993, he was entrusted with viscera cutting by his superior officers. According to the Petitioner, he declined to do so because he was apprehensive that due to the presence of obnoxious gases he may suffer a relapse of his tuberculosis. Since the Petitioner refused to perform the work of cutting the viscera, he was apparently asked to make an application for a transfer out of the Chemistry Division, which he did. Along with his application for transfer, the Petitioner su...
Govind and ors. Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)525; 104(2003)DLT510; I(2003)DMC783; 2003(68)DRJ446; 2003(2)JCC1030
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. By this judgment we propose to finally dispose of Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1295 of 2002, 758 of 2002 and 917 of 2002. Although Criminal Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2002 was disposed of by us on 12th November,2002, but we propose to give detailed reasons for the disposal of the said writ petition and other petitions by this judgment. 2. The facts of only Criminal Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2002 are briefly recapitulated as under:-A joint petition by the complainant and the accused husband has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 498A, 406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar. It is stated that on account of trivial matrimonial disputes said FIR was registered on 16.8.2002. The parties even filed a petition for the grant of divorce. During the pendency of the petition by the intervention of relations and friends, the complainant and her husband accused have resolved their disputes and differences and now they are living together happily. It is stated that t...
Social Jurist Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT727; 2003(70)DRJ728
ORDER1. Mr. T.C. Arora, Deputy Education Officer of MCD has filed an affidavit in this Court. In para 5 of his affidavit he has pointed out that facilities such as library, laboratories, etc. are provided. He has stated many things in great detail in the affidavit but we need not refer to all of them. 2. In para 6 he has pointed out that there are 20979 posts of primary teachers which are sanctioned. Out of which 18148 teachers are working. Delhi Subordinate Staff Selection Board was forwarded requisition for appointment of the teachers. On 13th May, 2002, the Board published an advertisement. Applications were received from various categories. It is pointed out that in view of the pendency of the Court cases before the Court, the DSSSB has not declared the result of reserved categories as well as remaining candidates in general categories. In view of this, the department has engaged 1337 primary teachers on contract basis. The contract period has been extended up to 9.5.2003. With reg...
Veer Bala Gulati Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)762; 104(2003)DLT787; 2003(69)DRJ482
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is a resident of K-644, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi and is aggrieved by the assessment order dated 17.2.2003 assessing the said property to tax and fixing the rateable value as also by the impugned notice dated 19.2.2003 making demand on the petitioner in respect of the property in question.2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner became owner and occupier of the property in question in pursuance to the agreement to sell dated 8.12.1999 for a total consideration of Rs. 24 lakhs.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 4640/2002 titled 'K.T.S. Tulsi v. M.C.D.' decided on 7.1.2003 and contends that property of the petitioner is liable to be assessed to property tax in terms of the said judgment relating to the same area and the principles of parity must also be applied.4. A reading of the impugned order shows that the petitioner assessed attended to the office of the Joint As...
Social Jurist, a Lawyers Group Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(69)DRJ799A
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. In both these petitions, the petitioner is the same and considering the prayers on the request of counsel both are taken up together for final disposal.2. The petitioners, Social Jurist, A Lawyers Group, have approached this Court for appropriate reliefs for ensuring that no child up to the age of 14 years should be allowed to engage or indulge in rag picking instead of attending school. It is also prayed that 10 vacant posts of Attendance Authority in accordance with the provisions contained in Delhi Primary Education Act, 1960 be filed in immediately.3. So far as the second prayer is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents have stated that they have called for the applications from the eligible candidates and process of interview is complete. thereforee, at this stage, nothing more is required to be done with regard to the second prayer.4. So far as Ragpickingand the children engaged in Ragpickingis concerned, it is required to be stated that for various re...
Jindal Electro Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC422
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Jindal Electro Castings Pvt. Ltd., is regarding admissibility of abatement claims preferred by them.2. Shri Krishna Kant, the learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured M.S. Ingots of non-alloy steel on which Central Excise duty was paid under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act during the period from September 1997 to March 1998, that they claimed abatement from payment of duty for 147 days; that the Commissioner, however, allowed them the abatement for 122 days under Order dated 30.6.99; that on Appeal filed by them, the Appellate Tribunal, vide Final order No. A/519/2000-MB (S) dated 28.3.2000, remanded the matter as the Order dated 30.6.99 was passed by the Commissioner in contravention of the principles of natural justice; that the Commissioner, again under the impugned Order denied abatement claim for the period 19.9.97 to 30.9.97 on the ground that intimation of closure of factory on 19.9.97 was received by ...
Binani Cement Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT163TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Binani Cement Limited, the issue involved is regarding eligibility of certain items to capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We heard Shri Sudhir Gupta, learned Advocate for the Appellants and Shri Jagdish Singh, learned SDR for the Revenue. The submissions made by the learned Advocate and the learned SDR and our findings on the goods involved are as under: - 3.1 Cable Trays - the learned Advocate has submitted that the cable trays are accessories technically designed to provide support to cables laid down from main control room to various machine/machinery of the cement plant; that the cable trays are essential components/accessories in the process of manufacture as without it power cannot be properly supplied to the process; that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Limited, 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Modvat credit is admissible on cable trays.He has also reli...
Abn Amro Bank N.V. and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT755; 2003(68)DRJ644; (2003)IILLJ905Del; 2003(3)SLJ486(Delhi)
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) was filed with a prayer to quash the complaint and the summons issued thereon by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970 for contravention of the notification No. S6/779(E) dated 9th December, 1976 issued under Section 10(1) of the Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in 'Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors.' reported in VI (2001) SLT 225= : (2001)IILLJ1087SC by which the aforesaid notification dated 9.12.1976 was quashed. It is argued that since the notification stands quashed the complaint against the petitioners for contravention thereof cannot be proceeded with.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, has submitted that a reading of paras 52 and 122 of the said judgme...
Satish Kumar Marwah and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)99; 2003(3)ARBLR187(Delhi); 105(2003)DLT760; 2003(70)DRJ51
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is a petition u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to file arbitration agreement and refer the remaining claims/ disputes No. 8, 9, 11 and 12, which were not referred to the arbitrator for adjudication.2. The petitioners' case is that the respondents had appointed Dr. Y.P.C. Dongey as a sole arbitrator. However, claims No. 8, 9, 11 and 12 were not referred to him. The present petition is to seek the reference of the said claims. 3. The facts in brief leading to the present petition may be noted.(i) Petitioner was awarded a contract on 27.6.88 for construction of Govt. Higher Secondary School, vide agreement dated 34/EE/PWD-17/88-89 dated 27.6.88. The stipulated date of completion was 4.5.90. However, the work was actually completed on 4.8.93. The final bill was paid to the petitioner on 28.2.95. Petitioner made a request for appointment of the arbitrator on 25.5.1995. The respondent , however, appoin...
Hem Chand and ors. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ57Del
ORDERMukundakam Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying for the following reliefs:(i) Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No. 1 to close the conciliation proceedings pending before him and refer the same for adjudication to the Court immediately.(ii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No. 2, to maintain status quo with regard to the employment of the petitioners, with the respondent No. 2 till the industrial dispute regarding the status of the petitioners is decided by the Industrial Court.2. At the very threshold of the arguments, it is stated by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that so far as relief in one of the writ petitions is concerned, the same has been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that reference has already been made by the appropriate Government to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »