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.
A.K. Jaju Vs. Avni Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi364; 2003(3)ARBLR278(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT904; 2003(68)DRJ523
B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. In a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction, the plaintiff filed an IA.11417/01 under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC seeking a direction to the defendant to pay to him use and occupation charges in respect of the suit property @ Rs.80,000/- per month during the pendency of the suit. The defendant, on the other hand, on his appearance, came up with an IA.1008/02 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reference of disputes forming subject matter of the suit to arbitration or in the alternative to stay the proceedings in the suit. In the event of aforesaid application made by the defendant being allowed, it may not be open to take up IA.No.11417/01 as it will be for the arbitrator concerned to adjudicate upon all the disputes, including the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover use and occupation charges in respect of the suit premises at the rate stated aforesaid. It would, thereforee, be appropriate to deal...
Mohan Brothers Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commisisoner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)677; 105(2003)DLT849; 2003(71)DRJ720; (2003)IIILLJ424Del
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1.Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.1983 passed by the respondent under the provisions of Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the present petition was filed in this court by the petitioner praying for setting aside and quashing the aforesaid order. 2.By the aforesaid order it was held by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that there is unity of management, supervision and control, unity of finance, unity of financial integrality and geographical proximity to justify M/s. Jai Narain Subhash Chand and tailoring department run by the tailor master as department of the petitioner establishment and that it constitute one establishment in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO. LTD. VS . ITS WORKMEN : (1960)ILLJ1SC .3.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner initiated a proceeding under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called...
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: [2004]118CompCas126(Delhi); (2003)4CompLJ562(Del); 105(2003)DLT255; 2003(69)DRJ202; [2003]46SCL61(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition inter alias praying that the offences disclosed in the petition be expeditiously investigated and/or adjudicated in accordance with law and to appoint Special Commissioners and/or officers of unimpeachable integrity and competence to investigate and report to this Hon'ble Court. 2. It may be noted that the violations are attributed to respondent no. 5 for which it is specifically stated that respondent no. 4 was required to take action in accordance with law but has failed to take action. Respondent no. 4 as well as respondent no. 5 have their offices at Mumbai. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 submitted that the address is wrongly given, it had its registered office at Jamnagar and the said company has merged with Reliance Industries Limited which has its registered office at Mumbai. The offences are alleged to have been committed by respondent no. 5 which are made punishable under the Companies Act. 3. Section 10(1)(a) of...
Maharashtra State Handloom Corporation Ltd. Vs. Association of Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: 2006(2)CTLJ99(Del); 111(2004)DLT424; 2004(77)DRJ347
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is the second bout of litigation with regard to the invocation of the Bank Guarantee was not invoked as per its terms. While allowing the petition vide order dated 29.5.2003 this Court directed that the petitioner shall keep the Bank Guarantee alive till final award was given by the Arbitrator. At the same time it also observed that this order would in no manner stand in the way of the respondent in issuing a fresh letter of invocation of the Bank Guarantee alive till final award was given by the Arbitrator. At the same time it also observed that this order would in no manner stand in the way of the respondent in issuing a fresh letter of invocation of the Bank Guarantee in accordance with its terms and shall provide cause for the same.2. Both the parties are Public Sector Undertakings. Petitioner is manufacturer of cloth on looms and is also the supplier of such products to various agencies. Respondent No. 1 is the umbrella body of various State level apex co-op...
Dr. Rajesh Sardana Vs. Ito
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Del)116
ORDERM.V. Nayar, A.M.:The assessed has come in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi, in appeal No. 144/1994-95, dt, 19-7-1996. The only ground of appeal is as given below:'The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the additions for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 45,000 from Dr. T.R. Talwar and Rs. 55,000 from Mrs. Vimal Talwar) as unexplained cash credit.'2. The only grievance of the assessed is regarding addition of Rs, 1,00,000 treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. The sum comprises of the following amounts :(i) Rs. 30,000 through cheque from T.R. Talwar on 27-1-1991,(ii) Rs. 16,000 through cheque from T.R. Talwar on 5-3-1991,(iii) Rs. 40,000 through cheque from Mrs. Vimal Talwar on 27-1-1991,(iv) Rs. 15,000 through cheque from Mrs. Vimal Talwar on 5-3-1991.3. The assessing officer observed that during the course of hearing the assessed did not file any confirmation from Mr. T.R. Talwar and Mrs. Vimal Talwar, but filed ...
industrial Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT232TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the assessee's appeal as time-barred, without examining the merits of the case.2. Heard both the sides. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that they had, by mistake, filed their appeal against the order of the original authority in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise in the same Commissionerate instead of filing it in the office of the Commissioner (Appeals). This bona fide mistake was pointed out to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellants but the former did not accept the plea. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that, had the date of filing of the appeal in the office of the Deputy Commissioner been reckoned for computing the period of limitation, there would have been no delay. This submission is not contested before me.3. It is apparent from the above factual position that a bona fide mistake on the part of the appellants occasioned the filing of t...
Jagson Airlines Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bannari Amman Exports (P) Ltd. and a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR315(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT957; 2003(69)DRJ490; [2003]46SCL1(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. A very interesting question of law has cropped up in this petition. The question is whether the order passed by the Arbitrator as to the place of arbitration is challengeable by way of a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The nature of question is such that decision will vary from the facts of each case. 2. At the outset, Ms. Indu Malhotra learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that the order of the arbitrator deciding the application of the petitioner as to the place of arbitration does not come within the ambit of an interim award and is thereforee, not challengeable and the remedy available to the aggrieved party is by way of challenging the final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 which includes the challenge as to the place/ venue of arbitration. In support of this contention, Ms. Malhotra has relied upon Sanshin Chemicals Industry vs . Oriental Carbons & Chemicals Ltd. : [2001]1SC...
Sudheer Srivastava Vs. Director, Aiims and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)393; 105(2003)DLT74; 2003(71)DRJ691; 2004(1)SLJ56(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1.In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the difference of pay to the petitioner for the period from 13.11.1990 to 31.3.1992 as LDC and 1.4.1992 to 30.11.1998 as UDC and also to regularise the service of the petitioner from 13.11.1990. The petitioner was engaged as a Lower Division Clerk on ad hoc basis on a project funded by outside funding agency. The aforesaid engagement of the petitioner continued up to 31.3.1992. The petitioner was thereafter engaged as Upper Division Clerk on the same project from 1.4.1992, which continued up to 30.11.1998. Thereafter the aforesaid project was taken over by the respondent institute whereupon the petitioner underwent a process of selection/recruitment for the post in question and he was recruited on regular basis in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk. The aforesaid project was taken over by the institute under memo dated 24.8.1992 with effect from 29.1.198...
Duggar Fiber Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Bengali Majhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)426; 105(2003)DLT145; 2003(69)DRJ351; 2004(1)SLJ75(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. With the consent of the counsel for both the parties, the Order dated 25th April, 2003 which recorded a wrong date of 21st August, 2000 is recalled and CM 10632/02 which was disposed of vide Order dated 25th April, 2003 is taken up afresh today.2. The question which is now required to be adjudicated in this application is whether the back wages under Section 17-B of the Act are payable from the date of the award.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an Order of this Court dated 24th May, 2002, passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin in CM 5766/2002 in CW4948/2001 entitled as 'Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Subhash Chander Mehta & Others. The relevant portion of the aforesaid Order dated 24th May, 2002 reads as follows:'By this application, respondent seeks that the relief under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act be granted to him from the date of award i.e. 5.4.2000 and not from 17.8.2001 i.e. The date on which the stay order was passed by this Co...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sh. Kanwar Pal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)46; 104(2003)DLT945; 2003(70)DRJ348; 2003(3)SLJ502(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing today.2. This is a writ petition which challenges the award of Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') dated 12th September, 2000, passed in ID No. 11/98 which directed mere payment of the salary of 7 months with effect from 26th August, 1992 to 12th March, 1993 to the respondent No. 1/workman. 3. The dispute which was referred to adjudication was whether the respondent No. 1/workman employed by the Horticulture Department of the MCD was entitled to wages for the period 26th August, 1992 to 12th March, 1993.4. Besides the fact that the amount awarded pursuant to the impugned Award dated 12th September, 2000 is negligible, the petitioner, MCD itself was given various opportunities to file written statement and costs for the adjournments were imposed by the Tribunal. Neither the costs were paid nor any written statement has been filed bef...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »