Delhi Court May 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Taarika Export and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)261; 105(2003)DLT569; 2003(69)DRJ392; 2003(90)ECC107; 2004(171)ELT163(Del)
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioners to challenge the order dated 13th November, 1995 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade imposing a penalty of Rs. 45 lacs on the petitioners for their having failed to fulfill the export obligations and thus contravening Section 4-I(1)(a) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 as also the order dated 12th August, 1997 passed in appeal by the Appellate Committee. A few facts relevant for deciding this petition are :-Under the EXIM Policy 1990-93, the Government of India had framed a duty exemption scheme. The objective of the scheme was to make available to the registered exporters, the necessary inputs needed for export production at international prices without payment of customs duty, as per the relevant Customs Notification issued in that regard so as to make the exports competitive in the international market. The importers were issued licenses to import raw material f...
Shri Jagdish Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)127; 105(2003)DLT359; 2003(71)DRJ701
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the orders dated 20th December, 1997 and 24th December, 1997 issued by the respondents. On 20th December, 1997 the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security had first given a direction that the airport entry passes issued to the employees of the Turkmenistan Airlines stood cancelled with immediate effect, but another order was issued on the same date informing the airlines that orders issued earlier regarding cancellation of airport passes of all the employees of the airlines stood withdrawn, however, any type of airport pass including commercial pass and photo identity card issued to the petitioner and any other staff of M/s. Deepika Travel, Cozy Travel, N-1, Connaught Place, middle circle, New Delhi stand cancelled. By order dated 24th December, 1997, photo identify cards etc. were directed to be surrendered to Regional Deputy Commissioner of Security. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appoint...
Dr. Rakesh Kishore Vs. Registrar Coop. Societies and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)641; 105(2003)DLT390; 2003(69)DRJ387
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioner, Dr. Rakesh Kishore, purchased Flat No. B-602 in Arur Cooperative Group Housing Society, Mayur Vihar-I Extension, Delhi-110091. The petitioner got the flat converted into freehold from the Delhi Development Authority and has also got the mutation done in his name by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.2. It is alleged in the petition that to obtain physical possession of the said flat in the society the management committee of society demanded Rs. 50,000/- as entry fee at the time of entry. The petitioner repeatedly requested the management committee that no entry fee can legally be charged from the petitioner. It is alleged that the management committee despite repeated requests insisted the petitioner to pay the amount of entry fee. Ultimately the petitioner had to pay Rs. 50,000/- vide two Cheque Nos. 0026590 & 0026591 of Rs. 25,000/- each which were duly withdrawn from the petitioner's account and deposited in the account of the society through...
Werm (India) Limited and ors. Vs. the Lokayukta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)676; 105(2003)DLT400; 2003(69)DRJ229
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The present petition raises the question about the scope and ambit of the powers and extent of jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner has filed this petition to challenge the report of the Lokayukta on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to inquire into the allegations against the private individuals nor could be widen the scope of inquiry so as to inquire into a matter for which he has not issued notice to the public functionaries. Under Section 7 of the Act, the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to inquire into the allegations made against a public functionary in relation to whom either the President or the Lieutenant Governor is the competent authority. The public functionary is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act and the same does not include any private individual or a company which is not a Government company. The 'allegations' into which the inquiry can be initiated ...
Delhi Pradesh Taxi Union and anr. Vs. Airport Authority of India and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: 2(2003)ACC710; II(2003)ACC710; 2003IVAD(Delhi)713; 105(2003)DLT479; 2003(69)DRJ459
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This order will dispose of the application of respondent No. 8 for review of the order dated 2nd May, 2002, whereby the writ petition was disposed of by the Court. A few facts relevant for deciding this application are:- The petitioner, a Union of Taxi Operators, having their area of operation mainly at the IGI Airport, New Delhi, had filed the writ petition for issuing a direction to the Airport Authority to ensure that all the vehicles of respondent No. 8, registration numbers of which were given in the writ petition being plied between IGI Airport and Amritsar, do not carry passengers against the individually issued tickets and to ensure that they adhere to the mandatory requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed there under. The writ petition was filed on the ground that the vehicles for which permit had been granted to respondent No. 8 could be plied as contract carriages and not as stage carriages and since under Section 2(7) of the Moto...
Lucky Star Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)567; 105(2003)DLT300; 2003(71)DRJ700
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The legal issue of the period of limitation for creating a charge for recovery of property tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, `the Act' ) has given rise to the present writ petition.2. A notice of assessment under Section 126 of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 27.03.1980 and the petitioner filed objections thereto on 02.04.1980. This was for the assessment year 1979-80. A notice was again issued under Section 126 of the Act for the year 1980-81 on 30.03.1981 and objections were filed on 17.04.1981. Another notice was issued under Section 126 of the Act on 19.03.1985 for the assessment year 1984-85 and the petitioner filed objections on 15.04.1985. The assessment order was passed on 27.12.1990 determining the rateable value for the various periods, which was followed by a bill dated 10.09.1991.3. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the demand for property tax raised vide ...
interads Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Palmex Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)47; I(2004)BC502; 1(2003)DLT106; 2003(71)DRJ795
ORDER OF LAKSHMI COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED SHOWING FREIGHT PREPAID AND MARKED NOTIFIED LAKSHMI COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED NEW DELHI CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN AND PACKING LIST IN QUADRUPLICATE REQUIRED CERTIFICATE OF WEIGHT AND QUALITY ISSUED BY INDEPENDENT SURVEYORS REQUIRED GOODS COVERED UNDER OPEN GENERAL license OF IMPORT TRADE CONTROL POLICY AM 1979/80 WHICH MUST APPEAR ON THE RELATIVE INVOICES STOP NEGOTIATING BANK TO CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT FROM MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY NEW YOUR UNDER CABLE ADVICE TO US -LAKCOBANK- Manager,The Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd.,Foreign Exch. Dept. H-BlockNew Delhi.' It is the Plaintiffs case that a copy of this Letter of Credit was received by them as late as on 12.9.1979. 5. The Bill of Lading shows that it was issued in Singapore on 29.8.1979 by WELLWAY LINES, Defendant No. 4. It mentions the Plaintiff as the Shipper and Defendant No. 3 as the consignee as well as 'Notify party'. The vessel is named `OH DAI' ; the port of loading being Singapore and ...
Glitter Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sanjay Grover and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)217; 105(2003)DLT530; 2003(69)DRJ643
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Order shall dispose of is No. 6147/2002, filed by Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for supply of the complete paper book; is No. 8460/2002 also filed by the same Defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4; and is No. 2528/2002 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 which accompanied the plaint. The Plaintiff had also filed is No. 377/2003 under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint. Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior counsel has contended that this application is calculated only to delay the proceedings and since it seeks to assail the Gift Deed in favor of Defendant Nos.3 and 4, in order that the hearings on the ad interim injunction be not delayed, the Court may presume that this relief has been incorporated into the plaint. is No. 377/2003 stands allowed and as a consequence, is No. 376/2003 also stands disposed of.2. On 15.3.2002 Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, had restrained the Defendants from selling or transferring property bearing No. 3, Panchsheel Marg, New Delhi (herei...
Mr. Akshay Kapur and ors. Vs. Mr. Rishav Kapur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR508(Delhi); 105(2003)DLT467; 2003(69)DRJ332; 2003(3)RAJ189
Vikramajit Sen, J. IA No. 1441/2003 in Suit No. 77/2003 1. These Orders shall decide an application filed on behalf of Defendants No. 8 and 9 under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') praying that the parties and the disputes be referred to arbitration and the pending suit be dismissed. The suit is for Declaration and permanent injunction in which the reliefs prayed for are --'a . pass a decree of declaration declaring the impugned report to be invalid and/or void. b. pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from pursuing or taking any steps pursuant to the impugned report.'2. In is No. 338/2003 which accompanied the plaint praying for an ex-parte ad interim injunction, the Defendants had been restrained from taking any steps or acting in pursuance of the Final Valuation Report prepared by Messrs Ernst & Young Private Ltd., Defendant No. 11, through Defendant No. 10. Arguments have been ...
Gyanender Kumar Verma and ors. Vs. Kailash Chand JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2003
Reported in: 105(2003)DLT596; 2003(70)DRJ102; 2003RLR401
R.C. Jain, J. 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal Delhi dated 22.10.2001, by which the appeal of the present appellants against their eviction from suit premises viz. shop bearing No. 1793, Dariba Kalan, as ordered by the Rent Controller has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that Smt. Rajpati, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 herein had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act') against Smt. Sharbati Devi (respondent No. 2) in the present appeal and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants alleging that Smt. Sharbati Devi, the tenant in respect of the shop in question had unauthorisedly sub-let the same to Smt. Shakuntala Devi without the written permission of the landlord. According to the petitioner Smt. Rajpati Along with other four ladies, namely, Smt. Inderpati, Smt. Laxmi ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »