Delhi Court July 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.
The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Tara Plastic Industries and
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC161
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 5.2.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in Appeal 35/2001, and an application under Section 26 read with Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer has permitted the judgment-debtors (respondents herein) to deposit the Recovery Certificate amount @ Rs. 75,000/- per month till 28.2.2002, and thereafter, @ Rs. 70,000/- per month. The learned Presiding Officer further directed that if the judgment-debtors commit default in payment of three instalments then the Bank (appellant herein) will be entitled to recover the entire amount of the Recovery Certificate in one go with interest and also to revive the recovery proceedings.Aggrieved, the plaintiff-Bank has preferred this appeal. The respondents/judgme...
Sant Ram Saigal and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)574; 105(2003)DLT746; 2003(70)DRJ42
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1.The purchaser purchases an existing constructed property. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi assesses the rateable value afresh on the basis of new purchase value. The purchaser claims that since no change has been made in the property, mere purchase of the same by the purchaser cannot result in increase of rateable value determined on the basis of new purchase price. This, in sum and substance, is the dispute in the present writ petition. 2.The property bearing No. C - 776, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was purchased and constructed upon in 1981. The premises were initially let out. The plot measures 480 sq. yds. and two independent building units are stated to have been constructed on the same being front and rear portion of the building. Shri P.S. Khera was owner of the property. Shri Khera sought fixation of rateable value on the basis of standard rent determinable on cost basis under Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( hereinafter to be referre...
The New India Assu. Co. Ltd. Vs. Shakuntala Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1528; 2003VAD(Delhi)505; 105(2003)DLT1020; 2003(70)DRJ590; (2003)135PLR1
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant against the award dated 11.4.1994, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as the cross-objections filed by the respondents for enhancement of compensation. 2. The facts in short giving rise to this appeal and cross-objections are:-That respondents 1 to 7 filed a petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Sh.Fateh Singh husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents 2 to 7 in an accident alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. DLP-5843 by its driver. The bus at the relevant time was owned by respondent no.10 and was insured with the appellant. Respondents 8 to 10 as well as the appellant denied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus or that the appellants were entitled to any compensation. Besides the above, insurance company also took the plea that under t...
inderjeet Sharma Vs. National Seeds Corp. Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)119; 2003(71)DRJ589
Mukul Mudgal J.1. The petitioner's services were terminated after an inquiry which was found to be totally flawed by the impugned award dated 27th September, 1993 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the principles of natural justice were violated in the inquiry and the inquiry officer was found biased in the manner in which he allowed the re-examination and disallowed the questions put by the petitioner. The manner of putting the question to the witnesses was also found flawed. The Tribunal accordingly in the operative portion held that 'Normally the petitioner would have been entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and all consequential benefits. In his statement on oath, the petitioner stated that he was entitled to be reinstated into service with full backwages and continuity in service. But at the same time, not a word was stated by the petitioner that he remained unemployed after termination of his services. It has also not been stated that the petitioner...
Mr. Yogender Kumar Vs. B.R. Kohli and Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)137; 106(2003)DLT232; 2003(71)DRJ587
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition by the petitioner workman challenges the impugned Award dated 6th March, 2000, by the Labour Court, respondent No. 4. The impugned award was upon the reference made at the behest of the petitioner and arose from the averred termination of the petitioner's services by the respondent No. 1 on 6th June, 1998. The impugned award has declined to adjudicate on the referred dispute on merits on the ground that the claimant/workman petitioner herein, who was drawing Rs. 1,800/- per month and working as a supervisor was beyond the definition of a workman as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. In my view the impugned award does not contain any discussion of the nature of the work done by the petitioner and has solely proceeded on the nomenclature apart from not examining the impact of section 2(s) of the Act. The entire discussion of the Tribunal is contained in the following findings:-' It is an admitted case of the claimant that he was working a...
Smt. Bimla Devi and ors. Vs. the Financial Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)279; 106(2003)DLT650; 2003(70)DRJ572
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.4.2002 passed by the Financial Commissioner in purported exercise of powers under Section 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The petitioner challenges the impugned order on two grounds: the first ground of challenge is that the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition inasmuch as an earlier revision petition filed by the respondents 5 to 9 against the same order dated 9.8.2000 passed by the Revenue Assistant had been dismissed. As such, a second revision did not lie against the said order in respect of the same parties and the same subject matter. The second ground raised by the petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a complete code in itself and Bhumidari rights have to be declared under the Act alone. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction in this matter. In this regard, he has a...
Bansi Lal Babbar Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)593; 108(2003)DLT23
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the impugned order dated 09.10.2001 to the extent that the petitioner has been directed to obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Fire Department. The impugned order has been passed by the Joint Director (East), Office of the Commissioner of Industries, Government of NCT of Delhi. In the impugned order, it is directed as under:-'Therefore, I feel that licensee should be allowed to continue with his trade under the license given by the department with the condition that he would obtain a NOC from Fire Department within 4 months of the orders failing which his license shall be cancelled.The licensee is thereforee accordingly directed to appear before the Jt. Director (East) in the first week of February, 2002 Along with the NOC from Fire Department. It is also directed that the department should also issue notices to other similarly placed traders to complete the requirements for running the trade/trades of oil and ...
B.P. Mittal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 106(2003)DLT721; 2003(71)DRJ100; 2003(2)JCC1201; 2003RLR441; 2003(4)RAJ55
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.4.2003 passed by Ms. Manju Goel learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that allegations were nominal and it is not possible to say on the basis of such allegations that there is a prima facie case under Section 306, IPC. Since then the petitioners have neither been arrested nor released on bail.2. The petitioners approached the Metropolitan Magistrate for granting permission to visit UAE as they are residents of UAE and their permission was going to expire and the passports were required to be revalidated. The learned Magistrate granted permission but imposed certain conditions that are on the face of highly oppressive, harsh, uncalled for and even beyond the powers of the Court. This petition seeks removal of these conditions.3. At the outset the conditions imposed by the Magistrate were that the permission shall be granted for one month and subject to the conditions that, (i) they shall p...
Dhan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)146; 108(2003)DLT470; 2003(70)DRJ576; 2004(3)SLJ454(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner, who was an employee of the Railway Protection Force, has, inter alia, challenged the action on the part of the respondents of imposing penal rent/damages in respect of the period from 09.03.1992 to 01.07.1994. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that the amount representing the penal rent/damages amounting to Rs 102592.85 has been withheld by the respondents from the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner after his superannuation.2. The facts are that the petitioner was transferred to Delhi on 05.05.1985 and was allotted a class III quarter being 40-CD, Bara More Sarai, Railway Colony, Delhi. This is the premises in question in the present petition. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Ghaziabad on 09.03.1992.3. Despite transfer to Ghaziabad, the petitioner retained the premises in question on the ground that no accommodation was given to him in Ghaziabad. It is, however, the respondent's contention...
Punjab and Sindh Bank Vs. Ch. Daljit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi428
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. By this common judgment, applications, moved by the plaintiffs, namely, IA. 12101/91 in S. No. 2247/85, IA. 12105/91 in S. No. 2248/85, IA. 12106/91 in S. No. 2249/85 and IA. 12162/91 in S. No. 2251/85, under Order XXXIV, Rules 5 and 6 CPC, for passing of the final decree, pursuant to the preliminary decree for mortgage passed on 26-9-1988, are being decided. This judgment would also decide applications, moved by the defendants, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, namely, IA. 2763/96 in S. No. 2247/85, IA. 2764/96 in S. No. 2248/85, IA. 2765/96 in S. No. 2249/85 and IA. 2766/96 in S. No. 2251/ 85, seeking to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding with the application for passing of the final decree for sale of the properties mortgaged with the plaintiff-Bank. The applications are being decided by this common judgment, since apart from the common plaintiff, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, are the common guarantors, namely. Dr. Bajrang Singh and Mr. Krishan Bihari Rohta...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »