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.
Om Parkash K. Oil Depot Vs. Commissioner of Food and Supplies, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)630; 105(2003)DLT722
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought restoration of the Kerosene Oil license No. 2488/82. The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly as follows:1. The petitioner was granted license in 1982 and he has been running the Kerosene Oil Depot in pursuance to the said license at E-2 /254, Nand Nagri, New Delhi, A raid was conducted on 2810.1991 in which it was alleged that there was a shortage in the stock of kerosene by 1386 litres. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged and registered and based upon the lodging of the FIR and the allegations contained therein the petitioner's license was cancelled. On the allegations contained in the FIR a departmental inquiry was conducted and license was cancelled. Pursuant to the said FIR a full-fledged trial was conducted and the same was concluded on 8.1.1997 in which it was held that the stock shortage of 1386 litres of oil was duly explained and this resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner. After acquit...
M.C.D. Vs. Rai Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)26; 109(2004)DLT563; 2004(2)SLJ490(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the Award dated 20. 4. 1999 whereby respondent-workman has been promoted to X-Ray Technician w. e. f. 11. 3. 1989 instead of 3. 11. 1992 the date on which petitioner MCD itself had promoted respondent. It is not in dispute that in spite of the repeated opportunities granted to the management it failed to file the reply to the claim petition as recorded in paragraph 3 of the Award. It is also not in dispute that as per the relevant recruitment rules upon putting in 8 years service of X-Ray Asst. promotion could be made to the post of X-Ray Technician. It is also not in dispute that respondent had been working with petitioner since 11. 3. 1981 and was thus duly entitled for promotion from 11. 3. 1989. The Tribunal relied upon the following extract of the reply filed by the petitioner before Conciliation Officer:-'In response to Para 2, it is submitted that Sh. Rai Singh has been working in MCD since 11. 3. 1981 as X-Ray Asstt. As per notif...
Smt. Dhanpati Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)410; 112(2004)DLT610
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing and setting aside of, inter alia, the judgment and order dated 5.11.98 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in appeals No. PPA 191/88 and PPA. 192/88 filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter refer to as `the Act'). The appeals were preferred against the composite order of the Estate Officer dated 10.10.88 whereby the petitioner had been ordered to be evicted from the public premises bearing quarter No.T-29/3, Red Fort, Delhi-6 and had also been ordered to pay damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for the period of her unauthorised occupation i.e. from 20.10.97 till she would vacate the said accommodation.2. The said accommodation was allotted to the petitioner's husband who passed away on 20.10.96 while still in service. It is an admitted fact that after his death no dependent member of his family has been given gove...
Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Vs. Palmex Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)625; 105(2003)DLT734; 2003(70)DRJ18
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner's first four attempts to clear Phase-I of the MBBS Examination have remained futile. The undisputed case is that he had sought to clear the Phase-I Examination in the fifth opportunity and for this purpose had got the clearance of the University, namely, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar. This is evident from the letter dated 04.01.2002 authored by the Controller of Examination of that University. This attempt has proved to be somewhat favorable. Although he succeeded in passing the examination, the declared result has been recalled by the University, and it is this action that has been assailed in these proceedings.2. The relevant provision is Regulation 7(3) which stipulates thus-'7(3) The first 2 semester (approximately 240 teaching days) shall be occupied in the Phase I (pre-clinical) subjects and introduction to a broader understanding of the perspectives of medical education leading to delivery of health care. No stud...
Mittal Services Vs. Escotel Mobile Communication Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)517; AIR2003Delhi410; 2003(69)DRJ677
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. By instant application, plaintiff seeks issue of a restraint order against the defendant injuncting it from appointing another franchisee for the territory of District Kaithal in its place. 2. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. It runs its business at District Kaithal, Haryana. The defendant is an incorporated Company with its registered office at A-36, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi. It is engaged in the business of providing/operating mobile cellular telephone services in the telecom circles of Haryana, West Uttar Pradesh and Kerala. 3. Plaint version unfolds that the defendant in order to reach out to a wider segment of public in the State of Haryana entered into a Franchisee Agreement dated 25.06.1999 with the plaintiff and appointed it as its sole franchisee for the District of Kaithal with effect from 25th of June, 1999. The agreement was intended to be for a period of five years. However, in case of either party intending to ter...
In Re: Hcl Infosystems Limited,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: [2004]121CompCas861(Delhi); 106(2003)DLT274; 2004(75)DRJ699; [2003]46SCL365(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. These are three petitions filed by the petitioner companies under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for according sanction to the scheme of arrangement between M/s. HCL Infosystems Limited, the demerged company, and HCL Technologies Limited, the resulting company, and HCL Infinet Limited, the transferee company. As the issues arising for consideration revolve around similar facts and similar issues, I propose to dispose of all the three petitions by this common judgment and order.2. HCL Infosystems Limited proposed to enter into a scheme of arrangement with HCL Technologies Limited and HCL Infinet Limited. The aforesaid scheme was approved by the Boards of all the three companies. The petitioners on the basis thereof filed applications in this Court under section 391(1) and 394 of the Companies Act praying for directions convening of the meetings of the shareholders and the secured and unsecured creditors of all the three companies for the ...
Hari Kishan Vs. Fortune Traders and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)89; 105(2003)DLT802; 2003(70)DRJ75
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. By this judgment, IA. No. 4397/2001, being an application moved under Order xxxvII (3)(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of leave to contest the suit, is being decided.2. The facts culminating in filing of the present application for leave to contest may be briefly noted:-(i) Plaintiff, Hari Kishan, sole proprietor of M/s. New Bengal Vastra Bhandar, has filed this suit under Order xxxvII CPC for recovery of Rs. 9,26,514.55, being the amount of cheque bearing No. 823163, dated 2.8.1999 together with interest at 18% per annum, on the outstanding amount from 2.8.1999, till the date of filing of the suit. Pendente lite and future interest is also claimed at 18% per annum.(ii) Plaintiff's case is that defendant No. 2, Sh. Deepak Shirodkar is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1, M/s. Fortune Traders. Defendant No. 1 had approached the plaintiff for purchase of fabric etc., on short term credit. Plaintiff raised number of bills for the supplies made during A...
Ramesh Basandara Vs. Moti Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)170; 105(2003)DLT713; 2003RLR539
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. The petitioner, who is landlord, has filed this petition under Section 115 of the CPC assailing an order of an Additional Rent Controller dated 18.2.2002 by which he has set aside the order of eviction passed against the respondent tenant under Sub-section (4) of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act) and has fixed the application/affidavit of the tenant filed for obtaining leave to contest the application filed by the petitioner landlord for recovery of possession of the tenancy premises from him under Clause (e) of Section 14 of the said Act for consideration on merit.2. This petition is purported to have been filed under Section 115 of the CPC against an order of the Additional Rent Controller (Controller). The Rent Controller is not a Civil Court. It is a Tribunal though it has all the trapping of a Civil Court. The order of the Controller are not revisable by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC....
Roop Lal Bhalla and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4308; 106(2003)DLT388; 2003(70)DRJ194; 2003(3)JCC1422
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Both these petitions are interlinked and arise from the same set of facts and proceedings and are being decided together.2. Petitioners of Crl.R.311/2003 are challenging the order dated 7.4.2003 whereby Sub Divisional Magistrate (in short 'S.D.M.') desealed the property in question pursuant to the order dated 14.1.2003 passed by this court staying the operation of the order dated 28.12.2002 passed by the S.D.M whereby the earlier order dated 8.4.2002 passed by the earlier S.D.M ordering the sealing of the suit property by invoking the provisions of Section 146 Cr.P.C was refused and the property was ordered to be desealed. It was on the application of the petitioners of Crl.M(M) 137/2003 that the order of the sealing of the property in question was passed on 8.4.2002.3. These petitioners had also filed a civil suit for declaration challenging the genuineness of the sale deeds executed in favor of the petitioners of Crl.R.311/2003. In the said suit relief for permanent...
Hindustan Vidyut Products Ltd. Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR190(Delhi); I(2004)BC155; 106(2003)DLT41; 2003(70)DRJ95; (2003)135PLR31
B.N.Chaturvedi, J. 1. Aggrieved by invocation of bank guarantee by respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has filed instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 seeking a restraint order against respondents 1 and 2 from encashing or Realizing any amount under the bank guarantee in question and injuncting the respondent No.3 from making any payment to the respondents 1 and 2 there under. 2. Facts relevant in the context of present controversy may be noticed briefly. On 30th June, 1992 the respondent No.1 placed a purchase order on the petitioner for supply of 1500 kms of 'ACSR Bersimis Conductor' of a total value of Rs.13,92,84,000/- . The delivery was to commence six months from the date of the award letter and was to be completed within 12 months i.e. on or before 30th June, 1993. For each calendar week of delay or part thereof, liquidated damages @1/2% of the contract value, subject to ceiling of 5% of the total contract value, was livable under the cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »