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.
Yatendra Singh Jafa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ185CAT
1. Challenge by Shri Y.S. Jafa, the applicant in this O.A., is directed against Ministry of Home Affair Order No. 16013/27/93-IPS-II dated 23/24.1.2001 where under he has been dismissed from service with immediate effect, in terms of Article 311(2) (c) of the Constitution of India, without holding any inquiry.2. Mr. G.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. V.K. Rao for M/s Sikri and Co. represented the applicant while Mr. K.K. Sood, Additional Solicitor General along with Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj and Mr. Neeraj Jain appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -- Union of India -- Mr. Nitin Tambwekar learned Counsel was present on behalf of respondent No. 3 -- State of Maharashtra. Written submissions were also filed by both the applicant and the respondents.3. The applicant, a directly recruited officer of Indian Police Service (IPS) of 1967 batch of Maharashtra cadre had successively held a number of important and sensitive assignments like, Superintendent of Police, Maharashtra; Joint Assistant Di...
Sanjivani Agro Industries and Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC122
1. The 1st respondent-The Bank of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent-Bank") has filed Original Application No. 416/ 2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "DRT") against the appellants herein, who are defendants 1 to 4 before the DRT (hereinafter referred to as the 2. The appellants/defendants raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the O.A. before the said DRT at Jaipur on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT after hearing both sides passed the impugned order dated 8.8.2001 holding that the said DRT at Jaipur has jurisdiction to decide the said O.A.3. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal. The respondent-Bank did not file any reply to this appeal, but, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank advanced arguments opposing the appeal.I have heard Counsel for both the sides perused the records of the appeal as well ...
Nidhi Goel Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)31; 105(2003)DLT894; 2003(70)DRJ157
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Rule.2. The Petitioner's grievance is that she had gained admission to Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology (Respondent No.3) under the five per cent Management quota. She had paid the fees on 23.6.2003. Subsequent thereto the Guru Govind Singh Indraprashtha University had issued a direction that students above 6180 in the merit list pertaining to general candidates would not be entitled to admission in any of the colleges affiliated to the University. This directive of the University is stated to have been predicated intern on a direction received by the University from the Government of the N.C.T. of Delhi to the effect that even in regard to the five per cent Management seats, the Management must adhere to the merit in the Common Entrance Test. 3. Respondent No.3 is not opposing the Petitioner's case. On this side of the bar, reliance is placed on the following paragraphs of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATIONS AND OTHERS Vers...
Smt. Jayshree Kumar Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi449; 105(2003)DLT967; 2003(70)DRJ233; 2003RLR513
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The moot point which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is the consequence of stated consent to pay property tax in the absence of the fulfillment of the requirement of statutory notice for increase of rateable value. 2. The petitioner is a co-lessee of property bearing Bungalow No. 21 and 21A, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi-110003. The property was assessed to tax. The petitioner received two notices dated 19.3.1999 and 24.3.1999 proposing to amend the assessment list for the years 1989-90 and 1999-2000 on account of the revision of rent. The petitioner was called upon to submit objections, if any. The petitioner submitted objections vide letter dated 7.5.1999. The petitioner received an assessment order dated 14.3.2002 issued by the Assistant Secretary (Tax) of the respondent. A bill dated 153.2002 also accompanied the notice calling upon the two co-owners including the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.13,58,324/- towards difference of h...
Anil Kumar Gautam Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)64; 106(2003)DLT162; 2003(70)DRJ271
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts in the present case are that the Petitioner had applied for admission to M.A. [Political Science] under the category of B.A. (Hons.) [Political Science]. The admission was conditionally granted by the University for the reason that the Petitioner had failed to clear a subsidiary paper.2. By letter dated 24.1.1999 the Petitioner had requested the University that his admission be regularised not on the basis of his being a B.A. (Hons.) student but as a B.A. (Pass) student. Uncontrovertably, the University has granted him a B.A. (Pass) Degree.By letter dated 28.1.2000 the P.G.D.A.V. College had recommended the Petitioner's case and had also stated that the College has no objection to the request if Rules permit any admission. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent has relied on a letter dated 28.4.2000/1.5.2000 which reads as follows:'The PrincipalPGDAV CollegeNehru NagarNew Delhi-110065Sub:M.A./M.Com.(P) Admission1999-2000Dear Sir, Please refer to your lette...
In Re: Modiluft Ltd. (Now Known as Royal Airways Ltd.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 106(2003)DLT217; 2003(71)DRJ397; [2003]47SCL227(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application, moved on behalf of the Royal Airways Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the RAL') under Section 391(1) and 393 of the Companies Act read with Rule 67 & Rule 69 of the Company Court Rules 1959(hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying for directions regarding the convening of the meetings of the creditors of the applicant company for the purpose of considering the Scheme for Compromise with its creditors. The registered office of applicant company is in Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.2. The application, CA 797/2000 was initially filed pursuant to an Order of this Court dated 31st December, 1999. In these group of winding up petitions, the first petition was filed on 1st July, 1996 and thereafter upon a total deposit of Rs.9 crores on 31st December, 1999, the RAL was permitted to file a scheme for compromise, CA 797/2000. But pursuant to the Order dated 6th March, 2003 the said scheme was updated by the directions ...
Sugan Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Thr. G.M.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1715; 2003VAD(Delhi)614; AIR2003Delhi455; 106(2003)DLT411; 2003(70)DRJ309
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal passed on 12. 11. 1998. The facts in short relevant for deciding this appeal are: -One Mr. Sandeep Garg son of the appellant was a bonafide passenger in Lucknow Mail and while traveling from Hapur to New Delhi on October 8, 1996, he fell down at the Tilak Bridge Railway station and died because of the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. The appellant filed an application claiming compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal for the death of his son in the said untoward accident. In the written statement filed by the respondent-Railway Administration the only ground on which the appellant was stated to be not entitled to compensation was that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as he was not holding a valid railway ticket in original. On these pleas being taken, the tribunal framed the followi...
Om Parkash Vs. Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)426; 106(2003)DLT456; (2004)ILLJ753Del
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By this judgment CW No. 592/2001 and CW No. 1360/2001 are being disposed of. Though various grounds have been urged in the two writ petitions in support of the relief prayed for, but during arguments, Counsel restricted their arguments only on two issues, namely, (i) petitioners have been visited with penalty without their being any material on record; and (ii) the penalty imposed is excessive and on the principle of proportionality is liable to be set aside.2. Backdrops of the case leading to the filing of the two writ petitions are that Shri Om Parkash, petitioner in CW No. 592/2001, was working as Orderly in the Court of Mr. Sunil Gaur, Additional District Judge, Delhi, at the relevant time i.e. February, 1996 and the petitioner in CW No. 1360/2001, Shri Radhey Shyam was working as Reader in the Court of the said Judge. File No. RCA. 33/95 titled 'Krishna Kumar v. Shiv Nath' was lost during that period. On a report being made by Mr. Sunil Gaur, Additional Dis...
Hamdard Employeees and General Workers Union (Regd.) Vs. Nct of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)434; 109(2004)DLT359; 2004(75)DRJ49
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition pertains to the fallout of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., reported in : AIR1996SC2231 . The petitioner's union represents the employees of the erstwhile Hamdard Factory at Lal Kuan, Delhi. The said factory belonging to Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Laboratories represented by the respondent nos. 4 & 5 herein which was at Lal Kuan, Delhi, had to be shut down in view of the said decision of the Supreme Court being an industry falling in the 'H' category. The factory was relocated to their own premises at Ghaziabad (U.P.). It is not in dispute that the said factory has been shifted from Lal Kuan, Delhi to Ghaziabad (U.P.) as indicated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 & 5.2. The entire issue in the present petition is with regard to the entitlement for 'shifting bonus' to be given to the workmen who agree to shift with the industry. In the said decision of the Supre...
Nucheml Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Del)166
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The cross-appeals have been directed by the assessed as well as by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 3-8-1992, pertaining to assessment year 1988-89. For the sake of convenience, we will first take up the appeals directed by the assessed.2. In ground No. 1, the assessed has challenged the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that the ground No. 1 raised before him was general in nature whereas he ought to have rejected the observations made by the assessing officer to the effect that delay in finalizing the assessment was due to the fault of the assessed.3. After hearing the rival submissions, we feel that the ground raised by the assessed is merely academic in nature and does not need any adjudication.4. In ground No. 2, the assessed has challenged the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that the assessing officer was justified in refusing to allow the carry forward of the loss to the subsequent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »