Delhi Court January 2004 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.
Mrs. Teeku Dutta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi205; 2004(73)DRJ9
R.C. Jain, J. 1. This civil revision is directed against the order of learned Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi, dated 20.12.1999 thereby allowing an application under Section 151 CPC filed by the objector Banarsi Dass seeking the DNA test of the petitioner Smt. Teeku Dutta and the other objector Ram Saran Dass in order to link her paternity with him (Ram Saran Dass) and to rule out her claim that she is the daughter of Iqbal Nath Sharma.2. The facts leading to the present proceedings are that the petitioner Mrs. Teeku Dutta has filed a petition for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the debts and securities of deceased Iqbal Nath Sharma claiming herself to be his daughter and only surviving class I legal heir. The deceased had died intestate leaving behind his five brothers namely Sh. Banarsi Dass, Sh. Amar Nath Sharma, Sh. Ram Saran Dass Sharma, Sh. P. L. Sharma and Sh. K. C. Sharma. Out of them Sh. P. L. Sharma and Sh. K. C. Sharma had already expired and so only Amar Nat...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Shri V.P. Mehra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi135; 109(2004)DLT546; 2004(72)DRJ594
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the Orders dated 4.11.2003 and 3.1.2004 passed in a Suit for Possession, damages/mense profit and injunction. On 4.11.2003 as no witness on behalf of the Defendant was present. The bailable warrants of Vijay Narain Seth had not been served despite several opportunities as well as a last opportunity. Since all these indulgences had not been availed of, the Defendant's evidence was closed and the case was fixed farina arguments. Thereafter, a Review application was filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was also dismissed by Orders dated 3.1.2004. The Suit has been pending for over one decade. 2. Even previously the Defendant's evidence had been closed but on its having preferred a Revision, this Court had passed the following Orders on 14.1.2004: ''1)-That the trial court shall fix a date preferably within four weeks from today for ex...
Mr. Bhagwan Singh Vs. Food Corp. of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ32
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Writ petition was filed in the year 1984. Rule was issued on 18.4.1985. Writ petition came up for hearing on 26.9.2002. None appeared for the petitioner. Writ petition was dismissed in default. CM 4852/2003 was filed for restoration. Writ petition was restored. It has reached for final hearing today. None has appeared for the parties. I have two options: to dismiss the writ petition for default; or alternatively deal with the issue raised on merits. I choose the latter in view of the fact that the writ petition was dismissed for default once and has been restored. Dismissal for default a second time is likely to result in the same fate as the earlier dismissal. This court has been observing that counsels are not appearing in old matters, I, thereforee, dispose of the writ petition on merits.2. Petitioner challenges the report of enquiry dated 28th December, 1979 and the order imposing penalty dated 15th February, 1982 as well as the order dismissing the appeal f...
All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation (a Regd Society) Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi180; 109(2004)DLT551; 2004(72)DRJ526
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This petition relates to the non-recognition of the petitioner (All India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation, New Delhi) for notification as an association under Section 5(4) of the Press Council Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for the purposes of constituting the 8th Press Council of India. 2. The petitioner was earlier recognised as an association under the said Act by the Press Council of India. In fact, the petitioner was so recognised since 1982 right up to 2001, i.e., up to the 7th term of the Press Council of India. The present controversy pertains to the 8th term of the Press Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the '8th Press Council of India'). The procedure for notifying associations under Section 5(4) of the said Act was altered and in pursuance of this procedure, the petitioner has been denied recognition on the ground that there already exists another association of the same name which is registered in Kanpur. Th...
Mr. D.M. Talwar Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT514; 2004(72)DRJ747
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This Judgment shall dispose of 22 writ petitions. All these writ petitions question the escalation in prices of commercial flats offered by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under the First and Second Self-Financing Schemes (SFS) of 1984 and 1985 respectively. The common grievance of the petitioners is that the price being charged for the flats allotted to them is much higher than the price indicated at the time of application and that there was no justification on the part of the DDA for charging such an escalated price. THE QUESTIONS 2. The questions that arise for determination are:- 1. Whether the costing/pricing of flats and of escalation of such prices of flats is in the realm of contract and, if so, whether a challenge to the same by way of a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution would be maintanable? 2. If such a writ petition was maintanable, whether the escalation in prices of flats under said two schemes were at all justified? THE ...
Smt. Sarla Aggarwal Vs. Day Night Couriers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ1
R.C. Jain, J.1. This Civil Revision under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 2.1.2003 thereby granting leave to contest an eviction petition filed by the petitioner herein.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to the present revision are that the petitioner herein has filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of bona fide need of the premises for her own use and the use of her family members. The petition was made with the averments and allegations that the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the SFS Flat No. L-382, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. She has let out a portion of the said flat consisting of Two bed rooms, drawing and dinning, two bathrooms, kitchen and Scooter garage to the respondent for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,300/- per month vide r...
Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT933; 2004(74)DRJ638
ORDER1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that para 1 of the prayer has not been correctly produced in the petition. He submits that his prayer is for a direction to be issued to the respondent to complete the inquiry on the complaint of the petitioner. Oral prayer is allowed.2. Rule.3. With the Counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for disposal today.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Petitioner claims to have been engaged as a sub-contractor for carrying out works at the NTPC through respondent-M/s. Control and Switchgear Co. Ltd. Petitioner's case is that he duly executed the works. There is allegation made in the petition by the petitioner pointing out malpractices and discrepancies in the works done through respondent-M/s. Control and Switchgear Co. Ltd. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the work of the petitioner related to welding of aluminum sheets to join the generator with the transformer and the same was requi...
M.K. Parwanda Vs. Dy Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)95
ORDERK. C. Singhal, J.M.This appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the block assessment order passed by Deputy Commissioner Circle-23(1), New Delhi dated 31-12-2001, wherein the undisclosed income of Rs. 40,26,200 was made.2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessed has challenged the validity of the assessment on the ground that the notice under section 158BC was never served upon the assessed. According to him, such assessment is null and void since service of notice under section 158BC is a condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction to proceed to assess the undisclosed income under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B. To substantiate his contention, he drew our attention to the factual aspects with reference to the material on record. He invited our attention to the copy of the Panchnama appearing at page 1 of the paper book to point out that the search was carried out at the residential premises of the assessed, i.e., D-9, Pamposh Encla...
Aggarwal Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT336TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the duty demand and the penalty on the appellants.2. The duty has been affirmed on the appellants on account of detection of shortage of the raw materials/inputs at the time of checking made on 28-2-1998 by the officers of the Central Excise of the stock of finished goods, semi-finished goods, raw materials/inputs. The learned Counsel has contended that in fact proper procedure was not adopted by the officers for determining the shortage as no weighment of the goods was made and shortage has been calculated on presumptions and assumptions which is not permissible under the law. He has also contended that penally under Section 11AC could not be imposed as this Section has not been invoked in the show cause notice. The learned Counsel has referred to the ratio of law laid down in Sanket Food Products P Ltd. v. C.C.E., Aurangabad [2003 (162) E....
Mukat Pipes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC582
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Mukat Pipes Ltd., the issue involved is whether steel structures namely columns, trusses, purrlins, etc. are chargeable to Central Excise duty.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture MS Pipes; that they had put up a building attached with a shed for their factory and work relating to shed was entrusted under a work contract to M/s. H.B. construction Co.; that the job work assigned under the contract was fabrication and erection of steel structures and allied work namely, built up columns, roof, supporters, roof sheeting, gantry etc.; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-original dated 13.11.2000 confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty holding that the steel structure fabricated by them are capable of being marketed nd are chargeable to Central Excise duty; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned order has rejected their appeal. He further, submitted that it has been held by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »