Delhi Court October 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.
Nisar Ahmed Vs. Shakuntala Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT42; 2005(79)DRJ198
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13.3.2002 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-74/2001 whereby the learned Controller on a petition by the respondent herein under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) has refused permission to leave to defend to the petitioner herein under Section 25B of the Act.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller are as follows:- Petitioner in her petition U/s.14D DRC Act submitted inter-alia that ground floor portion of H.No.6, Devi Bhawan comprises of three rooms, kitchen, bath, strone, latrine and open courtyard partly covered with tin shed specifically shown red in the site pan was let out to the respondent without any written agreement on a monthly rent of Rs.233.60 excluding electricity and water charges.She also submitted that she is the owner of the property in dispute specifically shown red in the site plan and respondent is a tenant in respect of a ...
Shri Sanjay Kumar Saxena Vs. Smt. Meeta Govel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT710
R.C. Jain, J.1. Whether a tenant can be denied the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short ''The Act'') for his failure to comply with the order of payment or deposit of rent passed against him under Section 15(1) of the Act without the Controller first striking out the defense of the tenant within the meaning of Section 15(7) of the Act? - is the vexed question which has arisen for determination in the present petition.2. The facts leading to the petition are in a narrow compass. The respondent (landlord) had filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioner (tenant) seeking his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of tenant's default to make the payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 5.9.1996 to January, 1997 and w.e.f. 5.3.1997 till the date of filing of the petition despite service of a notice dated 28.1.1999. The tenant contested the petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the petition was without any cause of action as he had...
Maya Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ703
T.S. Thakur, J.1. This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment and order on sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the appellant has been convicted of an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of the fine the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:-3. At about 3 a.m. on the night intervening 9th and 10th of March, 2001, Police Station, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi received a telephonic information about a quarrel having taken place in House No. F-16, Harkesh Nagar, New Delhi within the limits of the said police station. The information was recorded in D.D. No. 36 of the said police station and PW-11 Head Constable Kishan Lal deputed to visit the spot for necessary action. On reaching the spot, the said witness found a dead b...
Ex-gunner Hoshiar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT207
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This matter was taken up on different dates earlier. Counsel for the petitioner was placing strong reliance on annexure R-1, which is annexed to the rejoinder. The said document was not produced and annexed with the writ petition. After the respondents submitted their counter affidavit, the said document came to be filed by the petitioner in this court along with the rejoinder. 2. On 13th September, 2004, when the matter was taken up it was pointed out by the respondents that there are interpolations in the said document - Annexure R-1 at page 11. thereforee, a direction was issued to the petitioner to place the original of the said document in order to verify as to whether or not there is only interpolation in the said document. It was pointed out by the respondents that the endorsements in page 9 of Annexure R-1 at running page 31, are interpolations by the petitioner. 3. In the counter affidavit the plea taken by the respondents was that the petitioner sought...
Shri Suresh Kumar Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT247; [2005(104)FLR559]
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the respondents declaring the petitioner as permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the Indian Army on medical grounds and also the order dated 11.10.2001 whereby the petitioner was retired from service for his personal health on invalid pension with effect from 11.10.2001.2. The petitioner joined the Special Service Bureau (SSB) under the Ministry of Home Affairs as a Constable on 29.5.1990. At the time of his appointment he was declared medically fit for appointment in government service by the Medical Officer in 18 Army Rifle, Lunglie. After appointment the petitioner completed his basic and recruit training held at T.C. SSB, Haflong in the state of Assam, which training he had undertaken from 23.7.1990 to 15.4.1991. The petitioner successfully completed the aforesaid training. Thereafter he was promoted to the rank of LNK(GD) and NK (GD) on 2.4.1994 and 1.11.1996 respectively, after f...
Usha Intercontinental (India) Vs. Omicron Electronics Gmbh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT740
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiff has prayed for the issuance of an injunction restraining the Defendants from marketing/ selling their products in India either directly or through an agent other than the Plaintiff. In respect of its application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC an ex parte ad interim injunction had issued on the first date of hearing on 15.9.2004. This Order was partially modified on the following date, that is, 5.10.2004 permitting the Defendant to submit its Tenders for ABB (internally), ABB (KPCL), NTPC Auriry (KPCL), Siemens Mumbai and Power Grid CIL (Southern R.). The Defendant has also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 seeking the recalling of the ex parte ad interim injunction. These applications shall be disposed of by these Orders.2. Mr. Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff has read out extensively from the correspondence exchanged between the parties. It is his contention that a perusal of the correspondence discloses that ...
R.G. Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.T.N.L. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi134; I(2005)BC528; 115(2004)DLT92
D.K. Jain, J.1. RULE D.B.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up the matter for final disposal at this stage itself.3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the decision of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (for short' MTNL') not to open the bid documents submitted by the petitioner in response to their invitation to tender for appointment of contractors for Optical Fibre Cables laying by trenching and trenchless technology and allied works. The petitioner seeks a direction to the MTNL to open its techno commercial bid as well as the financial bid and consider the same in the manner contemplated in the notice inviting tender (for short, 'the NIT').4. Factual matrix as projected in the petition, in brief, is as follows:On or about 5 June 2004 MTNL floated a tender for laying Optical Fibre Cables by the aforementioned techniques for a length of around 600 kms. The tender document had two Sections. Section-I, captioned as NIT, inter-alia, contained the ba...
Prem Kumari Vs. Employees State Insurance Corp.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC915; 114(2004)DLT744; (2005)ILLJ777Del
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. FAO 170/2003 is directed against the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge ESIC in ESIC petition No.1/2000 whereby the learned Judge vide his judgment dated 19th July, 2002 has dismissed the claim of the workman on the ground that the disability has not been certified by the Medical Board and that the Certificate obtained by her from the ESI hospital cannot be taken to be the basis for awarding any compensation.2. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that this is a case where the accident took place on 15.7.1988 and the workman suffered an injury which was certified by the ESI hospital to be 75% permanent. The same should be taken as the basis of calculation of award rather than insisting on formalities which are beyond the control of the workman.3. Counsel for the respondent submits that the trial court is absolutely right in arriving at a conclusion that no award can be made in the absence of a certificate by the Medical Board.4. Heard counsel for the parties an...
Smt. Raj Rani Gupta Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT178
Gita Mittal, J.1. Smt. Raj Rani Gupta and Shri Gurdip Singh Madhok brought a suit for perpetual injunction, praying for restraining the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, defendant no.1, by a decree of perpetual injunction from demolishing any part of the structures existing on the properties situated at khasra no.452, village Khirkee, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'). The plaintiff further prayed for decree of perpetual injunction against the DDA, arrayed as defendant no.2, for restraining it from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the afore-stated suit land. The claim of the plaintiffs was based on the plea that they were entered as a Bhoomidars in the Revenue Record; they had constructed a residential dwelling unit on the suit land in the year 1988 and were living therein since then; that suddenly on 5th March, 1990 some officials of the defendants came to the site and started demolishing properties in the village in the vicinity of the plaintiffs a...
R. Santosh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT279
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner pay and allowances for the period during which the petitioner was in police and judicial custody and under suspension, along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a for the delayed payment of the same.2.The petitioner while working as L/Hav was implicated in a criminal case under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered on the basis of FIR No.159/1997 P.S.Delhi Cantt. The petitioner was taken into custody on 6.6.97. He was released on parole for six months w.e.f 19.7.98 to 15.12.98 when he rejoined his duties. For the aforesaid period of six months, the petitioner was paid his full salary and allowances. The petitioner thereafter surrendered and was again taken into custody w.e.f 16.12.98 and continued to remain in custody till 28.1.2003 when he was again released on bail by the appellate court. The petitioner was convicted by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »