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.
Escorts Finance Ltd. Vs. Manubhai Labhubhai Parmar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT293; 2004(77)DRJ262
H.R. Malhotra J.1. This is an application made by respondent No.1 seeking vacation of order passed by this Court on 8th May,2002 whereby a Court Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the four Loaders it being a subject matter of Hire Purchase Agreement as the respondents failed to pay the Installments due from them and thereforee the Court had found prima facie case in favor of the petitioner and ordered as such.2. It is stated in the application that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the Hire Purchase Agreement was executed at Ahmedabad and the respondents also reside in the State of Gujarat. It is admitted in the application that the respondent had made an application to the petitioner for obtaining loan of the value of Rs. 20 lacs for 4 Loaders and Dozers and pursuant to that a consent letter was given by the petitioner to the respondent that the loan of Rs. 19 lacs will be sanctioned in favor of the respondent. It is further admitted...
Veer Bhan (Sepoy) Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT667
Gita Mittal, J.1. The petitioner, by virtue of this writ petition, is seeking quashing of the proceedings, findings and sentence of the Summary Court Martial dated 11th July, 1994 whereby the petitioner was found guilty of the charge under Section 52(b) of the Army Act, 1950 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of four months and dismissal from service.2. The petitioner joined the Indian Army as Sepoy in the Jat Regiment in the year 1980 and claims that he has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of all the superior officers of the Indian Army. While on active service at Changri west post on 26th June, 1994, it was alleged that he had dishonestly misappropriated government ration valued at Rs.4,031.24 P. and had sold it to civilians. Pursuant to these allegations, a summary of evidence was directed against the petitioner by his Commanding Officer Col. K.K. Bhattacharya which was recorded on 6th July, 1994. 3. Based on the summary of evidence, a tentative charge-sheet was dra...
Manmohan Pall Vs. Chander Pall
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT703; II(2004)DMC804
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. FAO 154/2002 is directed against the order dated 14th February, 2002, of the Additional District Judge in HMA No. 3/2002/2001, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application of the appellant herein under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for restoring the petition, which was dismissed in default on 20th July, 2001.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Additional District Judge, are as under :'Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present application are that the petition u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act had been filed by the applicant/husband against the respondent/wife, for dissolution of his marriage, which was pending for 20.7.2001 for arguments on the application u/o 6 Rule 16 CPC, n which the petitioner/applicant did not put in appearance and the petition had been dismissed in default at 3.55 P.M.3. The present application has been filed for seeking restoration of the petition and setting aside of the order da...
Ms. Vandana Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT660
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner Ms.Vandana seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondent No.4 school, to allow her to join duties as TGT Maths and for issuance of an appointment letter. Prayer is also made to call for the records of the Selection Committee and Attendance Register and direct respondents 1 to 3 to take action against respondent No.4 as per Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Rules framed there under, for not permitting the petitioner to join.2. Respondent No.4 had taken out an advertisement in a national daily on 10.8.2003 and 13.8.2003 inviting applications for the post of TGT Maths and Assistant Teachers, Peon etc. Petitioner in response to the advertisement applied for the post of TGT Maths (OBC). She appeared for an interview on 8.10.2003, before the Selection Committee. Petitioner was found to be the most meritorious candidate and placed at No.1 position in the panel as communicated to her verbally.3. Petitioner received a phone call from the Principal of resp...
Dcm Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)408
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. IT Appeal No. 588 of 2004Admit.On the identical issue, the appeals are pending before us for previous years. The following question of law is required to be determined by this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,69,542 credited to molasses storage fund out of the sale proceeds of molasses was to be included in the income of the appellant ?'In the other two appeals, the question is identical except the amount.IT Appeal No. 588 of 2004 and IT Appeal Nos. 4 & 99 of 2002At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the assessed as well as the Revenue, we are disposing of all the three appeals, namely, IT Appeal Nos. 4 of 2002 and 99 of 2002 and the present appeal being IT Appeal No. 588 of 2004 for the asst. yrs. 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, respectively.2. The assessed is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of various articles including sugar. Under the...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. India Matals
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT311; 2005(79)DRJ538
R.C. Jain, J.1. These are the objections filed by the petitioner under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the Award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 25.2.1993. Vide a purchase order No. 211-S/634/TSO/India Metals dated 31.7.1987, the respondent undertook to supply 6.5 lacs numbers of sleeper screws for HM fastening to RDSO drawing No. T 3001/Alt. Nil and confirming to I.R.S Specification No. IRST-16 to the petitioner. The requisite supplies were not made for various reasons and it is alleged that the petitioner-Union of India terminated the Contract and has made Risk Purchase of Screws and on that account suffered loss of Rs. 11,71,025/- which the respondent was liable to reimburse to the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the Risk Purchase Order. Respondent denied its liability and thereforee, the dispute arose between the parties which were referred to the Sole Arbitration of Shri V. K. Kaul, Additional Divisional Railway Mana...
Padam Chand Gupta Vs. P.O., Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Lab ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ664Del
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated April 6, 1993 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 71/1986.2. Sometime in 1924, the Civil Justice Committee (commonly known as the Justice Rankin Committee) was set up to review the law's delays and suggest changes 'for the more speedy, economical and satisfactory dispatch of the business transacted in the Courts'. It was said in the report that:'Unless a Court can start with a reasonably clean state, improvement of methods is likely to tantalize only. The existence of a mass of arrears lakes the heart out of a Presiding Judge.' Eighty long years have gone by and we are still trying to tackle the mass of arrears.3. The disputes in the present case started in 1973 and it has taken three decades to reach this stage. The Petitioner, who is the aggrieved party, slept over his rights between 1975 and 1985 - for ten long years. But, our legal system is such that it holds this delay to be imma...
K. Ganesh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)SLJ94(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. As the facts giving rise to the present two writ petitions arc similar and the issues arising for our consideration are identical, we propose to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment and order.WP(C) 1792/2002:2. The petitioner herein was posted and working in the accounts section of the respondents/CISF at North Zone Headquarters, New Delhi. The scope of his duties included, inter alia, preparing bills, making payments mainly of CEA, Tuition Fee, TA, DA and LTC claims. During the course of discharging his duties the petitioner was found to have claimed a sum of Rs. 36,775/- in excess and illegally from the Government fund through various bills which he was not entitled to claim. Another sum of Rs. 500/- was adjusted by him against one Inspector M.D. Manjihi. On the aforesaid account a criminal case was registered on 1.2.1999 for the offences of cheat, fraud, forgery and misappropriation, falsification of account, intentional wrongful gain ...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›