Delhi Court November 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.
Maxon Printech Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nagaland and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT80
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Paragraph 9 of the petition avers that on 27th February, 2003, the arbitration clause was invoked and the respondent did not respond to the said request thereby entitling the petitioner to approach this Court under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an independent Arbitrator. Paragraph 9 does not mention whether the letter dated 27th February, 2003 was served on the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has categorically denied the receipt of such a letter.2. The petitioner has not filed any proof of service of the letter of request for appointment of an arbitrator with the petition nor made any mention of mode of service and instead enclosed the postal receipt with the rejoinder, of sending the letter under Postal Certificate. Prima facie such a plea is not believable. The relations between the parties were soured to the extent...
Jai Bhagwan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT505; [2006(106)FLR989]
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This petition was filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the order of discharge and show-cause notice which was issued to the petitioner on 31st August, 1996 and, thereafter, to reinstate the petitioner in service in regular appointment or sheltered appointment as the case may be with effect from 31st August, 1996 the date from which he was shown as discharged. However, in the writ petition an alternative prayer was also incorporated by the petitioner directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner disability pension giving him the disability element at 35% with effect from the date of his discharge i.e. 31st August, 1996.2. The petitioner herein was enrolled in the Corps of Engineers on 26th February, 1993. The petitioner was granted casual leave by the respondents for a period of about five days. Pursuant to grant of the said leave the petitioner went on leave with effect from 16th August, 1994 which was effective up to 20th August, 1994.3. It transpi...
Balram Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT169; 2006(1)SLJ483(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner, Balram Sharma a cricketer and sportsman was employed in the sports quota, in the year 1985 with the respondent- Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC). He claims to have won may laurels for ONGC in cricket matches and established his credentials as an outstanding sportsman.2. Present petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned Memorandum dated 8.11.2000, Annexure-1, holding petitioner as deemed to have resigned his appointment in ONGC w.e.f. 29.2.2000 (Afternoon). The memorandum records that petitioner had been relieved from ONGC's New Delhi Office on 30.11.99, with directions to report to Head (PandA), ONGC, NRBC, Jammu, after availing the usual joining time. It further records that he neither reported for duty nor applied for any leave and had been absenting from duties w.e.f. 1.12.1999. A show cause notice dated 29.7.2000, was issued to him to explain why he should not be considered as deemed to have resigned his appointment by invoking ...
H.K. Chawla Vs. Indian Oil Corp.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT274; 2005(80)DRJ411; [2005(105)FLR229]; 2006(1)SLJ494(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks stay of the impugned order of transfer dated 29.3.2004, followed by a relieving order dated 28.4.2004, appearing at pages 18 and 27 of the paper book respectively.2. Petitioner had joined respondent No. 1/IOC in the year 1977 as a Stenographer. He remained in the staff category up to 1986 and thereafter was inducted in the official cadre. Petitioner made considerable progress in his career. He rose to the current position of Manager, Training and Development and is posted at New Delhi. Petitioner claims to have earned 7 promotions in his career. To improve his career prospects, he attained additional educational qualifications and completed his Post Graduation, Bachelor in Law and Master in Law, during his service tenure.3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of transfer as being accentuated by mala fides, being discriminatory in nature. He submits that respondent is sought to be victimi...
V and S VIn Spirit Ab Vs. Kullu Valley Mineral Water Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT97; 2005(30)PTC47(Del)
Mukul Mudgal, J.IA. No. 7530/04(under Sec.151 CPC for condensation of delay in filing the written statement/reply)This application is allowed on account of the reasons given therein and the delay in filing the written statement/reply stands condoned. IA stands disposed of. IA. No. 6325/04 1. This application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(in short the `CPC') seeks interim relief restraining the defendant from using the trademark ABSOLUTE or ABSOLUT or any other mark similarly deceptive with respect to mineral water, packaged drinking water, aerated water or any other goods whatsoever. 2.The sum and substance of the plaintiff's case is that it markets the alcoholic beverage Vodka by the name of ''ABSOLUT'' which word according to the plaintiff was coined in the year 1879. According to the plaintiff, its mark ''ABSOLUT'' is used outside Sweden since 1979 and thereafter became a worldwide product. Since 1998...
Ghanshyam Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT564; 2005(80)DRJ417; 2006(1)SLJ169(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. Petitioner, by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 10.3.1998, passed by the Director of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, whereby it did not approve the placement of the petitioner at S. No. 3 in the Panel by the Selection Committee. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No. 2 to consider his candidature for the post of Lecturership for which he had been interviewed along with other candidates, where for he was placed in the panel by the Selection Committee. Petitioner assails his non-appointment as illegal. 3. Respondent No. 2 had advertised the post of Lecturership in the Hindustan Times on 6.11.1997, inviting applications for the Post of Lecturer (Training). Two posts belong to General Category and one to the Scheduled Caste candidate. The minimum essential qualification prescribed was (i) a good academic record with Post Graduate Degree in First or Highe...
Vakil Chand JaIn Vs. Tax Recovery Officer-vi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Del)153
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was a Director of respondent No. 4 company, which is declared as a defaulter under the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act'') . It is contended by the petitioner that he resigned as a Director on 10.9.1977. However, on behalf of the respondent it was pointed out that there is sufficient material to show that though he resigned as Director, in view of the decision of the Board of Directors, he continues to be liable along with other Directors. We are not required to examine this aspect of the matter at this stage. Suffice it to say that the Tax Recovery Officer pointed out to the petitioner about the misfeasance and negligence and that the petitioner was involved in an excise matter wherein a fine of Rs.1500/- was imposed. The Tax Recovery Officer also pointed out that the petitioner's assets are required to be attached in view of Section 179 of the Act and, thereforee, he i...
Ms. Sunita Wife of Shri Ghanshyam Vs. Krishan Lal S/O Late Shri Des Ra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi284; 115(2004)DLT499; 2005(79)DRJ374
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question that has arisen for consideration in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is whether a lady belonging to a Rana Rajput caste (a forward caste), after marriage to a member of a Jatav caste (a Scheduled Caste) belongs to the Jatav caste or does she continue to remain a member of the Rana Rajput caste.2. This question has arisen because of an election petition bearing ECP No. 02/2003 having been filed by Respondent No. 1 challenging the election of the Petitioner.3. An election was held for the post of a Municipal Councillor in respect of a seat reserved for a Scheduled Caste woman from Ward No. 20, Subhash Nagar Ward of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Assembly Constituency No. 13, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The election was held on 27th March, 2002 and the results were published on 28th March, 2002. The Petitioner was declared elected having got 14,757 votes as against Respondent No. 2 who got 13,755 votes.4. The result of the election was cha...
Virendra Bhatnagar Sansthan and anr. Vs. Aar Ess and Co. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT211; 2005(79)DRJ205
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This application on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeks the recalling of the Order dated 1st September, 2000 and revival of the present suit.2. For ready reference, the Order dated 1st September, 2000 reads as follows:- ''01.09.2000. Present: Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pramod Gupta for the plaintiff. Mr. J.P. Gupta for the defendants. Suit No. 1570/99 Counsel for the plaintiff craves leave of this court to withdraw the suit on the strength of the affidavit Annexure `A' and the receipts and possession letter, dated 7.12.1999 (Page Nos.36 to 41) of the documents file. The counsel for the defendant does not deny the signature on the receipts and the possession letter. Leave granted. The suit is dismissed as withdrawn.'' This order was passed on an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC filed by the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a recovery of Rs. 81 lakhs against the defe...
U.P. Samaj Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Delhi Developme ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT247; 2005(79)DRJ77
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. All captioned petitions centre on the same facts and raise common issue of law and hence are being decided by a common judgment and order.2. U.P. Samaj Co-op. House Building Society, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5259/03 and WP(C) No. 9545/03 prays :WP(C) 5295/03 :''a) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.2.2003/3.3.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2;b) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the allotment order dated 24.5.2002 issued by respondent No. 3 as being contrary to the sponsorship letter dated 12.4.2001;c) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No. 2 and 3 to act in accordance with letter dated 17.10.2002 written by respondent No. 3.;d) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to maintain the sites in question as 'parks' marked in 'purple col...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »