Delhi Court April 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.
Sh. Matwal Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT489; 2004(75)DRJ461
A.K. Sikri, J.1. In these two writ petitions the question of law to be decided is identical. The petitioners claim that the land which was acquired vide notification dated 13.11.1959 did not include their land as it was specifically exempted being evacuee land. Notwithstanding this fact, the respondent had issued declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') and thereafter Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector covering the land of the petitioners. The petitioners have sought quashing of the declaration/Award on the ground that when there was no notification under Section 4 of the LA Act covering their land, all subsequent proceedings are void. For better appreciation of this contention, we may note the facts of WP (C) No. 2677/81.2. It is stated in this petition that the petitioner is the owner of the land covering 2 bigha 14 bids was situate in Khasra No. 206/2/1 in village Basai Dara Pur, Delhi. This property originally...
Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Gmbh and Co. Kg and anr. Vs. Anch ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(29)PTC72(Del)
R.C. Chopra, J.1. In is No. 10928/2002, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs seek an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale the tooth brushes which infringe the plaintiffs registered design No. 170554. Vide IAs No. 4541/2003 and 6572/2003 under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC the defendant seeks vacation of the ex-parte ad interim injunction issued vide orders dated 26th November 2002.2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction and accounts regarding profits on account of infringement of its registered design No. 170554 in respect of their tooth brush Annexure B. The plaintiff No. 1 is a Company organized under the laws of Germany and was earlier known as Linger + Fischer GmbH. Pursuant to a change in its name, it became Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare GmbH and thereafter in pursuance of a merger its name was challenged to Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare GmbH & Co. KG, i.e. the plaintiff No. ...
Madan Lal Mittal Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT934
D.K. Jain, J.1. Order dated 11th November, 2002 passed in this writ petition narrates in brief the controversy involved in the case and in fact expresses, prima facie, opinion. It would be apposite to have a look thereon:'Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken us to the stand taken on behalf of the Collector, Land Acquisition as well as by DDA in the reply affidavits. Reply affidavits do not deal with the main issue arising for consideration in this petition. Grievance of the petitioner is with respect to a part of land comprising in Khasra No. 257 situated in village Ladha Sarai. At page 37 of the paper book is the copy of Aksh Sajra. Khasra No. 257 has been shown in pink colour. It measured 4 bighas 6 biswas. The petitioner's grievance is with respect to part of it measured 3 bighas 7 biswas. The same is covered by Award No. 19A/88-89 (Supply) dated 12.11.1989 which is under challenge in this petition. The entire land surrounding this Khasra No. 257 is shown in the greenish yel...
Madan Lal Khurana Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT333
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13th October, 1997 in complaint 10/1 dated 7th May, 1997, whereby the learned Magistrate on complaint made under Section 500, IPC has issued summons to the petitioner Shri Madan Lal Knurana.2. Nobody was present for the complainant on 7th May, 2003, 1st August, 2003, 22nd October, 2003 and 9th January, 2004, even today nobody is representing the complainant.3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complaint does not disclose a cause of action and also that the complaint is fictitious, malicious, inherently improbable and not trustworthy and does not inspire confidence.4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that Article 361 of the Constitution of India prohibits any Criminal Proceedings whatsoever to be instituted or continued against the President or the Governor of the State in any Court during his term of office. The petitioner herein is the Governor of the ...
Autocrat Tours Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)SLJ146(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21st January, 1978 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) under the provisions of Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act) and the consequent demand dated 31st January, 1978.2. The controversy in the case is rather narrow. The petitioner is carrying on a transport business. It owns a fleet of cars and utilizes the services of drivers, cleaners, etc. According to the petitioner it has an employee strength of less than 20 and so the provisions of the Act are not at all applicable to it. As is obvious, this is essentially a question of fact.3. On 2nd September, 1977 a Provident Fund Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner and noted its business as 'tourism car hire operators'. The number of employees was as follows : January 1977 24 Employees February 1977 24 Employees March 1977 24 Employees April 1977 22 Employees4. A list of these employees ...
Tigri Fabrication Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC269
1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 9/2003, dated 22-10-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi whereby the benefit of Notification No. 198/87-C.E., dated 28-8-1987 was disallowed in respect of the goods manufactured by the appellants.2. The contention of the appellant is that as per the Notification, goods classifiable under Chapter Heading 94 are exempted from payment of central excise duty subject to the condition that such goods are genuine products of a village industry; such goods marketed by or with the assistance of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission; the manufacturer of such goods is to produce a certificate from the KVIC regarding genuine products of village industries and the same are marketed by or with the assistance of KVIC. The contention of the appellant is that the necessary certificate was produced by the appellant. Genuineness of the certificate is not disputed by the Revenue, however, the ...
Sh. N.C. Gupta Vs. Acit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)90ITD768(Delhi)
1. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The main issue arising in these appeals relates to the validity of re-assessment proceedings Under Section 147.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these: The assessee was employed as Development Officer with LIC of India, Saharanpur. In all these years under consideration, the assessee had received certain amount of incentive bonus from the employer in addition to the salary. In computing his income for all the years, he deducted amounts equal to 40% of incentive bonus on account of expenditure incurred for earning such income. Assessments were made Under Section 143(1) for all these years. At this stage, it may be mentioned that no disallowance was made by the AO while processing the return Under Section 143(1) in respect of asstt. Years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 while such deductions were disallowed in respect of asstt. Years 1995-96 and 1997-98 which were deleted ...
Shri Sanjay Kumar Vs. Govt.of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT587; 2004(74)DRJ205; 2005(1)SLJ289(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. An advertisement was issued by Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) inviting applications from eligible candidates to be appointed as Welfare Officer Grade II in the Department of Social Welfare under the Government of NCT of Delhi. Petitioners applied under the OBC category. The candidates who had applied, which included the petitioners were subjected to a written examination. Based on performance in the written test, some candidates which included the petitioners were called for an interview. Only one OBC candidate was finally offered appointment as against 10 vacancies notified as falling in the quota of OBC candidates. Petitioners have filed two captioned petitions alleging that since there exists vacant posts falling to the quota of OBC candidates, there is no reason as to why only one OBC candidate be appointed. Petitioner alleged that the Board is obliged to effect selection to all the notified vacancies and cannot adopt a criteria of having ...
Smt. Krishna Malik Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Malik and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4044; 111(2004)DLT184; 2004(74)DRJ223
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1.The petitioner has filed the civil contempt petition alleging that the petitioner is a victim of the planned fraudulent acts of the respondents whereby she has been deprived of the possession of part of the property No. 2/102-C Geeta Colony, Delhi where she was occupying the first floor and the barsati floor. It may be noticed that there is no specific order of the court of which contempt has been alleged in the present petition.2.The petitioner and respondent No.1 are husband and wife and have matrimonial disputes between them. The petitioner claimed to be in occupation of the aforesaid portion of the property in question and it is stated that the petitioner had even filed a suit for injunction restraining respondent No.1 from dispossessing the petitioner. In the said suit, respondent No.1 had filed an application praying for restraining the petitioner herein from entering the house of respondent No.1 mentioned aforesaid. This application of respondent No.1 was...
Smt. Krishna Chaubey and ors. Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC24; AIR2004Delhi379; 111(2004)DLT111; 2004(74)DRJ281
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J 1. Rule.2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. Dr.G.K.Chaubey passed away in unfortunate circumstances on 26.5.1999 while swimming in the pool of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, managed by respondent no.4. A post-mortem was conducted finding the cause of death due to drowning and an FIR was lodged on 26.5.1999 itself. The petitioners, who are the LRs of Dr.Chaubey, have alleged negligence on parts of respondents no. 3, 4 and 6 and non-compliance of mandatory conditions required under a license, which license was not obtained by respondents no.3 and 4. The writ petition has been filed seeking compensation of Rs.57.00 lacs. Further prayer has also been made seeking directions against the statutory authorities from failure to comply with their obligations. 4. In so far as the issue of prosecution of the concerned respondents is concerned, the charge-sheet has already been filed. The real question, thu...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »