Delhi Court April 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sqn. Commandar Randeep Kumar Rana, S/O Shri Sube Singh Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT473; 2004(74)DRJ479
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. Petitioner is working as Commander in the National Security Guard. He is entitled to the medical benefits as are available to the Central Government employees under the Central Government Health Scheme for himself and his family members. It is the case of the petitioner that his minor son was diagnosed with heart ailment known as Ventrical Septal Defect at the age of four months and he was admitted to the National Security Guard hospital for assessment of his heart ailment. Thereafter he was referred to Heart Specialist at Safdarjung Hospital who referred him to Escorts Heart Hospital for Ventrical Septal Defect (VSD) involving Open Heart Surgery. The petitioner applied through proper channel and was granted permission by the respondent for necessary surgery and an advance estimate of about Rs.1,60,000/- by the hospital was prepared. Respondent sanctioned 90% of the said amount, i.e. Rs.1,44,000/-. Operation was carried out on 31.1.2002 and thereafter th...
Shri Chand and anr. Vs. Chief Secretary and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC580; 2005ACJ790; 2004(74)DRJ563; (2004)138PLR1
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs together with interest at 18% for the death of his son on 8th June, 2000. Petitioner-Shri Chand claims that his son-Ram Mohan, aged about 21 years, suffered a tragic death when a concrete slab from the water tank fell on his head. Petitioner's son-Ram Mohan had gone to meet his relation-Shri Sujan Singh who resides at Flat No.30, UTSC Complex, PWD (E), Delhi-110092. It is stated that the deceased after taking meals with his relation was returning after drinking water from the tap near the water tank, when the concrete slab fell on him. The deceased was educated up to intermediate and was doing the job of a labourer earning Rs.60/- per day. Petitioner claims to be the only legal heir entitled to compensation. Affidavit from other LRs, namely, brothers and sisters of the deceased conveying their no objection to the grant of compensation to the petitioner father, have been filed and taken on recor...
Dr. Chander Mohan Arora, S/O Late Shri Ganga Bishan Vs. Shri Sunil Jai ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT462; 2004(74)DRJ504
Vijender Jain, J. (Oral)1. Aggrieved by the order dismissing the suit by the Additional District Judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Appellant/defendant had filed suit for possession and recovery of Rs.1,60,350/- against the respondent/defendant. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff was owner of property no. C-49-A including basement, Mahendru Enclave, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi. The respondent was tenant of the plaintiff in respect of basement measuring 950 sq. ft. shown red in the site plan marked as Ex.PW 1/1. It was contended that there was unregistered lease deed dated 1.1.2002 for a period of 23 months commencing from 1.1.2002 to 30.11.2003 executed between the parties. It was also contended that tenancy was from month to month basis at the agreed terms and conditions of the lease-deed. It was the case of the appellant that through his counsel he served a legal notice dated 4.5.2003 calling upon the defendant to pay entire arrears of rent along with the ele...
Telephone Cables Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC263; 2004(1)CTLJ537(Del); 112(2004)DLT112
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of polythene Insulated Jelly Filled (PIJF) Cables. These PIJF Cables are required by the respondent No. 1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). For this purpose BSNL, issues tenders on an annual basis. Those who bid for the tenders are, if they are found to be qualified and eligible, allocated shares in the tender quantity depending on their vendor ratings. The vendor ratings in turn are calculated on the basis of a formula depending upon, inter alia, the price rating, delivery rating and quality rating. In this petition we are concerned primarily with the delivery rating and the resultant effect on the vendor rating.2. The tender in question is the Tender No. NN/SW/032001/000220 which was issued on 27.3.2001 for the supply of PIJF Underground Cables. The notice inviting tender was also issued on 27.3.2001 wherein it was indicated that the tender quantity would be 441 LCKM and that the tenders would be opened on 22.5.2001 at 1200...
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)36; [2004]270ITR95(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. These two writ petitions were filed against the orders made by the CIT under Section 264 of the IT Act, 1961, whereby the waiver of interest under Section 215 r/w.r. 40(1) of the IT Rules has been denied.2. The AO has examined the matter for the relevant assessment years and made orders. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the assessed preferred applications under Section. 264 of the IT Act, 1961, in both the cases. The same were disposed of by the CIT as aforesaid. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of this Court in CW No. 2009 of 1988, dt. 23rd Oct., 2003, in case titled J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CIT (i.e., in the case of the assessed itself) for asst. yr. 1975-76, submitted that these petitions should also be allowed and similar directions should be given so as to enable the AO to decide the matter. In the said case the short question which arose for consideration by this Court was whether the ITO exercised the discretion vested in him...
Glaxo Group Ltd. and anr. Vs. R.A.S. Mani Iyer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT542; 2004(29)PTC325(Del)
ORDERMukundakam Sharma, J.C.S. (OS) No. 373/2001:1. The present suits filed by the plaintiffs praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and all others from infringing the trademark of the plaintiffs and also restraining passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiffs and for damages.2. While issuing summons and notices to the defendants, an order was passed also on the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendants, their partners or porprietors, officers, servants, agents and representatives from manufacturing, exporting, selling and offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly, dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the trade mark LYNACEF or any other trade mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to the trade mark ZINACEF and SUPACEF amounting to infringement of plaintiffs' trade mark, and also restraining th...
Special Machines Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC731Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are manufacturing welding electrodes and were claiming the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No.175/86/CE dated 1.3.1986. The allegation against the appellant is that they created three more units namely, (i) M/s. Industrial Products, (ii) M/s. Modern Equipments and (iii) M/s. S.M. Welding Electrodes Pvt.Ltd. It is alleged in the show cause notice issued to the appellants after completing the investigation that, the said three units do not have any independent manufacturing capabilities and are completely dependent on the appellants unit. The proposal was therefore to club the clearance of all the four units and consequently, it was alleged that the concessional excise duty benefit for small scale units enjoyed by M/s. Special Machines under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986 was not available to them. Hence duty of Rs. 78,55,951/- was demanded and confirmed against them and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed under Rule 173Q. The appellants a...
Vestergard Frandsen (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc (icd)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC529
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Vestergard Frandsen (I) Pvt. Ltd., is whether the goods imported by them are classifiable under Sub-heading No. 6002.43 of the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as knitted fabrics claimed by them or under Heading 58.04 as net fabric confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order.2. Shri S.V. Arya, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had received an order from the Ordnance Equipment Factory for supply of the Netting Mosquito Round Mesh of Polyester Filament; that as per the specification attached with the Order the material was to be knitted fabrics; that accordingly they imported consignment of knitted fabrics from M/s. Minh Khai Textile Company, Vietnam; that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 7/2002 dated 7/2002 dated 28.3.2002 classified the impugned goods as knitted fabric classifiable under Heading 58.04 of the Tariff; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned O...
S.P. Tanti Vs. the Director, Cbi and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ237CAT
1. Applicant impugns respondents order dated 15.4.2002, whereby his services have been terminated under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965 as well as order dated 1.10.2002, where representation preferred against termination was rejected. Reinstatement with all consequential benefits has been sought.2. Applicant, in pursuance of an advertisement of UPSC applied for the post of Public Prosecutor in the CBI. His name was recommended and on police verification and completion of other formalities he was appointed vide letter dated 9.12.96. Applicant was also appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor on 25.4.97 to conduct cases instituted by Delhi Special/Establishment in the Trial Courts as well as in appeal.During working of applicant he was communicated adverse remarks in his ACRs pertaining to the years 1997 and 1998 which were subsequently expunged on representation. In so far as ACR for the period 1999 is concerned, representation preferred against the adverse remarks was rejected o...
S. Jasdeep Singh Vs. S. Kehar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT441; 2004(74)DRJ490
Mukundakam Sharma, J 1. The plaintiff herein has filed the present suit praying for a decree of declaration against the defendants declaring that the oral partition dated January 5, 1989 and subsequent memorandum dated February 12, 1989 and the entire proceedings and judgment and decree dated November 6, 1989 passed in Suit No. 483/1989 by the Sub Judge, Delhi, in respect of house property No. W-18, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, are null and void, and also for a decree of partition in respect of the aforesaid property declaring the plaintiff and the defendants to be entitled to 1/6th share each in the said property. 2. The aforesaid suit was contested by defendants 1,2,4,5,7 and 9 by filing their written statement, whereas the remaining defendants have not entered appearance and, thereforee, they have been proceeded ex parte. The aforesaid defendants in their written statement have pleaded that the present suit filed by the plaintiff, who is the son of defendant No.3, is not maintainab...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »