Delhi Court May 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.
Dr. Nirmal Singh Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(75)DRJ342; 2005(1)SLJ320(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 16.3.2004 be quashed and a mandamus be issued to the respondent to allow the petitioner to serve up to the end of the fixed 5 year tenure service i.e. till 30.9.2006. 2. The first respondent is the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee, a statutory authority constituted under the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act 1971. The second respondent 'Guru Nanak Institute of Management' is an institute affiliated to 'Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University', a university established under the Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1998. The University is respondent no.4. 3. By and under a contract of service executed on 1.10.1996 between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2, petitioner was appointed as the Director of respondent No.2 for a period of 5 years, extendable by two more years. 4. Two of the terms of contract of service are relevant and need to be noted. Clause 2 and 3 of the Contract stipulated as under:- ''2. The a...
Mr. Jagpal Singh Vs. the Council for Advancement of People's Action an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ690; 2005(1)SLJ255(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART) was incorporated in September, 1986. Another society originally incorporated as IFFHC came into existence in the year 1973. Its name was subsequently changed to People's Action for Development (India) (PADI). A third society named Council for Advancement of Rural Technology (CART) was also incorporated in October 1982. PADI and CART were ultimately amalgamated with CAPART. 2. Petitioner joined PADI as a PAD Field Worker on 9.1.1974. Respondent No., Sh. V.K. Babu joined PADI, also as a PAD Field Worker on 2.4.1974. Respondent No.3 joined the respondent as a PAD Worker in December 1973. Respondent No.4 joined respondent as an STA worker on 1st August, 1977 and respondent No.5 joined as a PAD worker on 15.7.1975. 3. PAD workers were in 2 categories. Category 1 comprised of field workers and the second category consisted of technical workers. Field workers were appointed ad-hoc but the technica...
Mr. R.S. Mudgal and ors. Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ694; [2004(102)FLR664]; 2005(1)SLJ312(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The above petitions have a common factual backdrop and raise identical or related questions of law and are, thereforee, being disposed of by a common judgment and order. 2. For record, it may be noted that though different prayers are made in the captioned petitions, counsel for the parties addressed arguments in support of the following reliefs:- (a) Union of India be directed to grant alternative employment to the petitioners. (b)The VSS scheme introduced by the Liquidator of Super Bazar (The Co-operative Store) be quashed and mandamus be issued to said respondent to frame a VSS scheme to bring it in conformity with the Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2000 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises Department of Public Enterprises. (c) Notice dated 15.1.2003 issued by the Liquidator under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the notice dated 30.4.2003 issued by the Liquidator under Section 25(N) of the...
Dr. T.J. O'Brien Vs. the University of Delhi and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ723
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Though various reliefs have been claimed in the writ petition, during arguments challenge was restricted to the suspension order dated 16.4.2001 placing the petitioner under suspension and as a consequence thereof it was prayed that petitioner be directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. It was also contended that the governing body of the college has no power to dismiss the petitioner. 2. The prayer which was ultimately pressed, as noted above, pertaining to the suspension of the petitioner was argued from various facets. The same being:- a) The Governing Body which took the decision, being not constituted in accordance with the relevant ordinance of the University, its decision was non-est and void in the eyes of law. b) The meeting at which the decision was taken was not validly convened. c) Neither the Governing Body nor the Vice-Chancellor had power to suspend the petitioner, only the Executive Council of the University of Delhi had the po...
Shri Kishori Lal Vs. Shri Ram Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT795; 2004(74)DRJ720
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2002, passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi and confirmed in appeal by the Additional Senior Civil Judge vide judgment dated 24th February, 2003. 2. The respondent had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction seeking a direction to the appellant to handover premises as shown in the site plan ad measuring one bids was i.e 50 sq.yards of the land in Khasra no. 408/2 Village Gokal Pur, Shahdara along with furnitures. An injunction was sought to restrain the appellant from carrying out any illegal construction in the premises. The said suit had been decreed by the learned Civil Judge and the appeal preferred by the appellant, as noted, was dismissed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge. 3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the Regular Second Appeal may be noted.(i) The respondent in his suit for mandatory and permanent injunction had averred that he was the owner hav...
Smt. Khatiza Begum (Deceased) Through Lrs Vs. Sh. Mehar Illahi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi388; 111(2004)DLT786; 2004(75)DRJ29
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking to assail the order dated 3.2.2004, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the present writ petition has been filed instead and is maintainable2. He places reliance on Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.. reported at Judgment Today 2003 (6) SC 465, wherein the Supreme Court taking note of the amendment in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure held and summed the situations, where a writ of certiorari by petition under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable. Counsel for petitioner, thereforee, urges that petition is maintainable.3. Petitioner assails the impugned order permitting the landlord-tenant to produce at a belated stage, the documents, which are notices of termination of tenancy, subject to costs. It is urged th...
Northern Sanitation Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR195(Delhi); 111(2004)DLT756; 2004(74)DRJ748
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for appointment of an independent person as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and claims detailed in para 7(xv) of the petition. Notice in the petition was issued to respondent no.3. Mr. Rohit Verma, advocate entered appearance on behalf of the respondents on 18.11.2003. The matter had been adjourned from time to time as this case got linked up with another batch of petitions wherein the Court was considering the validity of an order to be passed under Section 11, wherein during the pendency of the petitions, an Arbitrator has been appointed by the respondents. 2. The said question does not arise in the present petition and this petition has been delinked from those set of petitions and is being disposed of accordingly. 3. Petitioner's grievance is that it had submitted a tender under the name and style of 'Augmentation of Sewerage in various NDMC ...
Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Hanif A. Haroon
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi383
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant assails the order passed by Shri S.M. Chopra, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order passed by Shri Shailender Malik, Civil Judge, Delhi decreeing the suit under Order 12, Rule 6, C.P.C. The learned Civil Judge vide order dated 2-12-2003, decreed the suit based on admissions made by the appellant. The learned Civil Judge noted that after the summons of the suit were served and filing of the written statement, statement of the appellant was recorded under Order 20. Based on the averments made in the written statement and the statement recorded under Order 10, Rule 2, the learned Civil Judge reached the conclusion that the appellant had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and the rate of rent. The receipt of notice of termination of tenancy was also admitted. Based on these, he proceeded to decree the suit u...
O.P. Khaitan Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (investigation) and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Del)231; [2005]273ITR429(Delhi)
1. Initially, the assessed by filing this writ petition has prayed for several prayers. However, after the assessment order being passed by the AO, this petition is not required to be entertained as per the prayer clauses. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he would only like to press the relief so far as the order (Annex. R1) dt. 17th July, 1990 is concerned.2. By an order under Section 272A(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, on 17th July, 1990, the Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) arrived at a conclusion that the assessed had no valid ground for seeking an adjournment and for not appearing before the AO in response to the summons under Section 131 of the IT Act, 1961, and thereforee, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Section 272A(1)(c) of the Act. The assessed submitted that there was no deliberate attempt on his part to not respond to the summons under Section 131(1) of the Act. No doubt, he had submitted an adjournment application for the second tim...
O.P. Khaitan Vs. Dy. Dit (investigation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: [2004]139TAXMAN266(Delhi)
Initially, the assessed by filing this writ petition has prayed for several prayers. However, after the assessment order being passed by the assessing officer, this petition is not required to be entertained as per the prayer clauses. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he would only like to press the relief so far as the order (Annexure R1) dated 17-7-1990 is concerned.2. By an order under section 272A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 17-7-1990, the Dy. Director of Income-tax arrived at a conclusion that the assessed had no valid ground for seeking an adjournment and from not appearing before the assessing officer in response to the summons under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thereforee, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 272A(1)(c) of the Act. The assessed submitted that there was no deliberate attempt on his part not to respond to the summons under section 131(1) of the Act. No doubt, he had submitted an adjour...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »