Delhi Court May 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.
Shri Tapesh Datta Vs. the Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT128; 2004(75)DRJ251
ORDERPradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The present order disposes of CM.No.1485/2004 filed by Indian Oil Corporation under Section 123, 124 and 162 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC.2.Backdrop of the application is that the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying therein that adverse entries in his ACRs for the years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 be quashed and review DPC be convened with a direction that petitioner's promotion be re-considered by the review DPC ignoring the adverse comments and the down graded entries in the petitioners ACRs.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that large numbers of officers junior to him have superceded him. No adverse remarks have been communicated to him and this is evidence of the fact that there is no adverse entry in his ACRs. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is clueless to understand as to on what basis, he is being superceded. It is alleged in the petition (refer para 5) that ...
Kamal Kumar Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(75)DRJ262
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Writ the Petitioner has prayed for a remission in the rate of license Fee for the right to display advertisements on electric poles falling within Zone-II and Zone-III in the NDMC area. This remission is prayed for on the premise that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) has disallowed the display of advertisements on poles within close proximity of traffic signal lights; of allocation of certain areas to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation in Zone II and III which areas cannot, thereforee, be exploited by the Petitioner; and non-availability of electric poles for display of advertisements in Jor Bagh, Golf Links and Amrita Sher Gill Marg areas due to obstruction and resistance faced from Resident Welfare Association in those areas.2. The concerned tender document inter alias stipulates thus:-NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCILPRAGATI BHAWAN: JAI SINGH ROAD:NEW DELHI-110 0011. Cost of Tender Application Form Rs. 1,500/-2. Last date of issue of Tender Form 07-11...
In Re: Ms. Neera Raina Bhagat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT57; 2004(75)DRJ257
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Revision assails the Order dated 3.5.2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi holding that the Court is sufficiently and duly possessed of jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and that the suit was not barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code; and that the notice to quit was not invalid. The Learned ADJ had listed the case for recording of evidence on the remaining issues, other than Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which had been disposed of by that Order the interim orders passed in these proceedings interdicts the final adjudication of the suit by the Trial Court. 2. The Trial Court had framed eight Issues out of which the following three Issues were treated as prelimiary Issues and decided by the impugned Order. (i) Is the suit barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act? (ii) Is the suit barred by Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC? (iii) Is the notice dated 6.1.99 invalid? If so, to what effect? In respect of the first Issue i...
Dr. Chaman Lal Bansal and anr. Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT60; 2005(1)SLJ252(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners who are readers in the Department of Commerce, College of Vocational Studies have filed the present petition praying that the appointment effected in favor of respondent No. 3 to the post of Principal of College of Vocational Studies be quashed.2. Grievance of the petitioner is that as per Ordinance 24 of the University of Delhi eligibility qualification for a person to be appointed as Principal of any affiliated, maintained or constituent college of University of Delhi is as under:1. Masters Degree in a relevant subject with at least 55% (50% for candidates belonging to SC/ST or those who passed their Masters Degree prior to 19.9.1991 and holds a Ph.D. Degree) or an equivalent grade 'B' in the 7 -point scale with later grade 'O', 'A', 'B', 'C, 'D', 'E' and 'F.2. Ph.D. or equivalent.3. Total experience of 15 years of teaching and/or Post Doctoral Research in universities/colleges and other institutions of higher education.3. Grievance of the petition...
Haryana Telecom Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: [2005]125CompCas701(Delhi); 2004(76)DRJ240
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, raising a significant question with regard to the scope and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). 2. The appointment of the Arbitrator is sought by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that the respondent despite the invocation of the arbitration agreement, initially failed and neglected to appoint the Arbitrator and thereafter appointed the Arbitrator after filing of the present petition under Section 11 of the Act. The question to be considered by the Court in this petition is, despite the respondent having appointed an arbitrator after filing of the petition, can the Court proceed to appoint another arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act treating the appointment of arbitrator made by the respondent as being contrary to Datar Switchgear versus Tata Finance Co. ...
Praduman Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ20
R.C. Jain, J.1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the `Act') and his release from the custody.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the germane facts which led to the passing of the impugned detention order are that on 22nd February, 2003, on the basis of a specific intelligence, the petitioner who was to board an Indian Airlines flight No.IC-895 bound for Dubai at 0950 hrs. from IGI Airport Terminal-II, New Delhi was intercepted and questioned on suspicion and detained. On 23rd February, 2003, foreign currency viz. 22 Swiss currency notes of the denomination of 1000 each and 22 Euro currency notes of the denomination of 500 each, collectively valued at Rs.13,71,700/- in Indian rupee were recovered from the person of the petitioner, the foreign currency notes having been conc...
Renu Vij Vs. Daljit Singh Bhatia and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT880
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. These two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the order dated 19th July, 2000 passed by the Court of Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Shahdara, Delhi, allowing appeals of the respondent No. 2, against orders dated 29th April, 1999 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, holding that petitioner is a necessary and proper party in the eviction proceeding filed by respondent No. 2 against respondent No. 1. The controversy involved in these two petitions is the same and, thereforee, the same are being disposed of by this common order.CM. (M) 538/2000:2. In this case Jai Parkash (respondent No. 2) filed a petition for eviction under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act against Daljeet Singh Bhatia-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter 'the tenant') in respect of a portion of the property No. 355, Gali No. 2, Saraswati Bhandar, Gandhi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, consisting of one room on the ground floor with co...
Sohan Lal Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT547
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. petitioners are all persons who have been charged with theft of electricity and the common question which arises for consideration is the tariff which will be applicable to such cases of theft.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to consider the history of certain legislations and enactments relating to the supply and distribution of electricity. The first enactment is The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Act of 1910') which created the basic framework for electric supply in India. Subsequently, The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'The Supply Act of 1948') was enacted to create the State Electricity Boards, which were responsible for arranging the supply of electricity in the States. The tariffs used to be fixed by these State Electricity Boards, but it was found that there was difficulty in a professional and independent manner of administration and fixation of the tari...
Renu Vij Vs. Kaushik Bhatt and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT861
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the order dated 19th July, 2000 passed by the Court of Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Shahdara, Delhi, allowing appeals of the respondent No. 2, against orders dated 29th April, 1999 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, holding that petitioner is a necessary and proper party in the eviction proceeding filed by respondent No. 2 against respondent No. 1. The controversy involved in these two petitions is the same and, thereforee, the same are being disposed of by this common order.C.M. (M) 538/2000:2. In this case Jai Parkash (respondent No. 2) filed a petition for eviction under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act against Daljeet Singh Bhatia-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter 'the tenant') in respect of a portion of the property No. 355, Gali No. 2, Saraswati Bhandar, Gandhi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, consisting of one room on the ground floor with ...
Red Club Flavours Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT57TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 22-10-2003, the dispute relates to the classification of product 'synthetic soft drink concentrate' manufactured by the appellants. The adjudicating authority classified the same under Sub-heading 2108.10 instead of 2108.99 as claimed by the appellants. That authority accordingly confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 11,372/- and penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that order.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the product in question is not classifiable under Sub-heading 2108.10 and that the Board's Circular dated 8-2-1999 has been wrongly applied, rather as per Chapter Note V of Chapter 21 the classification propounded by the appellants under Sub-heading 2108.99 deserves to be accepted. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. It is well settled that spe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »