Delhi Court July 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.
Chunni Lal Jaipuria Vs. Tulla Ram Champa Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT413
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. CRP 541/2001 is directed against the order dated 23rd February, 2001 of the Additional Rent Controller in Eviction Case No. E-177/1995, whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has allowed the application of the respondent No. 2 herein under Order 9 Rules 7 and 13 of the CPC.2. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2, who has been negligent in pursuing the proceedings ought not to be allowed to file written statement and join proceedings. He submits that this would cause prejudice to the petitioner would delay the proceedings.3. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 on the other hand draws my attention to the order dated 15th May, 2001 wherein he was allowed to participate in the proceedings by putting in his defense legally available to him. Counsel also informs me that the written statement has already been taken on record and the matter is proceeding for trial and is at the evidence stage.4. Having heard Counsel for the parties ...
Arindam Ghosh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT681
ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.W.P. (Crl.) 828/2004:1. Joint petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR 382/1998 under Section 408, IPC lodged by petitioner No. 2 against petitioner No. 1 with Police Station, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and subsequent proceedings pending in the Court of Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, MM, New Delhi.2. Briefly stated facts of this case are that petitioner No. 1 had joined the services of the petitioner No. 2 company as a Customer Care Execute on 15th March, 1997. On account of certain misunderstandings the petitioner No. 2 had got registered as FIR beading No. 382 of 1998 under Section 408, IPC with the Police Station Okhla on 4th June, 1998. Petitioner No. 1 had resigned and left the employment of petitioner No. 2 company on 1st July, 1998. His resignation was accepted by respondent No. 2 company. Petitioner No. 1 was arrested on 13th July, 1998 and was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court on 18th July, 1998. Charge-sheet was filed on 28th August, 1...
Laxmi Narayan Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ449; 2004(77)DRJ624
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. It is a well recognised principle that a matter of contempt is between the Court and the contemnor. In the instant case an appeal (being LPA. No. 120/2001) preferred by the present applicant was disposed of in view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties in the following manner:'Appellant shall approach the competent authority in DDA within a month from today for consideration of employment against class-IV vacancy on the plea of similar treatment in case DDA had offered such employment against class-IV to any other person in lieu of land acquisition. His case shall be given due consideration in that event on the analogy of such similar cases and subject to availability of vacancy. Appropriate orders shall be passed in this regard within one month from receipt of appellant's application /representation.'2. According to the learned counsel, there were directions, namely, to the applicant to approach within a period of one month and to the respond...
Collector of Central Excise and ors. Vs. Gtc Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC152; [2006]130CompCas666(Delhi); 2005CriLJ425; 112(2004)DLT802; 2004(76)DRJ289; 2004(178)ELT129(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this contempt petition filed by the Collectors of Central Excise at Mumbai and Vadodra, it is prayed that appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be initiated and taken by this Court in view of the alleged breach of undertaking dated 21.2.1995 and the alleged willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 26.5.1997 on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (alleged contemners). The Respondent No.5 who was earlier arrayed as a party was deleted by virtue of the order dated 1.3.1998.2. It is alleged that the respondents willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 26.5.1997 as well as willfully breached the undertaking given to the Court on 21.2.1995 inasmuch as a Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.7 crores (being Bank Guarantee No. 7/1995 issued by Punjab and Sind Bank) was not kept alive and, thereforee, could not be encashed. It is further alleged that even the direction of the Court for deposit of the amount of Rs 7 crores given...
Wee Aar Constructive Builders Vs. Delhi Jal Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR418(Delhi); [2005]125CompCas869(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT613; 2004(75)DRJ685
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The respondent awarded a work contract in favor of the petitioner for construction of additional staff quarters at Varun Niketan near Haiderpur Water Treatment Plant. During the execution of the aforesaid contract disputes arose between the parties. The aforesaid contract contained an arbitration clause being Clause 25 which reads as follows:-'CLAUSE 25.ARBITRATION CLAUSE:01. Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Atv Projects India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR432(Delhi); [2005]124CompCas45(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT701; 2004(75)DRJ630
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 02.06.2003 passed by the respondent no.2 in his capacity as the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.319/2002 entitled A.T.V. Project India Ltd v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The petitioner (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd) (hereinafter referred to as ''IOCL'') and the respondent No.1 (ATV Project India Ltd) (hereinafter referred to as 'ATV') had entered into a contract on 03.01.1996 under which ATV has been awarded the turn-key project in respect of the Amine Regeneration Unit for the Panipat Refinery Project of IOCL. Certain disputes had arisen between the IOCL and ATV and the latter filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudicating the said disputes. On agreement of the parties, by an order dated 07.05.2002, the Civil Judge (Senior Divi...
Madura Coats Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC177; [2005]127CompCas229(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT622; 2004(75)DRJ640
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The maintainability of the present writ petition is in question. The challenge to maintainability is on several grounds, including the ground that the disputes involved in the present writ petition are purely contractual and that the petitioner had even filed a suit being Civil Suit No.2851/1999 which stood decreed against the Bank of India (Respondent No.4) and in favor of the petitioner on 21.04.2003. A further ground taken is that the relief sought in the present writ petition would require a detailed investigation into disputed and complicated questions of fact and for which a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy.2. Hilton Rubbers Limited (Respondent No.6) (hereinafter referred to as 'HRL' ) placed various orders for the supply of nylon and polyester based fabrics on the petitioner. For the purposes of completing the transaction, HRL instructed the Bank of India(Respondent No.4) (hereinafter referred to as 'BOI') to open and establish irrevocable lett...
Jor Bagh Association (Regd) and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi389; 112(2004)DLT690; 2004(75)DRJ611
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition pertains to leases of Nazul land in favor of individuals. These lands, prior to 1947, were leased out to individuals by the Governor-General-in-Council and, after 1947, the leases were executed in the name of the President of India. The lands fall under the control of the Land and Development Office (Land DO) (respondent No.2 herein).2. The lease-hold rights in these lands stood transferred to the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest. The relationships between these petitioners and the Union of India (respondent No.1), including the Land DO (respondent No.2) are governed by the terms and conditions of the perpetual leases. The question in the present petition relates to the charge of damages by the Land DO from the petitioners (leaseholders) in respect of alleged breaches committed by them by indulging in alleged unauthorised construction.3. The prayers, as originally made in the petition, were as under:-''a) grant a writ, direction ...
Smt. Savitri Devi Gupta W/O Shri Radha Krishan and Radha Krishan S/O S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC841; 2005ACJ1241; 112(2004)DLT577; 2004(76)DRJ38
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellants are aggrieved by an Award dated 14th June, 1988 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Suit No. 273/1985.2. Krishan Gopal, aged about 14-15 years, the Appellants' the son, died in an accident caused by a bus on 11th April, 1985. The deceased was a student of 9th class in DAV School, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and it was stated in the claim petition for compensation filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) that he was assisting his father by sitting in the shop and was thereby contributing to the family income.3. The learned MACT found that the death of Krishan Gopal had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent No.2. As regards compensation claimed by the Appellants, the learned MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the Award. Although an argument was raised that interest should be awarded from the date of filing the petition, that is, 7th May, 1985, t...
R.K. Moulders Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT714; 2004(75)DRJ674
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this petition, the order dated 9.11.1999 is sought to be quashed. It is also prayed by the petitioner that the respondents, and, in particular, Respondent No.2 (Delhi Pollution Control Committee - hereinafter referred to as DPCC), be directed to accord formal sanction permitting the petitioner to continue its manufacturing activity as a category ''F'' industry at 4/10, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi.2. The impugned order dated 9.11.1999 has been issued by the Assistant Environment Engineer (Legal) of the DPCC. The order reads as under:-'' Sub: IA.No.22 in WP(C) No.4677/1985; M.C. Mehta V/S Union of India and Others in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Sir,The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.5.99 in the above mentioned case has ordered that the DPCC should take suitable action against those industries who have violated the provisions of the law and have restarted as other category of industries after the closure of the `H' category unit without permissi...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »