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.
Premwati and anr. Vs. N.D.M.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT526; [2005(104)FLR1156]
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This matter had come up before the Court on 7.7.2004 when a request was made by Ms. Shashi Pradhan on behalf of Mr. K.K. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner that latter was out of station and the matter be adjourned. At the request of Ms. Shashi Pradhan, the matter was kept for today for hearing. The matter was called out in the morning but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The matter has been called again after lunch when none appears on behalf of the petitioner. In these circumstances I proceed to decide the matter on the basis of record and the documents as filed.2. This petition has been filed by Smt. Premwati widow of late Shri Jai Narayan Sharma and Shri Jitender Sharma son of late Shri Jai Narayan Sharma seeking writ of mandamus for compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2 i.e. the son . The husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, Shri Jai Narayan Sharma expired on 23.11.1999. It is claimed in the petition that petitioner N...
Social Jurist Vs. Govt. of Nct and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT791
ORDER1. On 20.1.2004, the writ petition was disposed of by giving various directions so as to see that the schools which are allotted plots at concessional rates comply with the condition of providing free education. Surprisingly, although the order is of 20.1.2004, it appears that the Government has come out with a case that the order is to be implemented or will be effective from 1.5.2004. As a matter of fact, after the judgment was pronounced, it was the obligation of all the schools concerned to strictly adhere to the norms on which plots were allotted at concessional rates for the purposes of erecting school buildings and for running the schools thereafter. thereforee, the Government shall place an Explanationn before the Court as to how it has stated that the order will be effective from 1.5.2004.2. It is contended by Mr. Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the unaided primary schools recognised by the MCD are not referred to in the compliance report filed by t...
R.K. Srivastava and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Del)428
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. These petitions are raising common question and are arising out of similar facts and, thereforee, are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ Petn. No. 1115 of 1997, 15 petitioners in all have prayed for writ of mandamus, inter alia, declaring that the imposition of income-tax on the interest earned by each of the petitioner on their retirement/terminal benefits from 2nd Jan., 1990 to 2nd Jan., 1997 retained by respondent No. 1 at the time of permanent absorption of the petitioner by respondent No. 2, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, unconscionable and fraud on power and upon the petitioners. It is further prayed that a writ may be issued directing the respondents to refund the TDS (@ 10 per cent of the interest earned on the retirement benefits) deducted by them while releasing the remaining amount along with interest @ 18 per cent p.a, till payment and have further prayed to restrain the respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioners ...
Shri Sudhakar Verma Vs. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Arora
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi369; 112(2004)DLT711; 2004(76)DRJ47
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which the plaintiff has prayed for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from transferring, as signing, creating third party interest or from parting with possession of property No. 102-B, M.C. Bhawan, 11/56, D.B. Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi till the disposal of the suit. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated are that the plaintiff and defendant were carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Adhunic Constructions. Their wives were carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Adhunic Technologies and M/s Passive Controls Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff and defendant fell apart and agreed to dissolve the partnership business w.e.f. 2.6.1998. A dissolution deed was executed and got registered also. On 7.6.1998 in the presence of two intermediaries a settlement...
Pritpal G. Singh and anr. Vs. O.P. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT131; 2004(76)DRJ135
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.11.1988 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 309/1987, whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6.3.1987 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the objections of the respondent against the application for recovery of possession filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act'). When the matter was called out, counsel for the respondent was not present. This is an specially directed matter listed today under the category of 'Old Matters' which needs to be disposed of expeditiously. It will not be out of place to mention that this matter has come up for hearing on nearly thirteen occasions. I, thereforee, proceed to decide the matter.2. That facts of the case as have been noted in the judgment under challenge are as under :'1. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief are that on 6.2.1979 the ...
Mrs. Punam Laroia Vs. Mr. Sanjeev Laroia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas759(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT544; II(2004)DMC184; 2004(76)DRJ42
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This order shall dispose of plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) and the defendants' application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code. It will also dispose of the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for the rejection of the plaint. These applications are being taken up together as these are connected and similar contentions have been raised therein.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the aforesaid three application, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff, who is the wife of defendant No.1, has filed a suit for rendition of accounts, partition and injunction alleging that she and her husband defendant No.1 are business partners also. The defendant No.2 is a Company, which is under the control of defendant No.1. The plaintiff alleges that before marriage she was employed in a Bank and had a highly lucrative career ahead. Financially she was much better plac...
Saraswati Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authrority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi412; 2004(2)ARBLR429(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT736; 2004(76)DRJ36
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This application by the judgment Debtor under Order 21 Rule 23 read with Section 151 of the Code of Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the code' only) is with the prayer to dismiss or defer the execution petition in view of the payment of full decretal amount to the Decree Holder. 2. The controversy raised before this Court is in regard to a sum of Rs.54,798/- which the Decree Holder claims to be due on account of interest on the decretal amount calculated up to 10th November, 2003. According to the Decree Holder, the Arbitrator had awarded a sum of Rs.7,30,083/- in favor of the Decree Holder which included interest @ 15% per annum from 18.12.1991 to 10.8.1993 on the claims upheld by the Arbitrator. A further interest of Rs.10,25,117/- also became due to the Decree Holder from 11.12.1993 to 19.12.2002 making the total amount Rs.17,55,200/-. The Court while dismissing the objections filed by the judgment Debtor against the Award ordered future interest @ 12% ...
V.K. Dewan and Co. Vs. Delhi Jal Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR444(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT646; 2004(75)DRJ622
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. In this application under Section 12,13,14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter be referred to as `Act' only) the petitioner prays for termination of the mandate of the sole arbitrator-respondent No.4 and appointment of another Arbitrator in his place, preferably a retired Judge.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that on 27.8.2002 in AA No. 212/2001, under Section 11 of he Act, the Court appointed respondent No.4 to be an Arbitrator in place of an earlier Arbitrator who was appointed by the respondent. According to the petitioner the respondent No.4 has been meeting the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent and canvassing for his engagement in Delhi Jal Board with a view to augment/supplement his income. According to the petitioner on 5.5.2003 the respondent no.1 appointed the respondent No.4 as Consultant (Training) for a period of six months which fact was not disclosed by the Arbitrator...
Anil Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT288; 2006(2)SLJ118(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari quashing memorandum No. 9/1/99-ENR dated 12th April, 2001, whereby the respondent No. 2 cancelled the candidature of the petitioner. Petitioner in the month of July, 1999, applied for the posts of Junior Hindi Translator pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2-Staff Selection Commission appearing at Annexure P-1 at pages 12 & 13 of the writ petition. The application of the petitioner was duly entertained. He cleared the proficiency test. However for a period of one year, respondent No. 2 did not respond. It was subsequently by the impugned letter/ memorandum dated 12.4.2001, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he did not possess the requisite educational qualification. It would be relevant to produce the educational qualifications as given in the advertisement. It reads as under:-Educational Qualifications: Master's Degree in English/Hindi with Hindi/Engl...
Ajit Walia Vs. Jagdeep Binepal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT105; 2004(76)DRJ158
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 1.9.1998 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in petition no.134/95 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the petition under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Sec.25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act.2. When the matter came up for hearing today nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. The case of the petitioner in brief as has been set down in the judgment under challenge is as follows:-' .....that he is owner of the premises in question and respondent is his tenant vide registered lease deed in respect of the said entire demised premises for residential purposes since 15-11-1986. It is averred that the petitioner is presently residing at Ooty where he is working as Deputy Manager with M/s Hindustan Photo Films Ltd' that he and his wife are keeping indifferent health as the climate at Ooty are not suitable to them and for that reasons he wants to shift to Delhi and the premises in question are bonafide requi...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »