Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 5 of about 280 results (0.022 seconds)All India Council for Technical Education Vs. Ombir Kaushik and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ54
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.02.20042. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts have been mentioned in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, YMCA Institute of Engineering, was offering 4 year Post Diploma Courses in various disciplines including Mechanical Engineering, Electronics Engineering, Computer Engineering etc. The writ petitioners completed their respective engineering courses in Post Diploma and Advance Diploma in Engineering.5. For the Academic year 1997-98, a Common Engineering Entrance Test was conducted by the Regional Engineering College for admission to 4-year Degree Course in Engineering Colleges in the State of Haryana and for admission to 4- year Advance Diploma Course offered by the Respondent No. 4. During the said process, the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Ojas Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ593
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. LPA No. 2503/2005 arises out of an Interlocutory Order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 20.10.2005 in WP No. 7123/2005.2. Since we felt that the matter is urgent we were of the opinion that instead of deciding LPA No. 2503/2005, which arises out of an interim order, the Writ Petition No. 7123/2005 itself should be disposed off finally by a Division Bench. Hence on 05.12.2005 we passed the following order in LPA No. 2503/2005.This Writ Appeal has been filed against an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd October, 2005. The Writ Petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge.We are of the opinion that instead of deciding the writ Appeal, the writ Petition itself should be disposed of by a Division Bench so that the matter is decided one way or the other expeditiously.The dispute is regarding the claim of the writ petitioner to set up a sugar mill. In our opinion, this is a matter which should not be prolonged, rathe...
Tag this Judgment!Exmar Nv and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2006)BC47; 2005(2)CTLJ373(Del); 2006(86)DRJ610
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned communication dated 9th December 2005 and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2, Petronet LNG Limited (hereinafter referred to as Petronet), to withdraw the communication dated 9th December 2005 and to act in pursuance of the communication dated 5th December 2005 addressed to the petitioner. It is also prayed that respondent No.2 be directed not to consider the bid of respondent No.3 Teekay and Great Eastern Shipping Consortium.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The contract in question is in respect of building and time chartering of LNG tankers for shipping LNG from Qatar to Dahej. In this connection the respondent No.2 invited tenders. Only four parties obtained the tender forms, and only three submitted bids. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the bid submitted by the...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Smt. Prem Rani and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT475; 2006(86)DRJ583
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 20th June 2003. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.2.In this appeal we are only concerned with that part of the impugned judgment, which quashes the forfeiture of the earnest money deposit and directs that the petitioner should be refunded half of the said amount, i.e. Rs. 50,000/- within six weeks.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not referring to the same except where necessary.4. It is alleged in the writ petition that the DDA had issued a public notice in respect of an auction of some residential properties, and one of the said properties was Plot No. B-1/1/3, Janak Puri, New Delhi. The petitioners with the intention of purchasing the property in the name of their daughter, i.e. petitioner No. 3 Ms. Kavita Vohra had authorised their Manager, to bid for the plot in the public auction for...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT399
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2004 by which the writ petition was dismissed.2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.3. The prayer in the writ petition was to quash the Award dated 26th July, 1969 under the Land Acquisition Act, with respect to the land in question, and for a mandamus directing the respondents to hand over peaceful possession of the land measuring 220 sq.yds. falling in Khasra No. 102 situated at School Block of Village Shakarpur, Illaqua Shahdara, Delhi.4. It transpires that in respect of the land in question, proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act and an Award dated 26.7.1969 was given, copy of which is Annexure-C to the writ petition.5. It is alleged in para 3 of the writ petition that despite the Awar...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Nct of Delhi Land and Building Department Vs. Smt. Vidya ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT625
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 1st September, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge allowing WP (C) No.4834 of 1999.2. Some agricultural land owned by the father of the Respondent was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 13th November, 1959. The land was acquired and possession taken by the Appellant on 27th June, 1969.3. It appears that in the meanwhile the Respondent's father passed away on 17th April, 1964 and she succeeded to his interest. Consequently, when she applied for compensation in respect of a part of the land, it was granted to her on 29th January, 1970.4. Some time in the early 1980s, the Respondent's husband passed away and thereafter she came back to her late father's house to reside since she apparently had no issues.5. The Respondent then applied for and received compensation in respect of the remaining land belonging to her father on or about 7th October, 1996.6. Apparently, on the basis of a po...
Tag this Judgment!Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Delhi Multi Storeyed Building Emplo ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ51; (2006)IILLJ577Del
Markandeya Katju, C.J. 1 .These Writ Appeals have been filed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.09.1997.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The writ petitioners (respondents in this appeal) filed the writ petition praying for quashing of the letter dated 27.03.1995, which is a notice for termination of the contracts of communication operators at ONGC, New Delhi sent by the U.P. Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. to the in charge Telecom Operator Team. It was also prayed for a mandamus to be issued restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the workers mentioned in Annexure I to the writ petition and to absorb the workers.4. The grievances, as mentioned in the writ petition, related to those members/workers who were working for the ONGC, which is a Public Sector Undertaking, and employed through a contractor M/s. U.P. Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., respondent No. 4. It is alleged in the writ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Shri G.K.K. Pillai and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ110
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.2.2002. Heard counsel for the parties and perused therecord.2. The facts have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge andhence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.3. The prayer in the writ petition was to bring about parity in respect of personnel of the Communication Wing of the BSF with the personnel of the Communication Wing of Delhi Police by granting the same pay scale to the former which are admissible to a latter, and to bring about parity in respect of rank structure in accordance with their scales. It has prayed that the respondents be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 to the petitioners w.e.f the date it has been granted to the ASI (Wireless Operators/Radio Technicians) in Delhi Police along with arrears and interest.4. The petitioners are working as ASI/radio operators with the BSF. It is alleged in p...
Tag this Judgment!Belam Singh (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heir and His Wife Smt. Sukh ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 126(2006)DLT402
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.6874 of 2001. By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed.2. The Appellant was registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme for allotment of flats constructed by the Delhi Development Authority. The scheme was announced in 1979 and the Appellant paid the necessary registration charges in respect of the scheme.3. Some time on 20th September, 1991, the Appellant was allotted a flat and a demand-cum-allotment letter was issued but the Appellant came to know that not only was the flat of a lower category but that it had already been allotted to some other person. Under these circumstances, the Appellant was not given possession of the flat.4. A little later, in June, 1992, the Appellant was allotted another flat of the correct category but in a different zone and at a higher price. The Appellant declined...
Tag this Judgment!Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi and ors. Vs. All India Con ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 128(2006)DLT695
Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 3.8.2005.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The writ petitioner, the All India Confederation of the Blind is a self help organisation of blind persons registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 having its network of affiliates and branches spread all over India. It represents the interest of blind people across the country and caters to the special needs of education, training, employment, social rehabilitation and restoration of rights.5. Respondent No.2 in the writ petition is the Union Public Service Commission (the UPSC), which is a recruitment and selection agency and conducts examinations for recruitment to various departments of the Central Government. 6. It...
Tag this Judgment!