Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 30 of about 296 results (0.019 seconds)Bhogi Chaudhary and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT250; 2005(79)DRJ693
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is filed by the three appellants and is directed against the judgment dated 9th July, 2001 and the order of sentence dated 10th July, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.72/2000 whereby the learned trial court has convicted all the appellants under Section 302/365/201/120(b) and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and also to undergo imprisonment for different periods under other sections with further direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently and also to pay fine.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a case was registered on the complaint lodged by Dev Kumar, brother-in-law, of deceased Dinesh Mehto, who was examined in the trial as PW-3. He alleged in the first information report that his brother in law Dinesh Mehto along with Pramod Kumar and Bhogi Chaudhary were residing together in House No.87/2, Jamrood Pur, Delhi, as tenants. Shibu and another brother o...
Tag this Judgment!Videocon Leasing and Industrial Registered as Public Limited Company U ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi343; 117(2005)DLT260; 2005(80)DRJ142
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner impugning the demand of the respondent under Section 126 of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short `The Act') dated 30th March, 2001 and letter dated 26th April, 2001 and demand letter dated 29th August, 2001 as pursuant to direction by this Court, a rectification order under Section 176 of the Act has been passed on 8th January, 2004 which is at page 258 of the paper book, and pursuant to the demand raised in the said rectification order, same has been paid by the petitioner from 4th May, 1995 till 31st March, 2004. The only controversy which still remains as per learned counsel for the MCD is the demand of old House Tax liability prior to 4th May, 1995. Dr. Sarabjeet Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/MCD, has contended that pursuant to the perpetual lease deed entered between the petitioner and the DDA, the petitioner has taken the property along with structure standing the...
Tag this Judgment!Music Broadcast Private Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)4CompLJ565(Del); 117(2005)DLT315; 2005(80)DRJ224
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the reliefs claimed are appropriate directions to set aside two orders passed by the Telecom Dispute and Settlement Appellate Tribunal ( TDSAT for short ) dated 17-11-2004 and 14-01-2005 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the first order' and 'the second order' respectively). Relief has also been sought by way of a direction to the respondent Union of India to take a decision on the recommendation of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) dated 11.08.2004 and 19.11.2004. The third category of relief sought is quashing of two demand letters dated 19.4.2004 issued by the Central Government. Certain other consequential orders have also been sought.2. These petitions were initially heard on 28.1.2005. The respondents, appearing through counsel on advance notice, were asked to indicate broadly what could be time frame within which a final decision could be taken by the Central Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Durha Components P. Ltd. Vs. M.A. Ansari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT445; 2005(80)DRJ357; [2005(105)FLR489]; (2005)IILLJ209Del
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 17th December, 2003 passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7(7) of the Act. Before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner challenged the order dated 19th February, 2003 passed by the Controlling Authority directing payment of Rs.60,577/- along with interest, which amount was deposited before the Appellate Authority on 22nd March, 2003.3. The plea taken by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 was working with the petitioner Durha Components from 1-1-1991 to 19-5-2001 and even the liability for the period from 1986 onwards has been fastened on the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not be saddled with the liability of the past e...
Tag this Judgment!N.D.M.C. Vs. Rajender
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT424; 2005(80)DRJ358; [2006(106)FLR161]; (2005)IILLJ547Del
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. This writ petition challenges the award dated 19th November, 2001 which inter alias upon finding that there was violation of Sections 25(G) & (H) of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directed the reinstatement of the respondent/workman with 50% back wages from 1st July, 1988 till the date of reinstatement. Section 25G & H read as as follows:-'25G. Procedure for retrenchment. - Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. 25H. Re-employment of r...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Prasad Mittal Vs. State (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT576
ORDER In exercise of the powers conferred under section 24 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, Dr. C. Margabandhu, Director (Antiquities), Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi is hereby authorised to decide whether any article/objects seized by the CBI/Police/Income Tax and lying in appeal is or is not an antiquity for the purpose of this Act, as requested by Assistant Collector, Customs, CFS, Delhi vide their letters dated 15.10.93 and 18.10.93 in his capacity as the authorised nominee of the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. He is also authorised to decide other pending cases, if any, as authorised nominee. (Achala Moulik)Director GeneralArchaeological Survey of India'5. The objection of the petitioner is that authorisation was made in favor of Dr. C. Margabandhu in response to a request by the Assistant Collector Customs, CFS, Delhi vide their letter dated 15.10.93, and 18.10.93 and that the authorisation was specific to these articles. A...
Tag this Judgment!