Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 21 of about 273 results (0.019 seconds)Mrs. Manju Tiwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT451; 2005(81)DRJ229; 2006(1)SLJ232(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the widow of late Lance Naik Urba Dutt, who is stated to have died in Operation Vijay, during the Kargil War, seeks a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to release liberalised family pension to her with effect from 12 August 1999 along with interest on the arrears of pension.2. The husband of the petitioner, who was enrolled as Combatant Soldier in the year 1983, was posted with Kumaon Regiment. During the Kargil War, in Operation Vijay, he was deployed on Pakistan border in Sriganganagar Sector of Rajasthan. During the said operation, on 11 August 1999 he died a sudden death. The death/medical certificate issued by the army authorities reads as follows:'Medical Certificate in Case of Death All Ranks Certified that Name Urba Dutt No. 14701243A Rank L.Nk Unit 8 Kumaon Regiment Died/was killed was killed in action on 11.08.99 at 03.25.MO I/c MI Room176 Mil HospDisease Opinion directly leading to deathSUDDEN DEATH CAUSE UNKNOWNAntecedent Ca...
Tag this Judgment!Patkai Timber Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2005)BC309; 118(2005)DLT526; 2005(81)DRJ433
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner has filed objections to the award dated 23.8.1993 published by Shri K.D. Singh, sole arbitrator. As per the award, claims No. 1, 2 and 4 of the petitioner have been rejected. Claim No. 3 has been allowed. Counter claim of Union of India has been allowed. Amount awarded under claim No. 3 has been set off against amount awarded under the counter claim.2. Dispute between the parties surfaced as the petitioner failed to complete supplies under the contract between the parties and the respondent went in for a risk purchase. Petitioner had deposited Rs.25,000/- as security deposit which was for felted by the respondent on account of risk purchase. Petitioner had a claim in the sum of Rs.20,063/- being the price for the goods supplied and unpaid for. defense of the Union of India was that on part supply being effected, certain material was rejected. Rejection was intimated. Petitioner did not remove the rejected goods and did not replace the same and as a co...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dharma Properties and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT588
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present appeal under letters patent is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 21st February, 2002, rejecting the writ petition preferred by the appellant (hereafter called MCD ). The issue involved is what is meant by to give a notice, as per Sections 126(2) and (4)(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter called the Act).2. The first respondent owns a property in Green Park Extension, New Delhi. The annual rateable value of the property was Rs.16,300/-. On 25.3.1998, the appellant issued a notice in terms of Section 126 proposing to enhance the rateable value to Rs.16,30,70/- (Rs. Sixteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Seventy) w.e.f. 1.4.1997. This notice was dispatched under registered A/D cover on 27.3.1998. It was received by the first respondent on 4.4.1998.3. The order finalising the assessment was made on 11.3.2001. As per this order, rateable value was fixed at Rs.11,35,260/- w.e.f. 1.4.1997; Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Amarjeet Lal Suri Vs. Sh. Moti Sagar Suri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT295
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide order dated 20.1.2004, following issues were framed:-1. Whether besides the properties mentioned in the plaint, properties being (i) No. 110/173 (Old No. 110/125), Mohalla Ram Kishan Nagar, Kanpur, (ii) No. 122/619, Shastri Nagar (Motiapurwa), Kanpur and (iii) No. A-1, Gali No. 4, Anand Parbat, Delhi, are joint properties and are also liable to be partitioned?OPD 4-72. Whether the memorandum of family settlement dated 30.5.1996 executed amongst the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1,2 and 3 is admissible in evidence and if so, its effect? OPP3. Whether the unregistered deed of family arrangement dated 10.8.1978 is admissible in evidence? If so, its effect? OPP4. If aforesaid issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff, whether the same could be and was acted upon by the parties and if so, its effect?5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory decree, as prayed for? OPP6. In the event of aforesaid issue is decided against the plaintiff what are the sh...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Agarwal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ526(Del); 118(2005)DLT241; 2005(81)DRJ731
D.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to dispose of the matter at this stage itself.3. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner questions the legality and propriety of the decision taken by the Central Warehousing Corporation (for short the CWC), respondent No. 2 herein, to cancel the tender process initiated by issue of a public notice dated 7 December 2002 for dismantling and disposal of 29700 MTC godown at Base Depot, Loni, Delhi. Being the highest bidder, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, commanding the CWC to release the work order in their favor.4. Besides the CWC, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies and the Executive Engineer CWC have been imp leaded as respondents 1 and 3 respectively.5. The CWC, through an advertisement dated 7 December 2002, invited tenders for the aforementioned work. The last date for submission of the tenders was 18 December...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Niwas Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT247; 2005(81)DRJ55
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.41/1993, arising out of FIR No.446/92.2. Appellant Shri Niwas faced trial along with three other accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for allegedly committing rape and causing homicidal death of one Smt.Shefali (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, disbelieving the case of the prosecution as against the remaining three co-accused has acquitted them of the charges framed against them, but found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Sections 376 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a stipulation that in case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year for offenc...
Tag this Judgment!Uee Electrical Engineers P. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ363(Del); 118(2005)DLT255; 2005(81)DRJ256
D.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. Having regard to the urgency of the matter, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties it is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself.3. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the validity and propriety of order dated 3 January 2003 passed by the Secretary, Contractors Registration Board, Delhi Development Authority, respondent No.1 herein, debarring the petitioner for a period of five years for his alleged misconduct with one of their officers on duty. By virtue of the said order all the directors of the petitioner company also stand debarred. It has also been directed that no tender papers shall be issued to the petitioner and no work shall be awarded to them from the date of issue of the said order.4.The Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) and one V.K. Kapoor, Assistant Engineer (Electrical), DDA, the officer involved in the incident, have been imp leaded as respondents 1 and 3 respecti...
Tag this Judgment!Joginder Kaur and Co-owners, (Through Its Partner Ms. Joginder Kaur), ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2006)BC277; 119(2005)DLT384; 2005(81)DRJ536
B.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioners are facing a recovery of Rs.65,94,618.19/- Along with pendente lite and future interest at 12 per cent per annum with quarterly rest and costs. They have challenged the certificate of recovery passed by DRT before DRAT. Along with their appeal, they also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 21 of the DRT Act. The case set up by them in their application is that during the pendency of the recovery proceedings before DRT, they had paid about Rs.50 lacs or so and that they have a meager income of Rs.35,000-40,000 per annum from their agricultural yield and that petitioner no.1 was suffering from complicated health disorders and required a lot of money to be spent on her and that third appellant had no source of income and did not have any movable assets of significant value. It was, thereforee, claimed that the requirement of satisfying the pre-deposit was onerous to them.2. This application was contested by the respondent bank claiming ...
Tag this Judgment!Uee Electrical Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Jal Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ370(Del); 118(2005)DLT571
Rekha Sharma, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by M/s UEE Electricals Engg. P. Ltd. The facts fall into a narrow compass. The petitioner has been black-listed by the respondent-Delhi Jal Board. Why? Because, to put it briefly, in response to a bid, it categorically stated that it had not been black-listed by any other department. The Board says that it was a palpable lie and it was resorted to knowingly and deliberately. As we shall presently show, the petitioner did take recourse to deliberate false-hood, inviting in its wake, a show-cause notice, consequent hearing and then the decision to black-list. Here are some details leading to the order of black-listing/debarment. The office of the Executive Engineer (E & M) WC-II TYR under the Delhi Jal Board, Govt, of NCT of Delhi invited applications for the issue of tenders for composite work of construction of 24.3 M.L. capacity underground reservoir and Booster Pumping Station at V...
Tag this Judgment!Kanwarji Bhagirathmal Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT759; 2005(81)DRJ347; [2005(106)FLR642]; (2005)IILLJ707Del
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order made by the learned single Judge in FAO No. 18 of 1986 decided on 7.7.2003.2. In this matter the learned counsel for the appellant was heard by us on the last date of hearing. However, today he has chosen not to be present. As he was fully heard on the last date of hearing, he may be under the impression that it is not necessary for him to be present.3. An appeal was filed before the learned single Judge against the order made by the Employees State Insurance Court on 21.10.1985 whereby the appellant's establishment is held to have been covered under the provisions contained in Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). It is required to be noted that under the Act one is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 82 of the Act. However, in view of the language of the section an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of the Employees State Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law...
Tag this Judgment!