Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 28 of about 273 results (0.014 seconds)Shri Mamraj Vs. Management of Shanti Developers and Promoters (i) Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT355; [2005(106)FLR703]; (2005)IIILLJ114Del; 2006(1)SLJ369(Delhi)
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. The petitioner was a Site Engineer working with the respondent. Upon termination of his services, he approached the Labour Court, who by the impugned award dated 7th February, 2003 was pleased to hold that the reference was not maintainable as the claimant/petitioner herein was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 2(s) of the Act reads as follows:-'Workman' means by person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection wi...
Tag this Judgment!D.D.A. and anr. Vs. K.R. Builders P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2005)BC511; 119(2005)DLT196; 2005(81)DRJ708
B.A. Khan, J.1. This appeal raises two interesting questions:- Whether Rule 3 of Chapter of 6 of Delhi High Court (Original Side Rules), 1967 empowered the Court to extend time for filing a written statement beyond the outer limit of 90 days prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC or whether the two provisions could be harmoniously interpreted to hold that even Rule 3 did not permit any extension beyond these 90 days.2. Appellants are the defendants in a recovery suit No. 2181/2003. It is not known when summons were served on them in the suit but when it was listed before Joint Registrar on 12.5.2004, they were represented by their counsel. The suit was adjourned to 18.8.2004 when they filed the written statement with is No. 6102/2004 seeking extension of time in filing the same which application was dismissed by impugned order dated 29.9.2004 with the learned Trial Judge taking the view that the Court had no power or discretion to extend time for filing the written statement in term...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT660; 2005(82)DRJ553
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The present appeal is filed against the well reasoned judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 41/1987 dated 10.9.2004.2. The Financial Commissioner, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), after carefully examining the record and the material placed before him made an order on 11.11.1986. It is clear that the Consolidation Officer on remand withdrew the land from Kila No. 257 from the Khata of Gaon Sabha, which was part and parcel of village pond and allotted the said land to the respondents, who are appellants herein. According to the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner the allotment was contrary to law and sought restoration of Kila No. 257 to the Gaon Sabha. After examining the matter in detail and considering the fact that the allotment was from the village pond land, the Financial Commissioner interfered with...
Tag this Judgment!