Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 4 of about 273 results (0.035 seconds)Mitahn Lal Goel and anr. Vs. R.K. Baweja and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT282; 2005(81)DRJ503; [2005(107)FLR75]; (2005)IIILLJ307Del; 2006(1)SLJ351(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP Nos. 1101/1973, 758/1974 and 123/1974. By the aforesaid judgment and order passed on 14th October, 1987, the learned Single Judge set aside the award passed by the Labour Court on 6th April, 1973 holding that the order of termination passed was neither illegal nor unjustified and, thereforee, there was no question of making any payment to the workman for any period after the award and in normal course.2. Facts giving rise to filing of the aforesaid writ petitions were that Sh. Mithan Lal Goel, one of the appellants herein, was appointed as Accounts Assistant at Rs.280/- per month by the management of M/s. Associated Traders and Engineers Pvt. Limited by letter dated 30th April, 1968. One of the stipulations in his appointment letter was that he was appointed as an Account Assistant in the Mori Gate office of the respondent w.e.f 28th February, 1968. It was also stip...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Arunwan Thamvaro Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT433; 2005(81)DRJ364
Manju Goel, J.1. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeks to challenge the order framing charge against the petitioner u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for commission of offences u/s 471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are as under:-On 29.5.2004 the passport of the petitioner Miss Arunwan Thamvaro Along with the passports of the two other passengers were scrutinised at the Indira Gandhi International Airport by Mr. Ganga ACIO-II who found UK visas on the three passports. The visa on the passport of the petitioner was found to be genuine. The other two visas on the two other passports of both Thai nationals were found to be fake. The two Thai nationals, co-accused in this case later revealed their real names as Pak Priya and Runguappa respectively. The petitioner was presumed to be the facilitator in the offence. All the three were handed over to police. All the three accused were arrested and the disclos...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Dan Singh Bawa and ors. Vs. Ndmc and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(81)DRJ473
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. A stitch in time saves nine. Present case is a classic illustration of the proverb aforenoted. A timely intervention would have saved much judicial time as also the energies of the parties who could have put to better use their time, money and energy in a more useful activity. As the facts would unfold, a simple issue has snow-balled into a complex issue. Petition filed in the year 1974 has remained pending for 31 years. Not that it did not receive the attention of the court, but unfortunately casual attention. Short cuts were attempted. Little was it realized that a short cut need not always be the best cut.2. Prayer made in the writ petition is as under:-'(a) issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or such other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction quashing the aforesaid impugned letters Nos.CA/2963-64/BP dated 28th August, 1973, No.F.CA/4225/BP dated 19th December, 1973, No.CA/4239/BP dated 22nd December, 1973 and No.8977/PA/Secy dated 23rd January, 1974;(b) issue a d...
Tag this Judgment!Texon Uk Ltd. Vs. Agra Leather Board Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT631
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner alleges that the respondent company is indebted to it in the sum equivalent of Pound Sterling 70,737-15 along with interest calculated at the rate of 18% PA thereby making a total of Pound Sterling 1,02,568-65 which is equivalent to Indian Rs.72,11,601-78p. The exchange rate prevailing at the time of filing of the petition, as per the petitioner, was L 1/- equal to Rs.70.31. The petitioner avers that in spite of admitting this liability and undertaking to pay the amount, the respondent has failed to make the payment even when statutory notice was served and, thereforee, present petition under Section 433(e) and 434 of the Companies Act is filed seeking winding up of the respondent company.2. The averments made in the petition are:The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of England and is in the business of manufacture and Export of high class shoe materials and other allied goods to countries all over the world. The respondent approached t...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Dev Singh Vs. Rare Fuel and Automobiles Technologies (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: IV(2005)BC292; 119(2005)DLT44
Rekha Sharma, J.1. On 3rd August, 2002 the appellant-Baldev Singh issued a cheque dated 25.8.2002 in favor of the respondent M/S. Rare Rule & Automobiles, for a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- . It was drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Naya Bazar, Delhi. The respondent however, sat over the cheque and chose not to present it to the Bank for encashment. The respondent woke up only after the validity period of the cheque lapsed. It is not that thereafter the cheque was presented to the Bank. Even thereafter it did not do so. Instead it filed a suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in short CPC ) for recovery of the cheque amount and took the plea that the cheque was not presented not because it did not want to but because it was so asked by the appellant.2. The appellant in response to the suit moved an application for leave to defend. Of course, in that application he has taken the plea that the respondent was required to perform certain acts which it did not. This, however, is a pl...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Sunita Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT368; 2005(81)DRJ526; 2006(1)SLJ371(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner-Sunita, by this writ petition, seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider her as an Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate and place her at the appropriate place in the merit list for such candidates. Further consequential directions, as deemed fit and proper are sought. 2. Petitioner, was an aspirant to the post of Assistant Teacher/Primary Teacher in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and under the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT respectively. She had applied as an OBC candidate in response to the advertisement that was taken out by the respondents. Petitioner submitted two separate applications for the vacancies. The first being for the post of Assistant Teacher Code No.13/98 and the second for Primary Teacher, Code No.8/98 in the reserved category as an OBC candidate. Petitioner secured 45.96% out of 80 marks on the basis of a formula for calculation of marks. The cut off percentage for OBC candidates was 44.61%. Accordingly, p...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Salam Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT336; 2005(81)DRJ379
Manju Goel, J1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the court of Additional Sessions Judge in an appeal from the judgment of conviction dated 5.2.2002 in the case of State v. Abdul Salam FIR No. 659/2001 of P.S. Hauz Khas under Sections 377/506 IPC. The facts leading to the present revision petition in brief are as under:On 20.8.2001 on receipt of a PCR call the police officers of P.S. Hauz Khas reached the Madarsa of village Adchini where Mohd. Wasil, a boy aged 11 years, made a statement that he had been staying at the Madarsa for studying Urdu and on 15.8.2001 his teacher, namely, Abdul Salam (petitioner herein), called him to his room at around 5 p.m. and asked him to press his legs and thereafter closed the door and bolted the same from inside. The statement given by the boy further says that the petitioner thereafter lay down on the floor and forced him to lie by his side and asked him not to raise any noise. Thereafter, the boy stated that the petitioner r...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Roshan Lal Goyal Vs. Arti Solvex Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(82)DRJ182
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner, as per the averments made in this petition, has to recover a sum of Rs.8,68,656.49 paise from the respondent (hereinafter referred to as `the company'). After adding interest calculated at the rate of 19.2 per cent per annum amounting to Rs.9,56,551.30 paise, the total claim is for Rs.18,15,207.79 paise. The petitioner states that it has been supplying the company diverse quantities of mustard (Sarson seeds) against various bills, particulars whereof are given in para 7 of the petition. The company has been making payments from time to time. But complete payment was not made and the aforesaid outstanding amount is still due. The company has even confirmed this amount from time to time as is evident from the balance sheets of the company, including for the year ending 31st March, 1998. Accordingly, the legal notice dated 28th March, 2001 was served demanding the aforesaid amount but as the company failed to make the payment, present petition has been fil...
Tag this Judgment!Radhika Garg Vs. Delhi University and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT225
Gita Mittal, J.1. These writ petitions raise questions relating to the manner of exercise of the discretion conferred on the respondents to permit migrations of students from one course and institutions under the Delhi University to another. The impugned order passed in all the petitions is the same and questions raised being identical, these petitions have been taken up together for hearing and disposal.However, it is necessary to note facts of each case in order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners and the same are so noted.2. Facts in Writ Petition(C) No. 20013/04 entitled Radhika Garg v. Delhi University (i) The petitioner in this case has claimed that she had a brilliant academic record and scored over 74% in the school leaving examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. Based on her grading, she was admitted to the B.Sc. General (Industrial Chemistry) course and was allotted the Atma Ram Sanatan Dharam College by the Delhi University(arrayed as ...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Gupta and ors. Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas402(Delhi); 119(2005)DLT214; [2005]61SCL121(Delhi)
O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. The moot point for consideration in this writ petition is whether recourse to investigation in the affairs of company under Section 235 to 242 of the Company Act is the only way to launch prosecution in respect of alleged/suspected commission of cognizable offences under IPC by the office bearers of the company or the police can investigate such allegations of its own or under orders of Court, if approached by the aggrieved person/shareholder.2. Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR bearing No. 99/2002, PS Connaught Place, New Delhi under Section 406/409/420/424/467/467/477A read with Section 120B IPC. The said FIR was registered in pursuance of order dated 19.2.2002 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on a criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners who are Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Director, Chartered Accountants and Fi...
Tag this Judgment!