Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shri Sher Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT371; 2006(88)DRJ851
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The validity and legality of the notification dated 23rd January, 1965 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and declaration under Section 6 dated 26th December, 1968 is challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioners also prayed that the said notifications are of no consequence or effect in relation to the land owned and possessed by the petitioners and respondents be restrained from forcibly entering upon the land of the petitioners without following the due process of law. It is also the prayer of the petitioners that respondents be restrained from taking any action in furtherance to the award made by the Collector in relation to the land, subject matter of the present writ petition.2. The challenge is founded on the premise that :-(a) the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act have been kept in abeyance for 18 years.(b) the petitioners have not been paid compensation for their land and as such,...
Raj Kumar Chawla Vs. Lucas Indian Services
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi266; 129(2006)DLT755; 2006(89)DRJ560
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 2 of the code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th October, 2003. M/s Lucas Indian Services, the plaintiff, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,61,186.74/- Along with interest. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money for the goods supplied. This suit was contested by the defendant who had raised certain preliminary objections as well as had contested the claim on merits.2. The defendants not only disputed the liability but even gave detailed facts in regard to the payments made to the plaintiff in Paragraph 18 to 22 of the written statement. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- from the plaintiff for the goods which they had returned and this according to them had been accepted by the plaintiff in response to the letter dated 12th July, 1999 and 29th June, 2000. In other word...
Mr. Dalpat Singh Vs. the Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT824; 2006(89)DRJ357
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Mr. Dalpat Singh, petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the award dated 31st January, 1979 made by the Land Acquisition Collector and has prayed for quashing of the same. It is also the prayer of the petitioner in this petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India that respondents be restrained from taking possession or demolishing or in any way interfering with the possession of the petitioner with Khasra Nos. 849/2 min, 850/2 min in Village Mohammadpur, Munirka, New Delhi.2. In this writ petition the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the award dated 31.01.1979 on the grounds that the authorities have acted arbitrarily and there is no application of mind, the land in question being a pertinent to the temple, was exempted under the clauses of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. It is also the contention of the petitioners that out of the total land measuring about 2 bighas 14 bids was falling in Khasr...
Shri Golesh Kumar Vs. Ganesh Dass Chawla Charitable Trust (Regd.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT638; 2006(89)DRJ417
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 01 vide which the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,37,696/- being suit No. 48/96 was dismissed on the ground of non joinder of parties. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellants also filed an application being CM No. 1106/01 under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this application the prayer is that the cause title of the appeal be permitted to be amended and the members of the respondent/trust be permitted to be imp leaded as party/respondents and/or in alternative the judgment and decree be set aside and suit remanded for fresh trial.2. This application has been filed primarily to overcome the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit so that suit of the plaintiff be not dismissed and upon amendment may be decreed in accordance with law. The applicants have filed the present application to correct the said defe...
Sh. Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Sh. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT381; 2006(89)DRJ494
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Shri Ram Prakash Gupta filed a suit for declaration and in alternative for possession of a portion of property No. 8, Nizammudin Basti, New Delhi against Sh Rajiv Kumar Gupta and others. According to the plaintiff, Sh Om Prakash Gupta his predecessor had purchased a land measuring 186 sq.yards in Nizammuddin Basti on 2.9.1957 in the name of the plaintiff who was a minor at the relevant time. The father of the plaintiff was working in business and had sufficient funds in his business account. The plot was lying vacant even in the year 1965 when the father of the plaintiff died. The plaintiff was suffering from a disability and was a handicapped person as there was a defect in one of his legs and could not move freely. The father of the plaintiff had purchased various properties and even earlier to 1966 all the brothers were residing in the house at Chawri Bazar. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that none of the brothers or their heirs had any interest in th...
Nandu and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ314
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. In this petition the petitioners have raised challenge to the two notifications issued under Section 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 18th December, 87 and 14th January, 88. Vide these notifications, the appropriate Government intended to acquire an area of 2891 bighas 8 bids was of the land in the revenue estate of village Bindapur. In furtherance to these notifications, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18th September, 84. After serving the notices under Section 9 and 10 of the Act, the claimants were heard and the Collector made an Award bearing No. 163/86-87 and acquired an area of 733 bighas and 14 biswas. The notifications were issued for acquiring the land for a public purpose namely 'Planned Development of Delhi'. It was composite notification under Section 4, 6 and 17 of the Act. As per the terms of the notifications, compliance to the provisions of Section 5A of the Act was dispensed...
Mr. Rajiv Kumar (Deaf and Dumb) Vs. Kewal Cargo Carriers (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi27; 2006(90)DRJ222
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The learned Additional District Judge, Delhi vide his common judgment dated 21.1.2004 dismissed all the six suits filed by the plaintiff for want of cause of action, thus, giving rise to the above six appeals. It is not necessary for us to refer to the facts of each of these cases as common questions of fact and law arise for consideration based on similar facts except the amounts claimed in the respective suits. It would suffice to refer to the facts of Suit No. 819/2001 out of which RFA No. 291/2004 has arisen. The plaintiff, a deaf and dumb person, filed a suit through his next friend for recovery of Rs. 4,83,852/- under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the appellant, he was inter alias engaged in the business of discounting of cheques in respect of freight or hire of lorries/trucks of the parties concerned on discounting charge basis. The defendant was engaged in the business of transportation of goods inter alias Ex-Bom...
ishaq and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ356
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The petitioners claim to be owners/bhumidars as khudkasht of khasra No. 453(m) area 4.16, 454 area 4.16, 459 area 5.18, 460 area 4.16, 461 area 4.16 and 462 area 3.14 total 25.2 bigha and their share is 1/3rd situated in the revenue estate of village Shyoorpur. On 25.11.1980, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued for acquisition of the land in nearly 13 villages of South Delhi including the land of the petitioners in the village Shyoorpur. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.6.85. An award was published being award No. 10/87-88 on 19.5.87 wherein the Collector provided for compensation payable to the claimants which according to the petitioners they did not accept. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of the land and on 14.7.87 it was incorrectly recorded in the name of the Government as owner in possession. The petitioners while relying upon the judgments of this Court in ...
Sunita Shail Narian Vs. the Revenue Secretary and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ781
Mukul Mudgal, J 1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition arises against the order dated 25th October, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as `the CAT') confirming the order dated 20th August, 2001 of the respondents by which order the petitioner was transferred from Delhi to Chennai. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, S/Sh. A.S. Chandhioke and Jayant Bhushan have averred as follows:-(a) The petitioner, who is an IRS officer joined the Department of Income Tax in the year 1982 as Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/ITO. On 20th August, 2001, a transfer order was issued by the respondent No.1 transferring the petitioner to Chennai as Member (Appropriate Authority). (b) The transfer order was protested by the petitioner vide a representation dated 8th November, 2001. (c) On 11th January, 2001 the petitioner availed earned leave, pendin...
Shri Madhusudan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ590
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this judgment we would dispose of above two writ petitions WP(C) Nos. 2803/88 and 1063/88) as somewhat identical questions of law on similar facts arise for consideration of the court in both the petitions. 2. The petitioners claim to be owners of the agricultural land comprised within and forming part of Mustatil No. 54 Killa Nos. 22, 23, 24 measuring about 12 bighas and 9 bids was situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhartal, in the Union Territory of Delhi. The appropriate Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') intending to acquire large tracts of land in the revenue estate of village Bhavthal. The petitioners claim to have raised certain constructions on the land in question and according to them they were duly entered in the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1988. 3. Earlier, number of notifications were issued acquiring lands within the revenue estate of village Bhavtal in the Union...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »