Delhi Court May 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.
Smt. Bhagwan Devi Vs. the Chairman, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR374(Delhi); 131(2006)DLT411; 2006(90)DRJ86
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, `the said Act' seeking appointment of an arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes between the parties in view of the failure of the respondent to commence the arbitration proceedings despite notice dated 30.09.2004.2. The facts leading to the present petition are briefly set out hereinafter. The petitioner had purchased the land situated in Village Mamurpur, Narela, Delhi in the year 1959, which was developed. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1891 on 30.10.1963 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of that Act on 10.01.1969. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioner in CWP No. 149/1987. The respondent herein was also imp leaded as a party in view of the fact that the land was being acquired by the Government of India for the benefit of the respondent.3. The pa...
Dr. Prashanta Padmanabha AmIn Vs. R.N. Sheetal Wad
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT410
Gita Mittal, J.1. By this contempt petition, the petitioner is complaining of disobedience of the order dated 12th April, 2002 passed by this Court disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2787/98 in the following terms:Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only surviving question in this writ petition is with regard to the petitioner not coming within the eligibility criteria for admission to the under graduate medical course as he has not obtained 50% at the 10+2 level. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is no longer rest integra and has been covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Associations and Ors. reported at : AIR2002SC1565 . Learned counsel has drawn my attention to para 5-b which recognises the various categories of persons, who had not been granted provisional registration for the deficiencies pointed out therein. The said para reads as under:(b) Those who did not fulf...
National Insurance Company Vs. Bhagwati Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC329; 2007ACJ2124
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant, for short) against the judgment and award dated 15th February, 2000 passed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition no. 85/1992 titled Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. A.K. Sharma and others.2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Insurance Company should not have been made jointly and severally liable to make payment of the awarded amount of Rs.35,000/- along with simple interest @ 12% per annum as the driver of the insured vehicle was holding a fake license.3. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, the claimant before the learned Tribunal and respondent no.1 before this Court, sustained injuries in a road accident on 4th April, 1995 after being hit by a speeding matador van bearing no. HR-29-C9504. As a result, she suffered injuries and had fractured he...
Vikas JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ100
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. Final opportunity to file Counter Affidavits within the time permitted by the Court has not been availed of. The factual matrix raises no controversy. The petition is taken up for final disposal.3. One of the questions that has arisen in this Writ Petition has already received the attention of several Single Judges of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench in Union of India v. Vinay Kumar Agarwal : AIR2005Delhi419 . I have also allowed various writ petitions on this question viz. WP(C) No. 7751/2005 titled Garden View Meadows Private Limited v. Land and Development Officer decided on 11.11.2005, WP(C) No. 6837/2005 titled Anu Mehra v. Union of India decided on 2.8.2005, WP(C) No. 3566/2002 titled M.C. Gupta v. Union of India decided on 5.12.2005 and WP(C) No. 7990-92/2005 7990-92/2005 titled Brij Goel v. Union of India decided on 9.12.2005. Thereafter, a batch of petitions titled Bal Kishore Chhabra v. Union of India : 127(2006)DLT460 were allowed...
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Customs ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2838; 2006(89)DRJ661
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petit on is filed on behalf of the CBI against the order dated 19.09.2005 passed by the learned ACMM, New Delhi. By virtue of the impugned order, the CBI has been directed to register an FIR and conduct the investigation. Mr Tiwari, the learned Counsel for CBI, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and Another: : 2001CriLJ968 to indicate that the Magistrate does not have any power to direct the CBI to conduct an investigation in exercise of its powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He relied upon paragraph 16 of the said judgment which reads as under: 16. As the present discussion is restricted to the question whether a Magistrate can direct CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) of the Code it is unnecessary for us to travel beyond the scope of that issue. We, thereforee, reiterate that the magister...
R.K. Malik and ors. Vs. Kiran Pal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC261; 2007ACJ2010
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. By this common order, I shall be disposing of 22 appeals, the details and particulars of which have been given below:S. Appeal Name of Age Claimant Date of Date of AmountNo. Number the relationship filing the awarded Deceased with the the Claim Decision as Pecuniary Deceased Damages (Loss of Dependency + Funeral Last Rites) in Rs. Rate of interest 1. MACA 205-206/05 Manju Yadav 16 Parents 11-3-98 22-11-04 1,65,000 (1,60,000+5,000) 6% for four years2. MACA 196/05 Pallavi 13 Parents 17-3-98 22-11-04 1,55,000 Thakur (1,50,000+5,000) -do-3. MACA 742-743/05 Rahul Sharma 8 Parents 17-4-98 22-11-04 1,30,000 (1,25,000+5,000) -do-4. MACA 195/05 Kumari Anu 7 Parents 29-5-98 22-11-04 1,30,000 (1,25,000+5,000) -do-5. MACA 228-229/05 Neeraj Kumar 12 Parents 23-3-98 22-11-04 1,55,000 (1,50,000+5,000) -do-6. MACA 213/05 Parul 6 1/2 Parents 11-3-98 22-11-04 1,30,000 (1,25,000+5,000) -do-7. MACA 207-208/05 Krishna 11 Parents 17-3-98 22-11-04 1,55,000 Gopal (1,50,000+5,000) Yadav -do...
Brahm Prakash Vs. Ito
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN527(Delhi)
ORDER1. Issue Rule. Mr. Sabharwal appears on behalf of the respondents. With consent this petition has been heard for final disposal.2. The petitioner is aggrieved of an order dated 22-3-2006 whereby the assessing officer has assessed the taxable income of the petitioner at Rs. 39,45,430. The petitioner has also assailed a demand notice issued pursuant to the said assessment order, demanding a sum of Rs. 70,24,222 towards tax and interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 196 1. In addition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the penalty proceedings initiated under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act in terms of a notice issued in that regard.3. We have heard at some length learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders under challenge. It is common ground that the order of assessment impugned in this writ petition is appealable under section 246A of the Act before the prescribed appellate authority. It is also not in dispute that the ...
TIn Manufacturing Co. of India Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: (2008)9STR335
1. This application for restoration of appeal has been filed on the ground that vide Final Order No. 284/2003-NB(C), dated 29-5-2003, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 16-1-2003. The applicants thereafter filed three applications for restoring the appeal to its original number but all applications were rejected. The applicants were filing the applications without complying with the stay order dated 16-1-2003. Since the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order dated 16-1-2003, the department attached the mills of the applicants to ensure the recovery of adjudged dues. The order of attachment was passed on 25-11-2005. It was therefore, prayed that the Appeal No. E/2694/2002 NB(DB) of the applicants may be restored.2. It was argued by the DR that the property of the mill has already been attached by the Bank of Maharashtra and by the Income-tax Department, before the department could issue the attachment order. The applicants never tried to compl...
Shridhar Sharma Vs. M.C.D.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT97
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. There is none present on behalf of the Petitioner. On the previous date of hearing the Respondents were directed to produce the original records by which the Petitioner's juniors were promoted to the post of Technical Supervisor. Counsel for the Respondent states that copies of the records are in Court today.2. The relief claimed in these proceedings is for a direction to the Respondents (hereafter referred to as 'the MCD') to hold a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), for consideration of his case for promotion as Technical Supervisor w.e.f. 10.12.2001, the date from which his juniors in lower cadre/feeder cadre were promoted and also for consequential directions.3. The facts for deciding this case are not in controversy. The Petitioner joined the services of the MCD as a Mali on 26.7.1984. Apparently, his services were terminated on 26.6.1996. He approached the Labour Court which by an Award dated 10.7.1998 directed his reinstatement and with back wa...
Vijay Risbud Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ682
ORDERShri Vijay Risbud, former Commissioner (Planning), Delhi Development Authority was placed under suspension vide DDA's Order No. 95/Vig./AVO/ACB/2220, (issued from file No. 27(4)2003/Vig./AVO/ACB) dated 07.04.2003 consequent to filing of a case RC.AC.3/2003A 0002 by the Anti-Corruption Branch of the CBI in which Shri Risbud was one of the co-accused for criminal conspiracy, by abusing his official position and agreeing to show undue favor, in granting DLF Universal Ltd., New Delhi, FAR of 300, in one of their projects, by charging them the rates much below the prevailing market rates, in exchange of illegal gratification from DLF Universal Ltd., New Delhi.2. Shri Vijay Risbud, former Commissioner (Planning) DDA submitted an appeal dated 21.09.2004 for revocation of his suspension and his reinstatement in service on the following grounds:i) The matter of granting FAI to individual plots in District Centre was within the jurisdiction of Chief Architect, who worked independent of Comm...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »