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.
Shri Vishnu Prasad and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2865; 131(2006)DLT630; II(2006)DMC366; 2006(90)DRJ126
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 1. At the first instance, Mr Luthra, who appears for the petitioners, submits that the petitioner No. 6 died during the pendency of the present revision petition on 06.05.2002. thereforee, insofar as the petitioner No. 6 is concerned, this revision petition is not being pressed on account of the fact that proceedings against him would stand abated. All the other petitioners have been charged for having committed offences under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. Mr Luthra argued that insofar as Section 304-B IPC is concerned, the offence is not at all made out even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken to be true and correct at this stage. He submitted that for an offence under Section 304-B IPC to be made out, it is essential that the death of a woman should have been caused either by burns or bodily injuries or by circumstances which were otherwise than normal and that too within seven years of her marriage. Another ingredient, according to Mr Luthra, is that ...
Shri S.L. Gupta Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT116
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. It all started when CW No. 2466/2002 was filed in this Court by Brijender Kumar Tomar seeking mandamus against MCD to demolish the stated unauthorized construction by Shri S.L. Gupta on the terrace of flat bearing No. 66-C, Pocket A-12, Kalkaji Extension.2. Brijender Kumar Tomar is the owner and occupant of Flat No. 66-B which is on the first floor. Above that is Flat No. 66-C owned and possessed by Shri S.L. Gupta.3. For record, it may be clarified that wife of S.L. Gupta was the original allottee. She having died, S.L. Gupta claims inheritance under his wife. But, in records of MCD, necessary mutation has not been effected.4. Writ petition filed by Brijender Kumar Tomar was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2002. As it was informed to this Court by MCD that after serving a show cause notice, a demolition order was passed by MCD regarding unauthorized construction on the terrace of the second floor, it was held that MCD had to take the demolition order to its ...
Titanium Tantalum Products Ltd. Vs. Shriram Alkali and Chemicals
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR366(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent placed an order dated 04.11.1997 on the petitioner for designing, fabrication & supply of one CS Rubber Lined Single Stage Blower. This blower was to be used for recycling of chlorine, which was a by-product of the manufacturing processes of the respondent. The agreed price was Rs. 4,66,348/- and the payment had to be made as per the terms and conditions agreed upon.2. The blower was supplied, though belatedly, and according to the respondent it failed to perform satisfactorily and was not as per the specifications. This resulted in disputes between the parties and the matter was referred to arbitration through the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Justice M.K. Chawla (Retd.) was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator, who entered upon reference and made and published the Award dated 29.12.2000. The petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed the present objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (her...
Gaon Sabha Vs. Sh. Ram Karan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT732; 2006(90)DRJ284
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. By this judgment we will dispose of the above 8 appeals as a common question of law based on somewhat similar facts arise for consideration of the Court in these appeals. The land of the private respondents in all these appeals was acquired. After acquisition proceedings were completed, the Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No. 1/1993-94 awarded compensation for acquisition of their lands to these private respondents. The claimants own the land in the revenue estate of Village Kakrola. After passing of the award there was dispute between the Gaon Sabha and the private respondents in the present appeals in relation to the extent and entitlement of compensation payable for acquisition of their lands. 2. A reference was made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the court of competent jurisdiction. The Reference Court vide its judgment and order dated 1.12.1998 d...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. C.L. JaIn Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC482; 131(2006)DLT360
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The plaintiff, a private limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,35,000/- against the defendants including the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Revenue) and the Commissioner of Customs. The plaintiff was carrying on the business of import and export. It had applied and was given Duty Free license No. 3361427 dt. 13.1.89 with import entitlement of 204000 kgs of acrylic fibre without payment of duty. In terms of the said license, the plaintiff was to make export of acrylic yarn of 200000 kgs with 75 per cent acrylic contents. The plaintiff discharged the obligations under the terms of the license. However, it was subsequently alleged that the officials of defendant No. 4 in collusion with officials of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were causing harassment to the plaintiff and were making false reports in regard to the product of the plaintiff. In furtherance to these acts, a notice was issued by defenda...
Shri Mahender Kumar Vs. Land Acquisition Collector
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ240
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner are the owners of agricultural land in Khasra No. 1715/1613/558 entirely measuring about 10 bighas 14 bids was in the revenue estate of Village Bahapur, New Delhi to the extent of their respective shares. On 10.5.02 the Government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) for acquiring the land including the said land of the petitioners afore-mentioned. In furtherance to this notification declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 8.5.03. Upon following the prescribed procedure, the Land Acquisition Collector made his award under Section 11 of the Act on 1.5.05 determining the market value payable to the claimants of the acquired land. Petitioner No. 3 had died and in the revenue records the names of his legal representatives have been mutated, however, the respondent with malafide intentions mentioned the name of the petitioner No. 3 in the revenue records. As the compensa...
Haryana Telecom Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi339; 2006(2)ARBLR293(Delhi); 2006(90)DRJ211
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The Department of Telecom, Union of India the respondent herein floated tender for obtaining PIJF underground cables of 1.66 LCKM. The tender was opened on 22.4.1994. The petitioner had submitted his bid in pursuance to the tender enquiry which was accepted by the respondent. Orders were placed on the petitioner for supply of cables on a cash basis and the petitioner was required to submit a performance bank guarantee worth Rs. 85 lacs as per Clause 4.1 of the bid documents. The petitioner accordingly furnished the bank guarantee dated 27.9.1994 issued by the State Bank of Patiala, Rajpura for the said amount. 2. The respondent took the decision to obtain additional quantity of the said cable of 85 LCKM under the same tender enquiry but on deferred payment terms and the petitioner being one of the approved bidders was accordingly informed about the proposal of additional allocation of 3.79 LCKMs. This quantity was enhanced to 4.77 LCKM on 5.12.1994 and distribu...
Sh. Ram Prasad Vs. Sh. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT322; 2006(89)DRJ500
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. A simple but interesting question of law falls for consideration before the Court in the present appeal. The suit of the plaintiff for partition was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the subject matter of the suit was covered by Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and while rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), dismissed the suit with costs. It is contended that this approach of the learned Trial Court is contrary to the settled principles of law. Thus, the question arises, whether the bar of Section 60 of the Act was attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case? 2. Parties to the suit are brothers. They all were living at House No. 43, Suraj Nagar, Delhi. According to the plaintiff, the plot was purchased and construction was raised thereupon by the father of the parties. It is submitted that these constructions...
Sun Aluminium Corpn. Vs. Indian Sulphacid Industries Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: 129(2006)DLT490
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Instant appeal is directed against an order dated 16.1.2006 of the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the appellant's appeal against judgment and decree dated 28.7.2005 passed by the Court of Civil Judge in favor of respondent.2. The respondent is owner/landlord of an industrial shed admeasuring about 4,000 sq.ft. situated at 458-466, Indian Sulphacide Industries Compund, Gali No. 8, Friends Colony, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi, which was let out to the appellant in the year 1976 initially @ Rs. 2,200/- per month. According to the respondent it was a tenancy from month to month commencing on the first day of every English calendar month and ending on the last day of the month. A notice to quit was served on the appellant terminating its tenancy and calling upon it to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent. On appellant's failing to abide by the notice, the respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne prof...
Village Tughlakabad Occupants and Residents Welfare Association Vs. Un ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT107; 2006(90)DRJ309
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Village Tughlakabad Occupants and Residents Welfare Association has filed the present writ petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing them to regularise the physical possession of the structure of the occupants in terms of their policy and scheme and in light of the order of the Court dated 17th August, 1998 passed in CWP No. 4771/93. Further it is prayed that respondents be prohibited from taking any coercive action including dispossessing them from the land in question till the plea of regularisation of the unauthorised colonies built up either on Government land or Gaon Sabha land is finally decided by the concerned authorities. Lastly, it is prayed that, as per policy of the Government, respondent should be directed to take a decision under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act for releasing and denitrifying the acquired land from the award dated 28th January, 1968 and tak...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »