Delhi Court July 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.
Brigadier Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT64; 2006(90)DRJ689
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner claims to have raised a substantial question of law of general public importance that once a change is effected in the Higher Secondary Certificate in relation to date of birth, the defense authorities are duty bound to alter their records accordingly and give advantage for further years of service to the claimant.2. Brigadier Ashok Kumar Singh was commissioned as an officer in the Indian Army and inducted in the core of infantry. At the time of his commission the date of birth in the service documents and the Higher Secondary Examination Certificate was reflected as 16.8.51. The date of birth as indicated above remained unchanged or not objected to for all these years. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the 42nd National defense Academy Entrance Examination as provisional candidate. The petitioner qualified the said examination and he even received instructions to join in July,...
Jyoti Sarup Mittal Vs. Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ARBLR284(Delhi); 131(2006)DLT503; 2006(91)DRJ438
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Petition filed in March, 2005 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') is for the appointment of an Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the Applicant has stressed on Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act. The parties are governed by an Arbitration Clause which, paraphrased, stipulates that in case any disputes arise between them, either party shall forthwith give to the other a written notice of such dispute or differences which shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the C.M.D., WAPCOS.2. By letter dated 23.3.2004 the Applicant had requested the C.M.D. of the respondent who incidentally is also the Sole Arbitrator contemplated in the Arbitration Clause, to send a 'panel of 4-5 names for approval of one of them for appointment of Arbitrator.? However, by a separate letter of even date the Applicant had drawn reference to the aforementioned Clause 79 and had stated that the sole Arbitrator would be the ...
Shrimati Shakuntala Devi Vs. Shri Ram Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT121; 2006(90)DRJ584
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.+ CM(M) No.363/20051. Admit.2. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on grounds of non payment of rent. The eviction petition was allowed by the order dated 18.11.2004 by the Additional Rent Controller. The respondent aggrieved by the same filed an application before the Rent Control Tribunal and in terms of the impugned order dated 28.10.2005 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller was reversed. The petitioner consequently has filed the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.4. A perusal of the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court shows that the short controversy which arose was on account of the rate of rent. The petitioner claimed that the rate of rent was Rs.3,000 wh...
P.C. Khanna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ684
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner on the strength of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is demanding parity in relation to allotment of 'Land in lieu of acquired land' as was done in the case of acquisition of property at 26, Alipur Road, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi. In other words, the petitioner prays for issuance of a direction to the respondents requiring them to allot to petitioner 798 square meter of land in the Lucknow Road, (Mall Road), Delhi as an alternative to award of compensation in terms of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The emphasis is that in the adjacent property to that of the petitioner i.e 26 Alipur Road, Sham Nath Marg the respondents have given to the owner of the property, M/s Jindal Pipes Ltd. equal land to the acquired land on the adjoining Lucknow Road (Mall Road) and not only this, in addition to grant of land even some compensation has been paid to that party and now the respondents cannot treat the petitioner differently and otherwise als...
Shri Ganga Singh Sengar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT228; 2007(3)SLJ496(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner was serving as a Head Constable being Head Constable No. 66243089 in the 22nd Battalion of the Border Security Force with Headquarters at Firozpur, Punjab. By that time the petitioner had put in nearly 18 years of service. The competent authority on 11.1.84 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why he should not be retired from service on the basis of the allegations made in the show cause notice. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and he stated that there were no adverse remarks in any of his Confidential Report nor any remarks had been communicated to him. While referring to the Departmental Book P.C.R's Procedure and Instructions 1983 issued by the Personnel Directorate Para 56, the petitioner also raised an objection that these entries were not communicated to him and as such he had no chance to make a representation against these adverse remarks. According to the petitioner, he had an ...
Lt. Col. U.B.S. Ahluwalia (Retd.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ630
G.S. Sistani, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Order issued by respondent No. 1 for the forfeiture of pension of the petitioner vide its order No. B/40978/UBSA/A/PS/4(c)/2406/B/D (pension/services) dated 3.6.1987, as being contrary to the existing provisions of law and administrative regulations and, thereforee, illegal and unconstitutional as being vocative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and also prays to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents not to restrict the free movement and the right of the petitioner to practice any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade or business, in violation of the Rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts of the case as set out by the petitioner are that the petitioner was se...
All India Minorities Welfare Trust and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ635
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this order we would dispose of all the above nine writ petitions though they relate to different villages but give rise to common question of law and fact.2. In particular facts of civil writ petition No. 2190/90 can be referred. The petitioner All India Minorities Welfare Trust claims to be looking after the weaker sections. The proper Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 22.7.89 acquiring land measuring about 3500 hectares. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5(A). Whereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29.6.90. This declaration included the land of the petitioners as well as some constructed houses. The respondents issued another notification for taking possession of land. The petitioner and other persons whose interest they are looking after is stated to be carrying on small businesses in different areas. The validity of the notification was challenged on the ground that the pe...
Panchayat Mahajanan Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ606
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a body of Vaish Community of Village Naharpur and through their Secretary Jai Bhagwan, they have filed the present petition praying for quashing of the letter dated 8.5.2003 vide which the application of the petitioner for release of the land measuring about 13 biswas part of khasra No. 184, situated inVillage Naharpur, Delhi was rejected. The facts giving rise to the present petition fall within a very narrow compass. The petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the Society Registration Act. They owned the above indicated land which falls in the revenue estate of Village Naharpur and are in possession of this land under the management of Shri Thakur Dass since 1938. The petitioners claim to have planted trees, got a well dug and built a dharamshala on the land in question which is stated to have been occupied by them for a considerable time. Chief Commissioner, Delhi vide notification dated 25.8.1959 issued under Clause (i) Section 13(...
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC185
1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 18/08/03 which upheld the order of interest and imposing penalty on the appellant.2. The relevant fact that arises for consideration are the appellant is a Secondary Switching Area (SSA) of BSNL, the Government of India undertaking unit till 01/10/2000 subsequent to 01/10/2000 is an autonomous body. The appellants were required to deposit the service tax collected by them for the period October 2000 to March, 2001 with the authorities. The appellant relying upon the circular transferred the amount by book transfer to department of Telecommunication (DoT).Subsequently, the appellants on being pointed out, deposited the amount of service tax on 30^th March, 2001, 26/04/2001 and 21/05/2001. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for imposing penalty and recovery of interest, as per the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.The adjudicating authority imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also sought to r...
itw India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: (2007)8STR530
2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty. The demand of Service Tax was confirmed after treating the applicants as Cargo Handling Agency, which are undertaking the work of packing of the goods. The contention is that the applicants are not Cargo Handling Agency. They are manufacturers of packing materials, which is supplied to various customers and they were simply packing all the goods. The applicants submitted that the activity of packing the goods under the scope of Service Tax vide Entry No. 65(76b) (w.e.f. 16-6-2005) and thereafter they got themselves registered with the authorities. The applicants relied upon the Stay Order passed on 22-5-2006 by the Tribunal in their own case.3. We find that the applicants were undertaking the activity of packing only. The Tribunal vide Stay Order dated 22-5-2006 allowed the stay petition where demand is confirmed on the same grounds. By taking into consideration the activity of packing is sp...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »