Delhi Court April 2008 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 Vinod Kumar Bakshi and ors. Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi131; 149(2008)DLT643
Gita Mittal, J.1. The petitioner in the instant case, are aggrieved by publication of Electoral Rolls for ward No. 3 of Delhi Cantt. on 2nd January, 2008 by the Chief Executive Officer of the Delhi Cantonment Board, and have assailed the action of the respondent No. 1 in causing to be published an electoral roll of the Delhi Cantonment Board under Rule 17 of the Cantonment Electoral Rolls. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 1 sustaining objections received by it and causing to be published an electoral roll after deleting the name of the petitioners. The petitioners have contended that they are residents of the premises bearing No. IV-73, Second Floor, Gopi Nagar of the Delhi Cantonment and were registered as electors in the electoral roll published by the respondent No. 1 for 15th September, 2006, at such address. Their names featured at Seriall Nos. 2562, 2563, 2564 & 2565 in the electoral list for Delhi Cantonment published on 15th September, 2006 which...
People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. University of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 149(2008)DLT626
T.S. Thakur, J.1. This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to make 'necessary and adequate' arrangements for imparting instructions and giving lectures in Hindi to the Hindi medium students and also to make available courseware in Hindi language in all the subjects and classes where University curriculum permits instruction in Hindi medium and to provide all such other necessary and incidental facilities to the students opting for Hindi medium as are necessary for their studies.2. The petitioner's case as set out in the petition is that the respondents are discriminating in the matter of imparting education to the students opting for Hindi medium vis-a-vis their counterparts who have opted for English medium of instructions. It is alleged that neither the lectures are being delivered to the Hindi medium students in Hindi nor is the course material available to them for study in Hindi. This attitude of the respondents is, accordi...
Summit Inport Services Ltd. and anr. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ263
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of a notification dated 10.08.07 issued under Sections 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire an area measuring 16468.76 square metres comprising different survey numbers mentioned in the said notification situate in Village Sultanpur of Delhi. A declaration dated 1st November, 2007 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to the said land has also been assailed.2. The petitioners are owners of different parcels of land situate in different survey numbers of village Sultanpur, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi. An area measuring 16468.76 from out of the said survey numbers was requisitioned by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation for construction of its Depot at Ghitorni in connection with what is known as 'Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II'. Upon consideration of the said requirement ...
Shri M.S. Dewan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ255
T.S. Thakur, J.1. More than 20 years after the issue of a preliminary notification under Section 4 and a Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the validity of the acquisition proceedings in respect of a parcel of land measuring 66 Bighas and 6 bids was situate in village Ladha Sarai, Delhi for the public purpose of Planned Development of Delhi. Two primary grounds were urged before us in support of the said challenge. Firstly, it was contended that the delay in the completion of the acquisition proceedings vitiated the said proceedings. That contention was, however, given up by Mr. Vashisht, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his submissions in the light of the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Roshanara Begum v. Union of India 1996 I AD (Del) 6. We need not, thereforee, dilate on that aspect of the matter. The second ground of challenge was, however, pursued by Mr. Vashisht who cont...
Mayur Coirs P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 149(2008)DLT740; 2008(103)DRJ191; (2008)151PLR13
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question the validity of an order dated 6th December, 2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi whereby Misc. Appeal No. 182/2006 arising out of O.A. No. 31/2004 (DRT-II, Delhi) has been dismissed. The petitioners further seek a declaration to the effect that proceedings initiated against them by the respondent bank under the Securitisation Act, 2002 have become void and stand withdrawn with a direction to the bank to de-seal the first floor of property No. R-82/5, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar Illaka, Shahdara, Delhi. The controversy arises in the backdrop of the following facts:2. Upon the failure of the petitioners to liquidate an outstanding debt of Rs. 78,34,862.39, the respondent bank invoked the provisions of Sections 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Ordinance (II) 2002 and called upon the petitioners herein to ...
Sh. K.C. Bajaj and ors. Vs. Smt. Sudershan Kumari and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 149(2008)DLT694
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The dispute in the above captioned appeal is between the family members/legal heirs of Late Smt. Krishna Devi Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as the testatrix).2. The genealogy tree of the family of Late Smt.Krishna Devi Ahuja is as under:Krishna Devi Ahuja (Testatrix)II-------------------------------------------------I I IKrishan Kumar Ahuja Ashok Kumar Ahuja Usha Bajaj(Son, non-objector) (Son, objector) (Daughter)I-----------------I IAnil Bajaj Ameeta Bajaj(Son) (Daughter)3. Testatrix left the world of the living on 22.07.1982. Her husband had pre-deceased her, having died somewhere in the year 1967 or 1968.4. On 21.09.1987, Smt. Usha Bajaj (hereinafter referred to as the propounder) filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 seeking probate of a will dated 02.11.1977 purportedly executed by the testatrix. Inter alia, to establish that the will was validly executed by the testatrix attention of the court was drawn to the contemporaneou...
Shri V. Jayapalan Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 149(2008)DLT674
Manmohan, J.1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 10th February, 1998 passed by Respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner of Police as well as the appellate order dated 22nd July, 1998 passed by Respondent No. 2, Addl. Commissioner of Police and the Central Administrative Tribunal's judgment and order dated 14th March, 2001 to the extent that it has declined pay and allowances to the Petitioner for the period 8th January, 1988 to 26th July, 1996. The Petitioner has further prayed for full back wages for the period 16th June, 1986 to 26th July, 1996 i.e. the period of suspension and deemed suspension together with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. The Petitioner has also prayed for release of all consequential benefits like seniority, promotion, leave etc.2. Briefly stated the material facts for this case are that the Petitioner who was a Constable in Delhi ...
Ramunia Fabricators Sdn Bhd and ors. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT1; 2008(103)DRJ223
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In terms of a tender notice dated 15th May, 2007, respondent No. 1 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited invited bids for what was described as B-22 Field Development Project requiring among other works Surveys, Design, Engineering, Procurement, Fabrication, Transportation, Installation of submarine pipeline and modifications on existing facilities, as described in the bidding documents. The notice inviting the bids stipulated certain broad conditions regulating the submission of the bid documents and inter alias provided that the bidding documents could be purchased on payment of US$1000 for foreign bidders and Rs. 45,000/- for Indian bidders and that the bids could be submitted to the authority nominated for the purpose by 24th July, 2007. The notice further provided that the bidding documents would consist of four separate parts in which Part-I would deal with instructions to bidders, Part-II with general conditions of contract, Part-III with appendices and Part-...
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. A.A.i.F.R. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas588(Delhi); 2008(103)DRJ17
T.S. Thakur, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the order passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'AAIFR') granting permission under Section 18(1)(e) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA) to approach the appropriate High Court for submitting a scheme of arrangement/compromise qua the secured creditors of the company under Section 391 of the Companies Act suffers from error of law or jurisdiction. The petitioner, who claims to have secured in its favor the assignment of a debt which the respondent-sick company owed to M/s Fuji Bank Ltd alleges that the order passed by the AAIFR granting permission to the respondent-company suffers from an illegality inasmuch as SICA is a special enactment no authority including the High Court exercising powers under any other enactment can, during the pendency of the proceedings under SICA, entertain or sanction any...
Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas487(Delhi); 2008(103)DRJ249
T.S. Thakur, J.1. M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. is a sick company within the meaning of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, hereinafter called 'SICA' for short. A scheme for its rehabilitation appears to have been approved under the provisions of the Act by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. By an order dated 21st January, 2003 passed in Appeal No. 301/2000 arising out of BIFR Case No. 22/98, the AAIFR constituted what is described as an Assets Sales Committee for the sale of surplus assets of the sick company by inviting offers through advertisements. The Committee comprised a representative of the IDBI, the operating agency, the Managing Director or Executive Director of a sick company and a representative of the State Bank of India which happens to be the lead bank. The AAIFR also authorized the Assets Sales Committee to formulate the procedure for disposal of the surplus assets and to submit a report on the same to the BIFR who was...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »