Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 15 of about 197 results (0.020 seconds)Bhoondey Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India with a prayer that this Court should give directions to the respondent/Union of India (Land Acquisition Collector) to dispose of application of the petitioner filed under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act.2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner made an application under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act on 8th July, 1987 vide diary No. 639. His contention is that this application was not decided and he filed C.M. (M) No. 544 of 1999. This petition was dismissed in default on 9th September, 2003. He made an application for restoration which was not pressed by him on the ground that the cause of action for filing a fresh petition was still available with him. The application for restoration was dismissed on 4th December, 2007 therefore, he has filed the present petition.3. I consider that the present petition is a gross misuse of judicial process. Neithe...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Basra Vs. Mcd and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. Ms. Ram Chameli was allotted property No. C-69, Kasturba Niketan Complex, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi by respondent-MCD in accordance with the scheme floated by the Slum and JJ Department of the MCD for redevelopment. Ms. Ram Chameli became entitled to allotment of land measuring 33.58 square meters. In the draw of lots, she was allotted plot No. D-9, Kasturba Niketan Complex, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.2. On 10th September, 2003, Ms. Ram Chameli expired and the petitioner-Ms. Krishna Basra being her daughter made an application for recording mutation in her name. The petitioner relied upon a registered Will dated 13th March, 2001 executed by late Ms. Ram Chameli. It is apparent from the original file that the application filed by the petitioner was considered and it was decided to obtain legal opinion. This was necessary as Mr. Dinesh Mehta, Mr. Chetan Mehta and Mr. Sandeep Mehta grandsons of late Ms. Ram Chameli had also filed an application for mutation. The off...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Gurdev Singh Bindra Vs. Ranbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has assailed an order dated 8th May, 2008 of learned Rent Controller Tribunal (RCT). By an order dated 5th March, 2008 learned ARC had allowed an application of the respondent under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) and orders of eviction dated 7th February, 2005 and 11th May, 2005 were set aside. Learned RCT dismissed the appeal of petitioner against order dated 5th March, 2008.Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposing of this petition are that the petitioner was landlord in respect of shop No. 32, Shiv Market, Masjid Road, Bhogal, Jungpura, New Delhi. This shop was let out to respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 135/-. The petitioner sent a notice to the respondent making assertions inter-alia that the shop was initially sub-let by respondent and thereafter it was lying locked. These assertions are in paragraph No. 8 of the notice and read as under:That for the last few years you are n...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Veer Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and the order dated 27.2.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 2645/1999, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally under CCS (CCA) Rules vide memo dated 31.7.1991 to face the following charge, i.e.:That said Shri K.K. Veer, while working as the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Calcutta during the financial year 1990-91, passed orders on 5.03.91 abrogating two purchase orders dated 12.1.1988 passed by the Appropriate Authority, Calcutta Under Section 269UD of I.T. Act, 1961, in the case of M/s. Martin Burn Limited, Calcutta (directing the purchase of the immovable property at 2nd floor of Martin Burn House Calcutta). The said Shri K.K. Veer further directed that the above property shall stand re-vested in the transferor, M/s. Martin B...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. the State N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
V.K. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16th December 2004 and Order on Sentence dated 24th December 2004 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 13(1)(d) thereof and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- on each count or to undergo R.I. for two months in default of payment of fine.2. On 13th December 1988, the complainant Surender Pal Singh came to the office of Anti Corruption Branch and made a complaint of demand of bribe by the appellant Madan Lal. He alleged that House No. 4583, Gali Natthan Singh, Pahari Dheeraj, Delhi owned by his father Sh. Harpal Singh had been let out to a tenant Mani Ram Gupta, who vacated the same on 28th May 1988. He claimed that Mani Ram Gupta had stopped his business in March 1986. He further stated that electricity meter installed in that house had been removed and all the dues of DESU had been paid. Since they wanted a new po...
Tag this Judgment!Master Sewa Ram Vs. Vijay and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDERJ.R. Midha, J.1. The MLO (Hqrs.) is present in the Court and he has produced the record pertaining to three-wheeler tempo bearing No. DLG-7961. The copy of relevant pages is taken on record.2. The MLO (Hqrs.) submits that policy No. 4713303257 was furnished by Sunman Singh at the time of transfer of said vehicle from the previous owner but the copy of the said policy is not on record.3. The perusal of the original record of the vehicle produced by the MLO shows that the record has not been maintained in the proper manner. The copy of the policy of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has been torn and, therefore, particulars of the said document cannot be ascertained. The file produced by the MLO is not even page numbered and it cannot be ascertained as to what documents were placed on file as there are no office notings. The record has been maintained in a very casual manner.4. Considering that the file produced by the MLO contains the torn copy of the policy, the Secretary-cum-Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
G.S. Sistani, J.1. Two appeals have been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 7.4.2001 and order on sentence dated 18.4.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Appeal bearing No. 280/2001 has been filed by the uncle and aunt (MAUSA AND MAUSI) of the husband of the deceased. They have been convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. In default of the payment of fine, appellants have been directed to undergo a further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months.2. Appellants in Appeal bearing No. 333/2001 are the mother-in-law, husband and father-in-law of the deceased, who have been convicted for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 498-A, IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Chohdda Vs. G.K. Pillai
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this Contempt Petition, the petitioner has contended that the respondent failed to comply with the orders of this Court dated 20th September, 2007 and 29th October, 2007.2. In the order dated 20th September, 2009, this Court had given amended directions which read as under:(a) Respondents shall hold Review DPC for all the vacancies starting from the year 2001-2002 till may, 2004 by following the criteria of selection by merit;(b) Prepare a panel year-wise and(c) to decide seniority of all such officers according to new panel and issue corrected seniority list of Dy. D.G. within a reasonable period;(d) (i) It is, however, clarified that in case applicant/other officers become entitled to be promoted from an earlier date in view of recommendations to be made by review DPC, they would be entitled to only notational pay fixation from that date in view of : 2006(5) SCC 673 State of UP and Ors. v. Raj Kishore Yadav and Anr.3. In the subsequent order, a hope was ...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Swagat Palace Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. By conveyance deed dated 8th March, 1967, Land and Development Office sold and transferred flat No. F-2, Desh Bandhu Gupta Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to Mr. Ainshi Lal. It is admitted case of the parties that subsequently the said flat was purchased by the petitioner, who is using the same as a hotel under the name of Hotel Swagat Palace.2. The petitioner had obtained licence for operating a hotel from Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the said property in the year 1990. It was thereafter renewed from time to time till 2006. On 13th July, 2006, the petitioner applied for renewal but the application was rejected vide letter dated 25th July, 2007 on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited conversion and parking charges.3. The petitioner thereafter served a notice under Sections 477 and 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 on the respondent on 29thAugust, 2007. The petitioner wrote some other letters but without positive response.4. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Kunstocom (India) Ltd. Vs. Ikea Trading (India) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.I.A. No. 6087/2008 (Under Order 7 Rule 11)1. Defendant No. 1 requests the Court to reject the suit, contending that the plaint does not disclose any triable cause of action and is vague in material particulars since there was no concluded contract between the parties.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff sues the defendants for a decree in the sum of Rs. 5,25,12,515.23/-, with pendente lite and future interest @ 14% per annum. The undeniable facts are that the plaintiff and the first defendant used to transact with each other; the latter used to place orders for supply of Barnslig Floor Lamps and other types of lamps. It is not disputed by the first defendant that such supplies were made during the period 2001-2003. The plaintiff also does not dispute that the price of the goods were paid for. The plaintiff's grievance is that sometime in 2003-04, the first defendant represented to it, stating that since its products were acceptable and of the requ...
Tag this Judgment!