Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)364
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Director (Finance) in the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (in short referred to as `HUDCO'). This corporation is wholly owned by the Government of India and functions under the administrative control of the Government. The appointment of the petitioner was initially made on 08th January, 2001 for a period of five years leaving the option with the appointing authority to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving him three months notice or on payment of three months salary in lieu thereof. The appointment was on the terms and conditions as conveyed to the petitioner on 15th October, 2001. Clause I of the terms and conditions provided that the period of petitioner's appointment was five years, which may be terminated even during this period by either side on three months' notice or on payment of salary in lieu thereof. It also provided that the performance of the petitioner shall be reviewed after the expiry of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 73(1998)DLT843; ILR1998Delhi378
Arun Kumar, J.1.The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are:The Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') put up an advertisement on 7th June, 1989 in the newspapers announcing the auction of a plot for 2/3 Star Hotel at Pitam Pura, New Delhi. The plot was to be auctioned as per certain terms and conditions. There is no dispute between the parties about the terms and conditions of the auction including the fact that the auction was on the basis of perpetual leasehold rights and the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Lands) Rules, 1981 would be applicable. The material terms of auction for purposes of the present petition are:'(iv) The officer conducting the auction shall normally accept the bids subject to confirmation by the Competent Authority. The highest bid offered at the fall of hammer at the auction and the person whose bid has been accepted shall pay earnest money, a sum equivalent to 25% of his bid either in cash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1986Delhi128
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge certain decisions made by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation. Director General of Army Welfare Housing Organisation and Adjutant General, Army Headquarters who is the Chairman of Army Welfare Housing Organisation. Chief of the Army Staff and Union of India have also been imp leaded as respondents. The allegations are that they have violated the provisions of the Memorandum, Rules and Regulations of the organization as well as bye-laws contained in the Master Brochure, 1979.(2) A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. K.S. Bindra, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents about the maintainability of the writ petitions. The respondents contend that Army Welfare Housing Organisation (for short WHO) is a welfare organisation registered under the Societies Act, Xxi of 1860 having its head office at Kashmir House, Army Headquarters, New Delhi. who being a voluntary organisation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1990CriLJ2314; 40(1990)DLT168
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) The petitioner Shri Khem Chand is an old man of 70 years. He has a young and good looking unmarried daughter. One Kishori Lal, though married, had developed intimate relations with the petitioner's daughter. Petitioner came to know of this affair. He asked Kishori Lal either to stop meeting his daughter or marry her. Kishori Lal initially promised, but subsequently resoled. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 23rd March, 1978, the petitioner in conspiracy with one Babu Lal committed the murder of not only Kishori Lal, against whom he had a grouse, but also of his wife, Kamla, his daughter Krishna and son Sushil Kumar. The petitioner (and Babu Lal) were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 17th November, 1980 as the petitioner was quite old. Against this Judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court, where as the Delhi Administration moved the petition for enhancement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIAD(Delhi)509; 54(1994)DLT521; 1994(29)DRJ350
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) Eight contemners have been proceeded against by order of this Court dated 4 March 1994 under section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short), and Article 215 of the Constitution for having committed criminal contempt. As to what 'criminal contempt' means, it will be useful to refer to its definition in clause (c) of section 2 of the Act, which is as under :- '(C).'criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which - (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course to any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; 'Section 14 of the Act prescribes the procedure where cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 112(2004)DLT500; 2004(75)DRJ713; 2005(3)SLJ231(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Petitioner, employed as an Associate Professor at Management Development Institute (MDI) seeks quashing of the letter dated 23.9.2003. By and under the said letter, decision of the Board of Governors of the Management Development Institute (Respondent No. 2) taken in the Board meeting held on 7.3.03 was communicated to the petitioner. Decision being that the Board of Governors has accepted the recommendation of the Special Review Committee dated 20.02.03 to retire the petitioner from service under Regulation 33 of 'MDI Staff Regulations, 1986'. 2. Regulation 33 aforesaid under which the petitioner stands retired reads as under:-' Superannuation and RetirementAn employee other than an employee appointed on contract basis, shall retire on the last day of the month in which he completes 60 years of age. The Institute shall, however, have absolute right to retire an employee, if it considers necessary to do so in the interest of the institute, by giving him notice ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 50(1993)DLT458
ORDERWhereas, the Election Commission in its Notification No. 464/91(1) dated 19/04/1991, issued under Section 30 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) had(i) fixed the 20/05/1991, as the date on which poll shall betaken in the Parliament Constituency of 35 Patna of Bihar and(ii) specified the 31/05/1991, as the date before which the election shall be completed in the above constituency:andWhereas, the Election Commission has received information based on the reports of the State Government, the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, the Returning Officer, the Observers and other relevant sources of information that on the date of polling, i.e.,20.5.1991 there had been large scale incidents of electoral malpractice involving booth capturing by seizure of polling stations, making polling authorities surrender the ballot papers, making forcible possession of polling stations and prevention of free access to for the purpose of voting, threatening electors and preventi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002VIAD(Delhi)934; 2002(63)DRJ429
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. An important question of law as regards interpretation of different provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to (SIC) Appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.11.1982 passed by a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble S. Ranganathan, J., as he then was) of this Court.2. A land measuring 3 bighas 3 bids was comprised in Khasra No. 307 in Village Kilokari was the subject matter of the writ petition. The writ petitioner, i.e., respondent No. 1 herein purchased the said land on 03.03.1962. The sale deed was registered on 06.06.1962. He got the said land mutated in his name on 17.08.1964. Prior thereto a notification dated 05.03.1963 was issued purported to be in terms of Section 4 of the said Act in relation to the land admeasuring 139 bighas and 2 bids was situated in the said village stating that the land was likely to be required to be taken by the Government on a public expense for a public purpose, namely, planned development of Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 20(1981)DLT25b; ILR1981Delhi733
G.C. Jain, J.(1) The appellant, Bhola Ram, has preferred this appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated October 24, 1972, dismissing his writ petition.(2) The appellant joined Police service as a Foot Constable on March 28, 1933 in the North West Frontier Province (now in Pakistan). He was promoted as a Foot Constable selection grade on March 1, 1934 and as officiating Head Constable on November 26, 1944 but was reverted as Constable selection grade with effect from March 27, 1945. He was again promoted as officiating Head Constable with effect from April 10, 1945 and was reverted as Foot Constable time scale on August 9. 1945. He was re-promoted as Foot Constable selection grade on March 1, 1946.(3) After migrating to India, on the partition of the country, the appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Delhi Police Force on October 29, 1947, and was promoted as Head Constable with effect from October 30, 1947. He was app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 105(2003)DLT177; 2003(69)DRJ358; 2003(90)ECC100; 2003(2)JCC1249
D.K. Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.2. The petitioner, Satwinder Singh, challenges in this habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the order made by and in the name of the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA). The order of detention, dated 22 March 2002, was served on the same day along with the grounds of detention of even date, formulated by the Detaining Authority, based on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future.3. The brief facts, as can be culled out from the grounds of detention, are as follows:On 29 December 2001, when the petitioner arrived from Dubai by an Emirates Flight, he was intercepted while walking through the green channel, after collecting the checked-in baggage, which included one microwav...
Tag this Judgment!