Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-26-2010
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by learned ADJ dismissing an application filed by the petitioners under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree of possession of the premises in question in favour of the petitioner.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner had let out a premises bearing number M-15, Green Park, New Delhi to the respondent by way of a lease deed dated 25th January, 1999 for a period of two years with effect from 1st February 1999. The monthly rent reserved was Rs. 30,000/-.3. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession of the premises, permanent injunction and recovery of mesne profits alleging therein, apart from other things, that the lease expired on 31st January, 2001 by efflux of time but the premises in question was not vacated. The defendant (respondent herein) was als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-26-2010
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioners, Mst. Mastura Sultan (who expired after filing of the present petition) and her children have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 26th May, 1982 passed by the Custodian General of evacuee property dismissing their revision petition under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Evacuee Act, 1950, for short) and upholding the order dated 14th February, 1980 passed by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial), inter alia, holding that the property in their occupation bearing No. 4487/92A/52, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi is an evacuee property. The petitioners have also prayed for declaration that the property in their occupation is not an evacuee property and other incidental relief's.2. In the year 1947, partition of India saw migration of a large number of persons. These migrants left behind moveable and immovable assets, when they migrated to settle down either in India or the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-28-2010
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner school has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 26th November, 1999 of the Labour Court in a reference of an industrial dispute at the instance of the respondents 1 to 3. The respondents 1 to 3 claimed to be the employees (non-teaching) of the petitioner school and contended that the petitioner was neither issuing them identity cards nor giving them any legal benefits and asking them to render duties under fictitious names and on their refusal to do so, the petitioner school had refused work to them.2. The petitioner contended before the Labour Court that it was a recognized private unaided school within the meaning of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (School Act); that Section 8(3) of the said Act provides the remedy of appeal before the Delhi School Education Tribunal (School Tribunal) to any employee of the school against any order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; that in view of the existence of the specific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-26-2010
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd May, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a suit for ejectment, recovery of mesne profits and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the appellant herein.2. The facts as they emerge from the record are that the appellant was inducted as a tenant under the respondent with respect to one big hall, one office room and one WC, all measuring 900 sq. ft. with a common passage on the second floor of property No. F-14/15, Connaught Place, New Delhi of the respondent. The said premises were let out by the respondent to the appellant by an agreement dated 1st December, 1976, whereunder the appellant had agreed to pay rent to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,700/- p.m. for the first three years and at the rate of Rs. 3,240/- p.m. for the next two years and at the rate of Rs. 3,780/- p.m. to the respondent after five years of 01.12.1976, i.e., with effect from 01.12.1981.3. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-30-2010
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER.1 These are 38 writ petitions filed by builders of various properties in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi) who have been issued show cause notices and also directions by the Respondent Delhi Pollution Control Committee (`DPCC) for alleged violation of Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [hereafter `the Water Act) and Sections 21 and 22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 [hereafter `the Air Act]. Barring two petitions where the buildings constructed are residential complexes, in each of the other petitions the building constructed is a commercial shopping complex or a shopping mall.1.2 The show cause notices have been issued on the ground that these Petitioners had not, prior to commencing construction, applied to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-15-2010
PER: D.N. PANDA 1. Two batches of appeals were made against two adjudications done in respect of different imports of ball bearings involving following appellants who came before Tribunal facing consequences of adjudication as depicted in the table below. Both sets of appeals are dealt by this common order in view of similar cause of action and common investigation resulting in similar consequences. Both sides could not inform whether other persons/concerns against whom adjudication was also done by the following order were whether in appeal accordingly this order is confined to the appellants as appearing in the table below: Consequence arose under O-I-O No. 105/2005 dated: 30.11.2005 against allegations in SCN No. 338/XIV/96/2003 Dt. 30.04.2004 Consequence arose under O-I-O No. 100/2005 dated: 28.11.2005 against allegations in SCN No. 338/XIV/96/2003 Dt. 22.11.2004 Sl.No Appellants Batch of Customs Appeal No. Consequence of Adjudication Batch of Customs Appeal No. Consequence o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-07-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present judgment will dispose of three writ petitions filed by the Indian Olympic Association (the petitioner in W.P. 876/2007, hereafter referred to as "the IOA"), the Sanskriti School, petitioner in W.P. 1212/2007, (hereafter referred to as "the school") and the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games, 2010, Delhi (petitioner in W.P. 1161/2008, hereafter referred to as "the Games Committee"). The common question involved is as to the applicability of the Right to Information Act (hereafter referred to as "the Act"), with broad reference to whether the writ petitioners are "Public Authorit(ies)" within the meaning of the term under Section 2(h) of the said Act. Petitioners facts and contentions:2. Briefly the facts of the case in W.P. 876/2007, filed by the IOA are that the IOA is the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-06-2010
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the order?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the order should be reported in the Digest? ORDER1. Both writ petitions challenge an order dated 16th June 2010 passed by the Competition Commission of India (`CCI') under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (`CA').2. The background to the present petitions is that by an order dated 13 th February 2009, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (`MRTP Commission') took cognizance, under Section 11(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (`MRTP Act'), of reports in the print and visual media that airline operators, including the Petitioners herein, had collectively increased air fares and withdrawn the promotional fares as a result of which additional costs were imposed on the consumer and competition in the industry was reduced. The MRTP Commission formed a prima facie opinion that the alleged practice was a restrict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-16-2010
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner, a Company Commander of the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as `RPF' for brevity), Tundla, has challenged the order dated 14th September, 1989 (wrongly mentioned as 18th September, 1989 in the writ petition) of the disciplinary authority finding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and imposing the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 15th of June 1990 rejecting the appeal filed by him before the Director General, RPF, Railway Board, New Delhi.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub Inspector in the Railway Protection Force by an order of appointment in the year 1965 passed by the General Manager, Northern Railway. He was promoted in September 1981, to the post o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-26-2010
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes1. The background facts in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9886 of 2003 filed by Nahata Traders & Builders Pvt. Ltd. (NTBPL) and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9887 of 2003 by Nahata Group of Builders & Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (NGBFPL) are more or less similar. The questions for determination in both writ petitions are also based on a common set of facts. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts in W.P. (C) No. 9886 of 20032. The relevant facts are that way back in 1982, NTBPL the Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9886 of 2007 purchased land comprised in khasra No. 564/87 situated in Village Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the property in question) by way of five sale deeds dated 2nd June 1984. It is stated that the property in question was give...
Tag this Judgment!