Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IIAD(Delhi)209; 1996(37)DRJ207
Arun Kumar, J. (1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17th December 1993 passed by the Addl.Rent Controller who has been imp leaded as respondent No.1 By the impugned order the respondent No.1 allowed oral evidence to be led in support of the objections filed by the objector respondent No.2 against the order dated 31st October 1980 of the then Addl.Rent Controller granting permission for fixed term lease by the petitioners of the suit property in favor of respondent No.2 for a period of five and half years under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the Act). By virtue of the objections filed by respondent No.2 about 12 days before the expiry of the period of lease the respondent No.2 has been able to drag on the matter for almost ten years and has continued to enjoy the suit premises and retain its possession so far. The necessary facts for the present purposes are:-(2) The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 146(2008)DLT455
..... electro- magnetic emissions, radio waves or hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means.explanation.--'radio waves' or 'hertzian waves' means electro-magnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3,000 giga-cycles per second propagated in space without artificial guidethe contention on behalf of the respondents is that even a cursory reading of these definitions will reveal that 'telegraph' and 'telecommunication services ..... vikramajit sen, j.1. in petition no. i (cw 24105/2005) star india pvt. ltd. has prayed for a certiorari quashing the proviso to section 2(1)(k) of the trai act; .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1989(58)FLR731]; ILR1988Delhi467
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a substantial question of law as to the virus of proviso (1) of Clause 15(c)(.2) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) lead with Clause (c) of subjection 1 (2) of Section 53 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950. They also seek a declaration that the impugned dismissal orders are in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.(2) The Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950 was enacted to provide for the establishment and regulation of a Road Transport Authority for the promotion of a co ordinated system of road transport in the Union Territory of Delhi. Under Section 3 of the said Act, the Delhi Road Transport Authority was established and it took over with effect from April 1, 1950 the earlier transport system known as Delhi Transport Services whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)333; 2(1997)CLT273; 67(1997)DLT145; 1997(42)DRJ131
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) There are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1631/92, 1749/92 the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made there from have been banned. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made there from. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991.(2) In so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1981Delhi171; [1982]52CompCas379(Delhi); 19(1981)DLT38a; ILR1980Delhi1305
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) The plaintiff Manohar Lal took a joint policy on his life and the life of his wife, Sita Rani. from the Sun Light of India Insurance Company Limited on May 23, 1956 for a period of 25 years in the amount of Rs. 25,000. He paid the annual premium of Rs. 906.25. The term of the policy was that in the event of death of either of them before the date of maturity the sum assured was payable to the survivor. (2) Sita Rani died on June 22, 1957. The plaintiff made a claim on the defendant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, (Corporation), which took over the assets of the Sun Light Insurance by virtue of Act. 31 of 1956. The Corporation by their letter dated 20/21st November, 1959 repudiated the claim on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and that there was no valid contract of insurance between the plaintiff and the Sun Light Insurance on which a claim could be made. (3) On March 22, 1960 the plaintiff brought an action aga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1980Delhi1; 1981LabIC1012; 1980RLR508
V.S. Dbshpamde, J. (1) The Question. A question arising with increasing frequency is how far and when promissory estoppel binds the Government. The answer broadly is that like all judicial review, it is available against ordinary administrative action, but not against policy decisions which are not aimed against individuals but are based on general considerations and public interest. This distinction will help to decide this and the connected writ petitions.(2) The Context: Entry 41 of List I of the Seventh Schedule read with Article 246(1) of the Constitution gives exclusive power to Parliament to legislate about trade and commerce with foreign countries and import and export across customs frontiers. The executive power of the Union of India under Article 73 of the Constitution extends to all matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make law). The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (herein called the Act), gives the Central Government powers to prohibit or restrict ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1984Delhi134; [1985]151ITR584(Delhi)
..... as words a different sense will bear, and each may be his own interpreter, our airy faith will no foundation find : the words a weathercock for every wind.' (dryden : 'the hind and the panther ii 462. quoted in statutory interpretation in australia by d.c. pearce (2nd edn., 1981) at p. 179). 85. for these reasons, i agree with chadha and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... imposed on the employer's rights, and was not authorized to make a final order or binding decision in any dispute. engineering mazdoor sabha representing workmen employed under the hind cycles ltd. v hind cycles ltd., bombay (1963) suppl (1) scr625 referred to the trappings of a court and it was observed that sometimes a rough and ready test is applied in determining the ..... conventions in respect of jamaica, ceylon, australia and canada, on this aspect of the matter have been delineated above. the opinion of the privy council expressed by lord diplock in hind case (supra), has been shown as being followed in countries which have constitutions on the westminster model. the indian constitution is one such constitution. the position has been clearly recorded .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 184/2007 % Reserved on :21. t February, 2017 Pronounced on:27. h April, 2017 FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICER........ Petitioner Through Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Mr.Ashish Garg, Ms. Mahima Rathi & Mr. S. Bushra Kazim, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Mr. Surajit Bhaduri & Ms.Aakashi Lodha, Advocates for LIC. Ms. Abha Malhotra, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav & Mr. Tanuj Chopra, Advocates for UOI. + W.P.(C) 9440/2016 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Mr. Surajit Bhaduri & Ms.Aakashi Lodha, Advocates for LIC. versus KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. Through Nemo. + W.P.(C) 9442/2016 ........ RESPONDENTS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA &ORS..... Petitioners Through Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Mr. Suraji...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl. Rev. No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 Date of Decision:12. h August, 2014 DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE ..Petitioner Through : Mr. V. Madhukar, Mr. Paritosh Anil, Mr. Jayendra, Mr. V. Bhatt, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. appointed as Amicus Curiae VERSUS UOI & ANR. Through: ....Respondents Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State. Mr. Amit Chadha, Adv. for applicant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL GITA MITTAL, J It is highly deplorable and heart-rending to note that many poverty stricken children and girls in the prime of youth are taken to 'flesh market' and forcibly pushed into the 'flesh trade' which is being carried on in utter violation of all cannons of morality, decency and dignity of humankind. There cannot be two opinionsindeed there is nonethat this obnoxious and abominable crime Crl Rev.No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 1 committed with all kinds of unthinkable vulgarity should be eradicated at all levels by dras...
Tag this Judgment!