Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1971Delhi94
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, which has its northern zonal office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, against an order, dated 18-4-1966, passed by Shri V. P. Bhatnagar, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, declining to amend under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, his judgment and decree, dated 30-10-1965, in suit No. 382 of 1963. and grant future interest to the decree-holder, petitioner herein. (2) R. N. Mehta, the sole respondent in this Revision Petition, borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000.00 from the Bombay Life Assurance Company Limited, and mortgaged certain properties in favor of the said Company by means of a registered mortgaged deed, dated 30-9-1953. The mortgage amount was to be paid back on the expiry of 15 years from the date of the deed. The respondent herein also assigned his life assurance policy as additional security for the sum advanced and agreed to continue to pay the premium regularly and to keep th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR974]; (2003)ILLJ341Del
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These three LPAs involving similar questions of law and fact were taken for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.The fact of the matter however is being noticed from LPA 413/2002The respondent herein was employed in horticulture department as a Mali. He was transferred to Civil Lines Zone in October 1983. His services were terminated on November 10, 1984 without assigning any reason. According to the respondent on November 15, 1984 while he was going back to his house after performing his duties, he sustained injuries in a fight with another villager and remained confined to Hindu Rao Hospital. He was treated as out door patient for two months. A case under Section 307/324 IPC was registered against him. After his recovery he reported for duty but he was not allowed to do so. In the criminal case, however, he was acquitted.An industrial dispute in relation to the order of retrenchment was raised, inter alia, on the ground that the same w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi251
..... life insurance corporation act coming into force. in rashtriya mill mazdoor sangh nagpur v. model mills nagpur : (1984)iillj507sc the supreme court had held that the provisions of the industrial disputes act and the bombay industrial regulations act were special provisions visa-avis the provisions of the companies act. all these decisions were rendered in the light of and keeping in view the purpose of the provisions of different acts and in the light of the facts prevailing in each case.18. in fact, the legislature, on realizing the need to safeguard the wages of workers, amended the companies act and enacted section ..... leave of the court, of any of the properties or effects of the company after such commencement; shall be void.'37. i had an occasion to examine the position of law under section 232(1) of the indian companies act, 1913 and that prevailing under section 537 of the companies act, 1956 in the case of the peerless general finance and investment co. limited v. majestic apparels pvt. ltd., : 59(1995)dlt238 wherein i had after examining ..... cannot accept that it was the maximum price for the simple reason that while these arguments were in progress, i decided another application where i had sanctioned the sale of the second unit of this very company without any plant or machinery or moveables that is the plot and the superstructure only for rs. 43 lakhs whereas in the present case the price of rs. 28 lakhs offered was not only for an identical plot together with the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)281; 106(2003)DLT164; 2003(70)DRJ357
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of property No. 4-E/11, Ward No. 15, Jhandewalan, New Delhi and are aggrieved by the assessment order dated 02.02.2001 fixing the rateable value of the property at different values from 01.12.1988 onwards. The petitioner have also impugned the consequent bill dated 15.06.2001 raised in pursuance to the order of assessment.2. The petitioners acquired rights to the property in question in pursuance to a perpetual lease deed executed on 16.11.1973 in favor of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and the husband of petitioner No. 3, who subsequently passed away. The petitioners entered in to a contract with M/s. Indraprastha Builders Pvt. Ltd. for development and construction of a building on the said property. It is stated that in terms of the said agreement, an area of 20000 sq. ft. had to be constructed and the petitioners agreed to lt out 10000 sq. ft. of the area to the said builders on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. and the remaining ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)72ITD1a(Delhi)
..... industrial development bank act, 1964 (18 of 1964); (c) the life insurance corporation of india, established under the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31 of 1956); (d) the general insurance corporation of india, established under the general insurance corporation (nationalisation) act, 1972 (57 of 1972); (e) the unit trust of india, established under the unit. trust of india act, 1963 (52 of 1963); (f) the industrial credit and investment corporation of india, a company registered under the companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (g) the subsidiaries of any of the corporations or companies specified in (a) to ..... responsible person who shall add his address. share of the company shall be transferred in the form prescribed under the companies act, 1956 or in such other form as may be prescribed from time to time under the law applicable to the company.the share transfer form prescribed under section 108(1a) of the companies act was also prescribed under the dse in rule 17. rule 18 is the following: the board of directors may decline to register the ..... that such a close relation would not be required to acquire individual share or individual membership, and (3) on the death of the person who holds the share, the membership of the exchange shall cease under rule 43.rule 43 does not make any distinction between a person who has formed a partnership or who is doing business in his individual capacity.transfer of share is also discretionary. in this connection, our attention is drawn to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1999]96CompCas950(Delhi); 1996RLR487
..... those are used. in this context, a reference be made to the case of the life insurance corporation of india vs . d. j. bahadur & ors.. reported as : (1981)illj1sc and the case of s. v. khandoskar v. v. m. deshpande, ito, and another reported as : [1972]83itr685(sc) . in the light of the above discussion, i do not find any merit in this contention and reject this plea of dfc and hold that the provisions of section 32e of the state financial corporations act are not attracted.(14) since all other points and contentions ..... than this act, but save as aforesaid, the provisions of this act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being applicable to an industrial concern.'he had further submitted that the state financial corporations act, is special law, vis-a-vis the companies act which is general lawand, thereforee, its provisions will prevail over companies act,1956. he had also contended that once possession is taken over under section 29 of the state financial corporation act, the dfc ..... offered and cannot accept that it was the maximum price for the simple reason that while these arguments were in progress, i decided another application where i had sanctioned the sale of the second unit of this very company without any plant or machinery or moveables that is the plot and the superstructure only for rs. 43 lakhs whereas in the present case the price of rs. 28 lakhs offered was not only for an identical plot together with the superstructure but .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1971RLR81
S. Rangarajan, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of similar Writ Petitions Nos. 80,133 to 137 and 176 of 1971. It will be sufficient to set out the facts in C.Ws 79 & 80 of 1971. The only point of distinction between C.Ws 79 & 80 of 1971 and the rest is that in C.Ws 79 & 80 alone there is the additional fact of a notice having been issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 6-1-1971 under section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act asking the persons concerned to show cause why the rateable value should not be enhanced as stated in that notice for 1970-71. Even before the expiry of the dates mentioned in the said notices for showing cause the writ Petitions 79 & 80/71 were filed on 18-1-1971. The rest were filed some time later. (2) The petitioner in C.W. 79/71 is the owner of building bearing Municipal No. 35 Faiz Bazar, Delhi and the petitioner in C.W. 80/71 is a joint owner of building bearing Municipal No. 36 Faiz Bazar, Delhi. Both the buildings. Numbers 35 and 36, wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. These Intra-Court appeals impugn the common judgment dated 25th July, 2011 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4342/2007, W.P.(C) No. 4344/2007, W.P.(C) No. 13393/2009 and W.P.(C) No. 13628/2009 preferred by the respondents herein. Of the said four writ petitions, two i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4342/2007 and W.P.(C) No. 4344/2007 were filed impugning the common judgment dated 22nd May, 2007 of the learned District Judge [exercising powers under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971] and dismissing the appeals preferred by the respondents against the order dated 18th April, 2006 of the Estate Officer of eviction of the respondents from Flat No.14/12190 and Flat No.7/10181 on the first floor of Tropical Building, H- Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The other two writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No. 13393/2009 and W.P.(C) No.13628/2009 were preferred assailing the common judgment dated 29th October, 2009 of the learned Distri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:17. 01.2018 Judgment pronounced on:31. 05.2018 * + W.P.(C) No.11599/2015 VEDANTA LIMITED & ORS. ..Petitioners Through: Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Mr. Anish Kapur, Mr. Dhritiman Roy and Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Advs Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .Respondents Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Mr. Waiz Ali Noor, Mr. Prateek Dhanda and Mr. Saeed Qadri, Advs. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha and Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Advs. for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.Preface:1. The extension of tenure of Production Sharing Contract dated 15.5.1995 (hereafter referred to as "PSC") qua the Rajasthan Block RJ-ON- 9(hereafter referred to as "Rajasthan Block") for a period of 10 years beyond its current term is at the heart of the matter. 1.1 The present tenure of the PSC comes to an end on 14.5.2020. The petitioners seek the extension of the tenure of the PSC for a further period W.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 44(1991)DLT521
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT (hereinafter referred to as appellant) have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1970 passed by Shri V.B. Bansal, Sub Judge 1st Class (as he then was) whereby he dismissed the suit of the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,474.52 P. (2) The matrix of the case of the appellant as set out in their plaint is as under : that one Shri Sagar Mall Almal deceased (hereinafter adverted to as deceased for the sake of convenience) of 7, Kannu Lall Lane, Calcutta-7, sent on 30.7.52 a proposal to M/s. Ruby General Insurance Company, 21, Darya Ganj, Delhi to be assured for life for a sum of Rs. 68,000.00 . The said proposal was accepted and on the basis thereof a policy bearing No. 75990 dated 8.9.1952 issued to the deceased by the said company. The said policy was converted into a paid up one at the request of the deceased with effect from 1.8.1955. A sum of Rs. 22,400.00 could have been paid to the deceased, on the d...
Tag this Judgment!