Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2005
Reported in : 2006(86)DRJ593
..... .p.)in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 29b of the industries (development and regulations) act, 1951 (65 of 1951), the central government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the government of india in the ministry of industry (department of industrial development number s.o.477 ( ..... effect to it, vide government of andhra pradesh v. road rollers owners welfare association : (2004)6scc210 .40. in jinia keotin v. kumar sitaram manjhi : [2002]supp5scr689 , the supreme court observed:-the court cannot re-legislate on the subject under the guise of interpretation against the legislative will expressed in the enactment itself.41. ..... adopt an interpretation which would tend to do violence to the express language as well as the plain meaning and patent aim and object underlying the various other provisions of the act. even in endeavoring to maintain the object and spirit of the law to achieve the goal fixed by the legislature, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-05-2005
Reported in : 125(2005)DLT423; 2006(86)DRJ73
..... for the appellant in this regard.21. since respondent no. 1 fulfilled the conditions laid down in the policy of 1961, as amended in 1989, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge. 22. under the circumstances, ..... , 1961, the delhi government appears to have come out with a scheme (amended in 1989) wherein it was decided that persons whose land had been acquired under the provisions of the la act are entitled to an alternative residential plot subject to fulfilling certain conditions. two relevant ..... of the proceedings instituted by respondent no. 1 merely recognized or declared her claim to bhumidari rights under section 85 of the dlr act. this recognition or declaration must necessarily relate back to 1986-87 when she claims to have acquired bhumidari rights, or three years ..... madan b. lokur, j.1. this appeal under clause x of the letters patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th march, 2003 passed by a learned single judge of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-29-2005
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT90
..... 102 (2003) dlt 61 made the following observations, and nevertheless, had dismissed aforementioned letters patent appeals:5. it is relevant to note that section 124 of the said act provides for an assessment list to be prepared while section 126 provides for amendment of the assessment list. section 128 provides for notice of transfers. it is not ..... to be finalized on or before 31.3.2003. the respondents must, thereforee, successfully show that the amendment orders had been passed prior to this date. reliance by the respondents on annexure r2 dated 18.12.2002 is obviously not of any avail as that order confirms the finalization of the consolidated rateable value at rs ..... the respondents was to make an assessment on the petitioners on an individual basis. in r.k. khandelwal v. municipal corporation of delhi, lpa no. 938/2002 decided on 25th august, 2004, the division bench had allowed the petitions of assessed whose assessment had not been completed within three years, and this event must .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-22-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Delhi53; 124(2005)DLT124; 2005(84)DRJ516; (2005)141PLR62
..... or not. it is not concerned with any other arrangement. it has been said over and over again that there is no such thing as conditional probate or an amended probate. it is either all or nothing. that seems to be sensible enough law.' 4. reliance was also placed upon sisir kumar chandra and anr. v. smt. ..... exercising testamentary jurisdiction, this court does not cease to be a court of equity and when provision of civil procedure code applies in terms of section 295 of the indian succession act, the court while exercising its inherent powers is not without jurisdiction to delete or expunge material which is scandalous, defamatory or libelous. in board of trustees of ..... jurisdiction and the same has been conferred by the charter and incorporated in clause 24 of the letters patent of lahore high court which has been adopted by the delhi high court under section 10(2) of the delhi high court act, 1966. thereforee, as a court of equity, the high court would be exercising its inherent power .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-08-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)CTLJ493(Del)
..... will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of a suit. having regard to the changes in the legislative policy as adumbrated by the amendments carried out in the code of civil procedure, the courts would interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to save ..... made in the plaint as correct unless the documents placed on record including that of the plaintiff demonstrate that the plaint is patently vexacious based on false-hood and such averments cannot be taken as correct. reference in this regard can be made to the ..... is made to the dealer. running account in respect of dealership of defendant no. 1 was also maintained. as on december 31, 2002, there was a debit balance of more than rs. 1.35 crores against defendant no. 1 as there was a great fall ..... of action, the court held as under:-xxx xxx xxx xxxcause of action 140. a cause of action is a bundle of acts which are required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit. for the aforementioned purpose, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-05-2005
Reported in : 122(2005)DLT538; 2005(84)DRJ40
..... case as also the principle of estoppel applies on both parties'. thereafter there is a mention of passing of order in other writ petitions overlooking the intent behind the 1976 amendments to order xlvii rule 1(2) viz. the explanationn inserted therein. it has also been stated that 'the hon'ble court has not appreciated the facts, that ..... filed on 30.6.2005 and refiled twice thereafter well beyond the stipulated period of thirty days. an application under section 5 of the limitation act does not accompany it. the application is patently barred by limitation which is fatal for its consideration. the orders of the division bench do not enlarge time or condone delay in the filing ..... m.c. decided on august 3, 2005. his ordership has also taken note of similar dismissal orders passed by the another single judge in w.p. (c) 5224/2002.6. a perusal of the review application discloses that the grounds on which the order under review is assailed is that 'this hon'ble court while rejecting a prayer (a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-19-2005
Reported in : 122(2005)DLT170; 2005(83)DRJ40
..... procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the code' ) in terms of the said amending code. section 100a of the code was amended and reads as under :-'100a. no further appeal in certain cases. a- notwithstanding anything contained in any letters patent for any ..... of the apex court, the letters patent appeal would not be maintainable. faced with this situation, there was no option but to decide the issue first about the maintainability of the appeal.4. the objection to maintainability of the appeal arises in view of the amendment act, 2002 (act no. 22 of 2002) made applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2002 in respect of code of civil .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-05-2005
Reported in : 120(2005)DLT300; [2005]142STC376(Delhi)
..... (both dated 24th february, 1983) in the present writ petition.3. counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents was filed wherein it was stated that in view of the 46th amendment act, 1982 of the constitution of india, the writ petition was not maintainable as the provisions had become effective from 2nd february, 1983 and section 6(2) of the ..... . volkart brothers and ors. : [1971]82itr50(sc) again the same view was expressed and it was held as under :-'a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. as seen earlier, the high ..... case of union of india and anr v. narayanbhai keshavlal patel air 1985 guj31, where the court held as under :-'on the other hand, it may be a case where patently there is an error in the approach and the subscribed may be able to convince the authority of it, given a chance. we read r.421 as needing such an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-05-2005
Reported in : 120(2005)DLT525; 2005(82)DRJ664
..... government should be understood in its correct perspective and its substitution by a vested right in the owner for release of the land from acquisition would be patent misconstruction of the provisions. thus, the jurisdiction of the court to interfere in this administrative exercise of power by the authorities falls within a very narrow ..... be deemed to be suitably varied by acquisition and it is not necessary for the authorities to follow the procedure for amendment under the town planning act.17. still, in another judgment in chandragauda ramgonda patin and anr. v. state of maharashtra and ors. : (1996)6scc405 , their lordships of the supreme ..... is submitted to the lieutenant governor for acceptance. de-notification according to the policy is done on the guidelines. the petitioner has alleged that on 14.4.2002 representation annexure 'e' was submitted to the lieutenant governor praying for denotificationthe land belonging to petitioner's society. it appears that decision has not yet been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Apr-01-2005
Reported in : (2005)(186)ELT90TriDel
..... 442 (cegat-lb)] wherein it has been held that the power of rectification of mistake under section 129b of the act is a limited power and this power is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record calling for amendment of the order. it has been held by the supreme court in the case of s. balram, income-tax ..... of the duty which had been paid by them in excess before the abatement was allowed; that in view of this, the provisions of section 27 of the customs act regarding unjust enrichment are applicable.4. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. the applicants, through the present application, are challenging the findings given by us ..... officer company v. volkart brothers, air 1971 sc 2204 that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake not something which can be established by a .....
Tag this Judgment!