Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi189
ORDER1. The petitioners through the present petition have sought a declaration that the decision of the Registrar, respondent No. 1, conveyed vide letter dated June 18, 1985 to Harsh Vihar Co-operative House Building Society, respondent No. 3 is final and conclusive and binding on all, and the petitioners are the duly enrolled members of the respondent No. 3. They further want a declaration that Shri V. K. Mittal, respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 4 for the sake of convenience) is not a member of the respondent No. 3-Society and all actions taken by the respondents on the assumption that respondent No. 4 is a member of the respondent No. 3-Society are null and void.2. The present petition was dismissed as withdrawn qua the petitioner No. 1, Shri R. K. Sharma, vide order dated May 11, 1954 passed by this Court. 3. The case of the petitioner No. 2 as set up in the petition is as under: that respondent No. 3 developed a colony known as Harsh Vihar. It consisted o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001(128)ELT353(Del)
ORDERM.K. Sharma, J.1. The present proceedings is the second bout of litigation between the parties. By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the provisions of Sub-section (1A) of Section 14 and Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) as also Rules 3, 4, 9(c) and 9(e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for short . The writ petitioners have also sought for a further direction prohibiting the respondents from acting pursuant to the letter of demand dated 28th October, 1997 issued by the respondents.2. The petitioner No. 1 - Company carries on the business of manufacturing, amongst others, high quality sponge iron, hot rod coils and plates. On 24th March, 1987, the petitioner No. 1 - Company entered into an agreement to purchase a plant for manufacture of sponge iron which was originally installe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 153(2008)DLT261
S.N. Aggarwal, J. 1. Delhi Tamil Education Association (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Petitioner') is a linguistic minority registered society. The said society has established seven educational institutions for imparting education from Class I to Class XII primarily to the children belonging to Tamil population living in Delhi. It has established seven schools in Mandir Marg, Pusa Road, Lodhi Road, R.K. Puram, Moti Bagh, Laxmi Bai Nagar and Janak Puri. These schools established by the petitioner society are recognized by the Government of NCT of Delhi and are receiving 95% grant from the Government. The petitioner society has appointed 33 Assistant Teachers in its schools w.e.f. 03.07.2007 pursuant to interviews held on 31.01.2007 and 01.02.2007. These teachers are stated to have not been paid their salary ever since their appointment till date for want of release of grant by the Government. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of impugned commun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IAD(Delhi)852; 1994(28)DRJ593; 1994LabIC1495
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition has been filed by the promotee officers of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (for short DESU) impugning the provisional seniority list dated April 24, 1992, which has subsequently been confirmed and finalised by the Seniority list dated April 27, 1993, and continuation of the same on May 14, 1993. The challenge has been based on the interpretation of the Regulations made by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under Section 98 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as '1968 Regulations'). The said Regulations are known as ' Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (D.M.C.) (Seniority) Regulations, 1968, which fixes the basis of the relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees, as well as, the principle of rotation of vacancies vide clause 7 of the Regulations. (2) The petitioners also amended the writ petition by moving an application C.M.No. 4966 of 1993) for urging certain additional grounds in support of their chal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 99(2002)DLT803; [2003(96)FLR190]; (2002)IIILLJ964Del
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner has in the Petition highlighted the deplorable conditions of the colony Hospital in Delhi and has sought, inter alia, necessary directions to the respondents to improve the working and functioning of these hospitals on the lines of recommendations given by the Committee on upgradiation of these hospitals as per its report submitted in January, 1998. 2. While the aforesaid primary issue raised in the Writ Petition is pending consideration, the petitioner was prompted to file a miscellaneous application being CM. 8163/2002 in view of the threat of strike given by the doctors and the employees of the Government hospitals. Joint Council for Health Employees - an organisation of the employees which had given a call for strike was imp leaded as a party while issuing notice on the said application on 8th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1576
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I proceed to dispose of Crl M.C. No. 1945/07 which seeks the quashing of F.I.R. No. 78/2006 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi, under Sections 420 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), and also Crl M.A. No. 11358/07 which has been filed to seek the transfer of the investigation to CBI.2. The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of M/s Medicare Textiles, a firm stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying surgical dressings. The petitioner states that he has been supplying surgical dressings to a number of hospitals, including those falling under the Government of Delhi, for the past 10 years.3. As per the case of the prosecution, one Sh. Mishri Lal, stated to be the General Secretary of the Lok Nayak Hospital Employees Union, 717, Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, made a complaint to the police on 06.11.2006 stating that the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT217; 2002(80)ECC72; 2002(139)ELT36(Del)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') challenge is to the order dated 9th November 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Act) and consequentially directing dismissal thereof.2. Factual background highlighted by the petitioner is essentially as follows:Petitioner, a trading unit, imported a consignment of 44000 pieces of video cassettes of make of Panasonic NV, E-180, from the United Arab Emirates. A bill of entry bearing No. 238737 was filed at the Chennai Customs House of clearance. An audit of the bill of entry in respect of the declaration made by the petitioner was conducted and it was found that the concerned goods were covered by Tariff heading 8523.90. The Customs Authorities were of the view that there was discrepancy in the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000(56)DRJ828
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This batch of 14 writ petitions, all filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raises common question. All the petitioners are having their manufacturing units within the limits of National Capital 'Territory of Delhi and all these units are manufacturing Urea Formaldehyde Powder. By impugned order dated 7th June, 2000, Delhi Pollution Control Committee (for short 'DPCC) has treated these units under 'H' category as per Master Plan 2001 and following the orders of Supreme Court passed in I.A. 22/94 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 entitled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1996SC2231a , passed directions under Section 31A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read with Rule 20(6) of Air Rules, 1983 directing these petitioners to close down their units with immediate effect. In order to effectuate this direction, other consequential directions are given to Delhi Vidyut Board and Delhi Jal Board for disconnection of electric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT375; 2003(85)ECC325; 2002(150)ELT41(Del)
Usha Mehra, J. 1. Angel Saavedra Dopico, a Spanish national arrived at New Delhi from Zurich on 13th January, 2001. He was intercepted and was found carrying 33 gold bars on his person. Those 33 golds bars were seized and his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act) was recorded. Since 13th January, 2001 he is in custody and confined in the Central Jail, Tihar. Criminal complaint against him under Section 132, 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Act was filed on which the cognizance has already been taken by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. While the petitioner was still in judicial custody confined in the Central Jail, Tihar, he was served with the impugned order dated 12th July, 2001 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) {hereinafter called the COFEPOSA Act}.2. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the petitioner has assailed the same by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 62(1996)DLT55; 1996(37)DRJ418
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This writ petition has been placed before me in view of the difference of opinion between Mahinder Narain, J. and Cyriac Joseph,J. in regard to the question of validity of nomination of the third respondent as a Member and President of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short 'AIIMS'), the second respondent. In the instant petition, the petitioners seek a direction in the nature of Quo Warranto declaring that Shri B. Shankranand, the third respondent is not entitled to hold or continue to hold office as the President-Member of the second respondent and as Chairman of its governing body. The writ petitioners further seek writ in the nature of Mandamus for restraining the third respondent from functioning as the President and the Member of the second respondent and as the Chairman of its governing body. There is also another prayer in the nature of a consequential relief for quashing the proceedings, deliberations and minutes of the meetings of the In...
Tag this Judgment!