Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: delhi Year: 2003 Page 9 of about 266 results (0.118 seconds)

Mar 27 2003 (HC)

Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava Vs. State

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-27-2003

Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)129; 104(2003)DLT393; 2003(68)DRJ247

r.c. chopra, j. 1. this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the code' only) seeks quashing of the fir registered vide rc no. 56(a) of 96 dated 9th july, 1996 under section 120-b and 109 ipc read with section 9 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' only). it is also prayed that the report under section 173 of the code and the cognizance taken by the court of learned special judge, delhi in pursuance thereof may also be quashed. 2. the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated are, that the respondent-cbi received a source information that the accused mentioned in column no. 1 had entered into a conspiracy during the period december, 1993 to may, 1994 to obtain illegal gratification for a public servant for providing noc to m/s. jagjiwan co-operative house building society limited to start building activity. it was alleged that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the petitioner herein and his co-accused s.m. batra, who was working as osd to a former governor of haryana, induced the office bearers of the said society to pay rs. 30 lacs to accused ratan kaul, son-in-law of smt. sheela kaul, the then minister for urban development in government of india. it was also alleged that the office bearers of the aforesaid society, were taken to the residence of smt. sheela kaul by the present petitioner and s.m. batra where hawa singh, co-accused, handed over a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2003 (HC)

Shri Ashwni Kumar Khanna Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-06-2003

Reported in : 2003IIIAD(Delhi)634; 105(2003)DLT98; 2003(69)DRJ628

sanjay kishan kaul, j.1. a sub-lease deed was executed in respect of plot no. e-5/8, vasant vihar, new delhi in favor of smt. kalan on 19.07.1972. the property was sold on a power of attorney basis to the petitioner herein on 28.04.1978, though the nature of transaction was of an agreement for construction along with a general power of attorney and will with a provision that on the failure of the perpetual sub-lease deed to pay the amount in terms of the construction agreement, the property would vest with the petitioner. the agreement to sell was entered into on 20.12.1980 for an amount of rs. 5.50 lacs and smt. kalan applied to the respondent for permission to sell the property to the petitioner in 1980. 2. the petitioner let out the property to one shri balbir singh on 23.01.1981, who started running a guest house in a portion of the property in question. in the meantime on 18.08.1981, the respondent replied to smt. kalan in pursuance to her request for permission to transfer stating that she could apply for permission after expiry of 10 years from execution of the sub-lease and after three years from the date of completion of building. 3. in view of the misuse of the property, the dda cancelled the lease deed on 19.08.1983 and shri balbir singh, the tenant, filed a suit, which was registered as suit no. 907/1983, against the dda challenging the cancellation of the sub-lease deed. the petitioner was not made a party to the same. a restrained order was passed in january, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2003 (HC)

Mr. Vijay Kr. Dua Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-06-2003

Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)164; 104(2003)DLT984; 2004(1)SLJ44(Delhi); 2003(6)SLR700

vijender jain, j. 1. this petition has been filed by the promotees planning assistants working in the planning department of delhi development authority, inter alias praying that writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent to prepare the seniority list of the planning assistants in dda planning department on the basis of continuous length of service. 2. the basic contention which has been raised before me by the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that although vacancies were to be filled 50 per cent from direct recruitment and 50 per cent from promotion in the ratio of one direct recruit to one promotee officer, however, as per the recruitment rules the same has not been done and quota and rota rule has broken down. thereforee, the petitioners who were appointed in the year 1984 are entitled for their seniority on the basis of continuous length of service. 3. to cut short the controversy both the parties agree to the statement filed by the petitioners along with the writ petition as far as the recruitment made by the respondent/dda from the year 1963 till 1984 in both the categories of promotees as well as direct recruits. the same is at page no. 23 of the paper book.4. in support of his contention counsel for the petitioner has cited the decisions of supreme court in direct recruit class ii engineering officer's association vs . state of maharashtra & ors. : [1990]2scr900 and rudra kumar sain & ors. v. union of india & ors. (2000) 8 scc 25.5. on the other hand it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2003 (HC)

Gurnam Singh @ Herjit Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-18-2003

Reported in : 2003CriLJ3198; 103(2003)DLT758; 2003(68)DRJ326; 2003(87)ECC586; 2003(1)JCC599

r.s. sodhi, j.1. by this criminal writ petition no. 933 of 2002 under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner seeks to challenge the detention order bearing no. f. no. 801/29/200-pitndps dated 2.3.2002 passed by joint secretary to the government of india, ministry of finance, department of revenue, new delhi, under section 3(1) of the prevention of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1988 (for short the 'pitndps' act), served on the petitioner on 2.4.2002 together with relevant material. 2. the facts of the case are that the petitioner, paramjit singh and co-accused, tahel singh, were arrested pursuant to a recovery of 9.66 kg. brown powder from maruti zen car no. hr-01-f-8143 on 5.10.2001. on 11.3.2002 the petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned special judge pitndps act, new delhi who vide order dated 27.3.2002 admitted the petitioner and co-accused to bail. on 2.4.2002 a complaint under sections 21 and 29 pitndps act was filed before the court of special judge, ndps act, new delhi and cognizance taken thereon. on the same day, an order under section 3(1) of the pitndps act was passed and served on the petitioner while he was yet confined in jail. it is alleged that on 3.5.2002, the petitioner made a representation to the joint secretary, government of india and on 10.5.2002 made a representation to the advisory board. on 11.6.2002, the detaining authority rejected the representation dated 10.5.2002 made to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2003 (HC)

Shri Santosh Meena Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-31-2003

Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)68; 109(2004)DLT384

vikramajit sen, j.1. a hard situation necessitates taking of a harsh decision. the question before me is whether the petitioner, who has undergone only the 12th class examination in delhi is entitled to be considered for admission to the m.b.b.s. course in delhi. the petitioner was residing in surat along with his parents. his father after taking voluntary retirement moved to delhi while he was pursuing studies in the 9th class. thereafter, he continued his studies and cleared the 10th and 11th class also from surat. in surat the rules prescribe that students should have successfully completed the 10th, 11th and 12th class in the state of gujarat for being eligible for admission to educational courses in that state. this eligibility criteria of three years has received the approval of the hon'ble supreme court in anant madaan versus state of haryana and others, : air1995sc955 . if a requirement of three years has been upheld by the hon'ble supreme court, there seems no possibility for finding any legal irregularity in the requirement of completing the 11th and 12th class in delhi, as is in vogue in delhi.2. it was found that complete inflexibility in these requirements presented anomalous situation, such as perhaps the case before me. in order to solve the impasse, the hon'ble supreme court in meenakshi malik versus university of delhi and others, : [1989]2scr858 , held that since the petitioner had to accompany her father in a foreign posting, some relaxation was called for. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2003 (HC)

Shyam Sunder Maheshwari and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-11-2003

Reported in : 2003VIAD(Delhi)523; 106(2003)DLT146

devinder gupta, acj 1. the petitioners have in this writ petition sought quashing of notices annexure p12 (colly.) dated 18.10.1999 issued by assistant engineer-111, p.w.d., division-xiv, delhi informing the petitioners that they had unauthorisedly occupied land of ring road, phase-iii belonging to public works department. after the aforementioned notices were received by the petitioners, they on 27.10.1999 sent similar reply annexure p13 (colly.) pointing out that 150 ft. wide land has been acquired for construction of ring road so far under the provisions of the land acquisition act from raja garden chowk towards maya puri chowk. the petitioners by making reference to various acquisition proceedings, which had taken place, asserted that they were not in unauthorised possession of any part of the government land. the total acquired land for ring road width was only 150 ft. the land in their occupation was beyond the acquired width and unless further 60 ft. width was acquired under the provisions of the land acquisition act, the same cannot be treated as government land. under apprehension that the public works department authorities were considering land in their occupation to be part of the road, when the petitioners were threatened of being dispossessed have the writ petition seeking the following directions: '(i) certiorari to quash and set aside notices and actions of the respondents particularly notices dated 18.10.1999 (annexure p12 colly.) in respect of petitioners .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2003 (HC)

Ghansham Dass Seth and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-25-2003

Reported in : 2004IAD(Delhi)437; 107(2003)DLT53; 2003(70)DRJ617

badar durrez ahmed, j. 1. the petitioner no. 2, who is the owner of plot no. 32, lajpat nagar, part -i, new delhi is aggrieved by the issuance of the letter dated 16.5.2002 by the respondent whereby she has, inter alia, been asked to make the payment of rs. 24, 42, 227/- by way of penalty for belated construction from 1.7.1977 to 31.12.2003 within thirty days failing which her case for grant of `no objection certificate' in respect of the said premises would be closed. the case of the petitioner no. 2 is that penalty for belated construction for the period 1.7.1977 to 31.12.2003 cannot at all be charged at least during the period within which the urban land (ceiling & regulation) act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said act) was in operation. the petitioners' case is that under the said act there was a prohibition on construction and, accordingly, the petitioner could not carry out any construction during that period and consequently no penalty could be imposed on the petitioner in respect of such period.2. it is clear that the said act came into operation in delhi with effect from 17.12.1975 as indicated in section 6 thereof. the said act continued to apply and operate till its repeal on 22.3.1999 by virtue of the urban land (ceiling & regulation) repeal act, 1999. it is the petitioners' contention that during this period, i.e. 17.2.1975 to 22.3.1999 the petitioners could not contract on the said plot in view of the prohibition under the said act. if at all any penalty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2003 (HC)

Chander Bose Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-20-2003

Reported in : 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)157; 107(2003)DLT604; 2003(71)DRJ647

sanjay kishan kaul, j.1. the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking allotment of an alternative plot as a consequence of the acquisition of the land of shri bhikan, grand-father of the petitioner under the scheme for alternative allotment of plot against large scale acquisition of land.2. the factual matrix is not in dispute to the extent that late shri bhikan owned an agricultural land in shakarpur and a notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 was issued on 3.9.1957. award no.1179 was issued was made on 7.8.1961. the payment of the compensation was received on 27.9.1961 by shri khem chand, son of late shri bhikan. shri bhikan was survived by four sons - ami chand, tek chand, deep chand and khem chand. shri ami chand died in 1962 and is survived by his son prahlad. shri khem chand, who also passed away, is survived by the present petitioner since the brothers of the petitioner have executed a deed of relinquishment dated 28.07.1998 in his favor.3. the petitioner herein made an application on 15.12.1986 for allotment of the alternative plot on the basis of the authorisation received from all the land-owners. this application was rejected on 10.6.1988. the said letter states as under:'your case for allotment of alternative plot was put up before the jt. secretary (l&b;) and i am directed to state that following observations had been made with regard to your case:- 1. the copy of lr-4 submitted by you is in the name of shri beganwhich shows .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2003 (HC)

Mr. Lambert Kroger and ors. Vs. Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-03-2003

Reported in : 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)328; 2004CriLJ992; 108(2003)DLT150; 2004(72)DRJ103; 2003(3)JCC1852

j.d. kapoor, j.1. it is an unfortunate case. petitioners who are german national came to this country to do business but instead landed themselves in jail for having flouted the indian law against 'money circulation scheme' and prize chits' forattracting innocent people into pumping money with them in a scheme floated by them showing greed of a canadian golden coin known as 'maple leaf'2. short question involved for determination in this petition is whether terms of the agreement for contract of sale fall within the mischief of 'money circulation scheme' as contemplated by section 2(c) of the price chits and money circulation scheme (banning) act, 1978 or falls within the ambit of 'price chit' as envisaged in clause (e) of section 2 of the act. 3. according to the petitioner, he was engaged in the business of sale and distribution of canadian gold coins which are referred as 'maple leaves'. this agreement was thrown open to the persons who were desirous of entering into agreement for sale of gold coins in accordance with the terms of marketing plan of the seller. the relevant terms of the agreement for contract of sale are as under:-'and whereas the seller and the purchaser have agreed to enter into this agreement for a minimum of four (4) contracts of sale of gold coins amounting to rs. 49, 300/- each. now it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows :- 1. parties conclude ----------(minimum 4) contracts of sale whereby the purchaser each time purchases gold .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2003 (HC)

Sstate Vs. Mohd. Afzal and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-29-2003

Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)1; 107(2003)DLT385; 2003(71)DRJ178; 2003(3)JCC1669

pradeep nandrajog, j. preface 1. every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. the journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the designated judge of the special court constituted under section 23 of the prevention of terrorists activities act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as pota). in the murder reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the designated judge of the special court, pota. by the impugned judgment, the learned designated judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked parliament house on 13.12.2001 along with mohd. masood azhar, gazi baba @ abu zehadi @ abu seqlain and tariq ahmed, all pakistani nationals (declared as proclaimed offenders), to procure arms and ammunitions and attack the indian parliament when in session, intending to take as hostage or kill the prime minister, central ministers, vice-president of india and members of parliament and for that purpose the said accused persons procured hide-outs in delhi, helped in procuring arms and ammunition, a motor vehicle which facilistate d the entry of the terrorists into parliament house complex; procured chemicals for manufacture of explosives used by the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //