Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: delhi Year: 2003 Page 4 of about 266 results (0.049 seconds)

Oct 29 2003 (HC)

Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-29-2003

Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)481; 107(2003)DLT696; 2003(71)DRJ608

b.c. patel, c.j.1. by filing this petition in the year 2001, the petitioners have in effect prayed to quash and set aside the acquisition proceedings initiated by notification dated 16.6.1998 under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the act) as also declaration dated 23.6.1998 under section 6 of the act.2. before embarking on the issues involved, let us point out at the outset that the same notification was impugned by some other petitioners in cwp no. 4260/98. a division bench of this court while upholding the notification dismissed the said writ petition. normally calling the said detailed judgment dated 10.2.2003, a copy of which is placed on record by the respondents, this writ petition should have been dismissed straightway. however, learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to demonstrate that the aforesaid judgment of the division bench did not decide the issue in right perspective and made a fervent appeal for reference of the matter to the larger bench. in view of this submission, we heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and are giving our detailed reasons dealing with those submissions, in holding that the impugned notification is valid in law and that the aforesaid judgment of the division bench in cwp 4260/98 does not require any reconsideration by the larger bench.i factual matrix1. it appears that after examining the report, the government issued a notification under section 4 of act on 16.6.98. a copy .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2003 (HC)

Punjab National Bank Vs. Iqbal Ahmad and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-07-2003

Reported in : 2004(72)DRJ89

r.s. sodhi, j.1. c.m. (m) 672 of 2002 is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.9.2002 of the additional district judge, delhi, in m.c.a. no. 1 of 2002 whereby the learned judge, while adjudicating upon an appeal against the order of the trial court/civil judge, delhi, dated 21.11.2000 allowing an application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 cpc, held that the appeal was devoid of any merits and upheld the order of the trial court.2. brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned additional district judge, are that:'sh. abdul ghaffar i.e. father of plaintiff no. 1 and shri abdul sattar i.e. father of plaintiff no. 2 had purchased plot no. 40 in hathi khana scheme, bara hindu rao road, pul bangesh, delhi from shri mohd. naqi in their joint names in the years 1944 and 1945.both the aforesaid persons entered into an agreement in the year 1962 that they would let out the ground floor of the said plot after raising the construction over the same at monthly rent of rs. 2000/-. in the year 1962 the punjab national bank (to be referred as appellant bank) approached the father of the plaintiffs and entered into an agreement. the dda did not grant 'no objection certificate' for construction of the plot for use of the bank. on 30.11.64, the office of then mayor of the office of mcd informed the respective fathers of the plaintiff that is, the respondents, that according to the master plan all vacant plots are to be acquired for community facilities. the appellant bank assured the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2003 (HC)

Smt. Maya Jethanand Daryani and ors. Vs. Smt. Avtar Mohan Singh and or ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-07-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Delhi79

ordermanmohan sarin, j.1. by this judgment is nos. 6043/2003, 7722/2003 and 7728/2003 moved by m/s. mitsui and company ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant', for short) are being decided. is no. 6043/2003 is an application moved under section 151, cpc by the applicant, filing objections to the order dated 17th july, 2000, decreeing the suit and order dated 25th october, 2000, giving directions and appointing a receiver for demarcation of plot nos. 28 and 28-a, prithviraj road, new delhi. prayer is made for modification of the order dated 25th october, 2002 and keeping its operation in abeyance, till decision of the application. is no. 7728/2003 is an application moved under order 1, rule 10, cpc, by the applicant seeking impleadment in the suit already decided on 17th july, 2000. the last is no. 7722/2003 is an application moved by the applicant under order xxi, rules 97 and 101 read with sections 47, 141 and 151, cpc, to declare the decree passed in the suit as null and void and to keep in abeyance the directions for demarcation.2. before we consider the above applications on merits and the objections raised as to their maintainability, it would be necessary to notice the facts, essential and relevant for decision of these applications.3. the plaintiffs vide an agreement dated 16th september, 1975, agreed to purchase from defendant no. 1. smt. avtar mohan singh (widow of bhai mohan singh), defendant no. 2 dr. parvinder singh. defendant no. 3-mr. analjit singh and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 2003 (HC)

Saroj Gupta and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-19-2003

Reported in : 108(2003)DLT756

s.k. mahajan, j.1. the petitioners husband of appellant no. 1 along with petitioners 2 and 3 had purchased an industrial plot in the naraina industrial area, phase i, delhi a perpetual lease dated 25.4.1974 was prepared by the dda. since under the lease deed the construction was to be carried within specified period, the petitioners had been requested the respondent for extension of time for raising construction on the aforesaid plot of land and respondents had been granted demand of composition fee. in the meantime, the urban land ceiling and regulation act came into operation and the petitioners applied for exemption under the said act. i am informed that since the act as seems to be exists, the application under the urban land ceiling and regulation act has no reliance on the present case. on or about 3.12.1983, respondent no. 1 terminated the lease of the petitioners because of not constructing the building thereon in terms of the lease deed and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession. in a writ petition filed passed the petitioners, an order passed on 27.2.1996 whereby the court was informed that the lt.governor had on 23.2.1996, passed an order directing restoration of the lease and the charges and correction therewith were to be intimated to the petitioners. a demand was also raised by the respondents on 8.4.1996, calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of more than rs. 5 lakhs towards composition fee restoration charges, ground rent and interest on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2003 (HC)

Dr. Harbhajan Singh Awla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-21-2003

Reported in : 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)337; AIR2004Delhi172; 108(2003)DLT628; 2004(72)DRJ146

..... to be borne in mind in exercising the discretion. firstly, there are constraints within which the corporation has to exercise its discretion. the corporation is a public utility organisation where mediating motion is efficiency and effectiveness of public service. efficiency and effectiveness of public service are the basic concepts which cannot be sacrificed in public administration by any statutory corporation. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2003 (HC)

DeseIn Private Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal Iii and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-24-2003

Reported in : 2004(72)DRJ365

..... , may make a complaint in writing, [in the prescribed manner, - (a) to such conciliation officer or board, and the conciliation officer or board shall take such complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute; and(b) to such arbitrator, labour court, tribunal or national tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the arbitrator, labour court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 2003 (HC)

Smt. Santosh Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-28-2003

Reported in : 2004IAD(Delhi)202; 108(2003)DLT510; 2003(71)DRJ788

a.k. sikri, j.1. this writ petition raises an interesting question. to put succinctly, land of the petitioner was subject matter of notification dated 13.11.59 under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the act') proposing to acquire khasra no. 410/1 in village malikpur cantt., delhi. after inviting objections, declaration under section-6 was issued vide notification dated 20.9.1962 for acquiring the said land. this acquisition was challenged by filing cwp. no. 581-d/63.during the pendency of this writ petition another notification dated 24.2.1965 under section 4 was issued for acquisition of certain land in village malikpur cantt., delhi including khasra no. 409 owned by petitioner's father. after completing the formality of inviting objection, the declaration under section 6 was issued by notification dated 16.11.66. interestingly no challenge was made to this acquisition by the father of the petitioner (predecessor- in- interest).writ petition no. 581-d/63 was decided vide order dated 16.12.70 and was allowed. interestingly although acquisition of land comprising khasra no. 409 (acquisition no. 2) was not under challenge, in the said judgment dated 16.12.70 the acquisition qua khasra no. 409 was also quashed. the question that arises for consideration is as to what is the effect of the judgment even when the acquisition process relating to khasra no. 409 was not challenged. there are other related questions also. 2. in order to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2003 (HC)

Raj Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-02-2003

Reported in : 2004(74)DRJ423

s.k. agarwal, j.1. this is a petition under section 482, cr.p.c. read with section 439, cr.p.c. for setting aside the order dated 11.7.2003 cancelling the bail granted by the court of additional sessions judge, delhi (for short, 'asj') in case fir no. 338/2002 under sections 420/467/468/471/120b, ipc, p.s. bawana (n.w. distt.), delhi.2. prosecution allegations are that: smt. ratni devi died intestate; the will dated 14.4.1989 purported to have been executed by smt. ratni devi was forged by petitioner in connivance with the others; on the basis of this forged will, petitioner got mutated the agricultural land measuring 27 bighas and 2 biswas, situated at village bawana, delhi, in the revenue record, in his favor on 19.3.1997. the land in question was acquired by the government and the petitioner obtained compensation of about rs. 45.00 lacs towards part of the land measuring about 20 bighas on 23.3.1998. the prosecution case further is that the will in question has been found to be a forged document by the handwriting experts of forensic science laboratory. they came to this conclusion after comparison of the thumb impression of smt. ratni devi, vis-a-vis her thumb impression available on record of the primary co-operative agricultural development bank ltd., bahadur garh, haryana.3. on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner argued that genuine thumb impression of smt. ratni devi was not taken, as a basis for comparison and sought time to submit, as to in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2003 (HC)

Prabodh Chand Tyagi and anr. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-03-2003

Reported in : 1(2003)ACC374; 2004ACJ1352; 2003IIAD(Delhi)223; 103(2003)DLT176; 2003(67)DRJ404

s.n. kapoor, j. 1. the parents of the deceased boy, aged 13 years have filed a claim petition. the learned trial court awarded a sum of rs. 50,000/- for the death of her son, aged 13 years. 2. feeling aggrieved the parents have filed this appeal. 3. first the facts in brief: the deceased prashant tyagi @ vickky was going from village hastsal to mohan nagar on 7.7.94 along with his sister, preeti in a maruti car bearing no. dl-5c-5877. the deceased was sitting on the front seat whereas preeti was sitting on the back seat. the car was being driven by ajay tyagi. a truck bearing registration no. up-80-9651 was going ahead the maruti car. when the car was moving in front of radhu cinema at about 8.20 p. m. the truck driver stopped his truck. ajay tyagi also stopped his car. but the dtc bus bearing dlp 220 moving behind the car and driven by one, madan lal, respondent no. 2 did not stop the bus in time and hit the maruti car from behind with a great force. the maruti car was crushed between the truck and the offending dtc bus. the deceased, prashant tyagi sustained grievous injuries. ajay tyagi and preeti sustained injuries. prashant tyagi was taken to g.t.b. hospital but he could not survive and died before he could reach the hospital. 4. it is submitted that the deceased was studying in 9th standard in janta inter college, kharkhoda, district meerut. he was stated to be a brilliant student and secured high marks. the father of the deceased is managing director of sadhan sehkari .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2003 (TRI)

Miralka Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-03-2003

Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT357TriDel

1. appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals).2. brief facts of the case are that m/s. india export house made an import of 7 containers of rough blocks of italian marble. the containers arrived at icd, pragati maidan on 1-1-91, but nobody filed bill of entry in spite of notices issued to the importer repeatedly.when no bill of entry was filed, the show cause notice was issued to the importer and the adjudicating authority, vide order dated 27-2-92, confiscated the goods and imposed penalty of rs. 5 lakh on the importer. the importer, m/s. india export house filed appeal before the tribunal and the tribunal, vide order dated 22-8-94, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. the adjudicating authority, vide order dated 28-2-98, confiscated the goods in question under section 111(d) of the customs act. thereafter, the importer m/s. india export house had not filed any appeal.3. m/s. miralka enterprises filed appeal before the commissioner (appeals) challenging the confiscation of the goods and claiming to be the owner of the goods in question. the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.5. the contention of the appellants is that they are the exporter of the goods. as the importer had not got the goods cleared, they are the owners of the goods in question. the contention of the appellants is also that no notice under section 124 of the customs act had been issued to them as it requires that before confiscation, the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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