Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (2.31 seconds)
Documents citing Dharamvir Kataria (Col.) vs Union Of India And Others on 22 April, 1999

Dharamvir vs . Uoi on 9 January, 2007

Dharamvir vs. UOI land for consideration of Rs.4,20,000/-) was used by him for agricultural purposes. The sale deed was executed on 23.2.96 and the entire sale consideration was received in cash. During cross examination he deposed that he could not tell how many witnesses were there at the time of execution of sale deed but stated that they may be two or three. He further deposed that he had a bank account but did not deposit the money in the bank. He further stated that he did not made any declaration with the income tax authorities and had not taken any permission for sale of land in question. The deal is stated to be finalized through a mediator and the consideration is stated to have been paid on the same date in the registrar office. He denied the suggestion that the same had been executed to get more compensation for the acquired land.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Asjad Jamal vs The Chairman Dtc on 21 May, 2010

"In Dharamvir Kataria Vs. Union of India 1999 III AD (Delhi) 665 = (1999) 79 DLT 683, a Learned Single Judge of this court explained the relationale for awarding compensation on the basis of the strict liability. The court was dealing with the claim of compensation consequent upon 10 death of an employee of National Institute of Health and Family Welfare who was traveling in a lift in the building of the residential campus and was later found dead in the pit of the lift".
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Kishore vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 18 July, 2007

In Dharamvir Kataria v. Union of India , a learned Single Judge of this Court explained the rationale for awarding compensation on the basis of the strict liability. The Court was dealing with the claim of compensation consequent upon death of an employee of National Institute of Health and Family Welfare who was traveling in a lift in the building of the residential campus and was later found dead in the pit of the lift. While awarding compensation, this Court observed as under (DLT, p. 696):
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 31 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Mcd vs Sanjay Kumar on 26 May, 2011

28. In Col. Dharamvir Kataria v. Union of India, 79 (1999) DLT 683=I (1999) ACC 553=AIR 1999 Del. 291 the petitioner's wife died due to fall in the pit of a lift. The lifts were installed by M/s. Bharat Bijlee Limited under the supervision of CPWD. The contract for the operation and care of the lifts was awarded to M/s. A.G. Enterprises. That the CPWD office records revealed that a lift operator with knowledge of the lift mechanism and RFA No. 469-2010 Page 10 of 17 an attendant was to be provided, which was not done. As to who should pay compensation the Court held:
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Shakuntala vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 1 July, 2009

28. In Col. Dharamvir Kataria v. Union of India AIR 1999 Del 291 the petitioner's wife died due to fall in the pit of a lift. The lifts were installed by M/s. Bharat Bijlee Limited under the WP (C) 13771/2006 Page 16 supervision of CPWD. The contract for the operation and care of the lifts was awarded to M/s. A.G. Enterprises. That the CPWD office records revealed that a lift operator with knowledge of the lift mechanism and an attendant was to be provided, which was not done. As to who should pay compensation the Court held:
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 9 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Sh. Brijvir Singh S/O Sh.Balbir Singh vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2008

In this context, I would place reliance upon the judgment dt. 26.09.1996 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 554 of 1992 in the case of Dharamvir & Ors Vs UOI, it was held that acquired land was surrounded by developed area which had already roads and railway line, therefore, there was no justification for deduction towards development cost to the extent of 30% or to the extent of 25%. However, even otherwise, if the maximum deduction @ 38.72% upon the aforesaid rate of Rs.8,553/- is allowed, it would come to Rs.5,241/-per sq. mtr. or Rs.4,838/- per sq. yard as on 13.02.2004. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the fair market value of 28 the land in question was Rs.4,838/- per sq. yard as on 13.02.2004. The possession of the land in question had already been taken over by the Govt. since 1979 as per the affidavit of the Director (Land Management), DDA which is the admitted fact in Ex.PW1/19 and DDA is the beneficiary of the aquired land in question, therefore, the petitioners shall also be entitled to statutory benefits from 01.01.1980. These issues are answered accordingly. RELIEF 25 In view of my findings on the above issues, the market value of the land of the petitioners bearing khasra no.670/414/2 (6-07) situate at village Kondli, Delhi acquired vide the notification dt. 13.02.2004 U/sec. 4 of the LA Act is fixed @ Rs.4,838/- per sq. yard as per the details mentioned in the statement u/sec.19 of the LA Act. The petitioners shall be entitled to enhancement in compensation as per their shares of the land mentioned in the statement u/s 19 of the LA Act. Besides it, the petitioners shall also be entitled to get additional amount u/sec. 23 (1A) of LA Act @ 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act till the date of award. The petitioners shall also be entitled to the interest as per section 28 @ 9% for the first year from 01.01.1980 and thereafter 15% p.a. for the subsequent year. The petitioners shall also get solatium u/sec. 23 (2) of LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded 29 by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Haripal Singh vs Union Of India on 4 July, 2008

In this context, I would place reliance upon the judgment dt. 26.09.1996 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 554 of 1992 in the case of Dharamvir & Ors Vs UOI, it was held that acquired land was surrounded by developed area which had already roads and railway line, therefore, there was no justification for deduction towards development cost to the extent of 30% or to the extent of 25%. However, even otherwise, if the maximum deduction @ 25% upon the aforesaid rate of Rs.75,878/- is allowed, it would come to Rs.56,908/- per sq. mtr. as on 31.03.2000. Therefore, considering all the facts & circumstances, evidence led by the parties and also relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I have no hesitation to hold that the fair market value of the property in question was Rs.56,908/- per sq. mtr. as on 31.03.2000.
Delhi District Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Alok Singh & Ms. Namrita Singh vs Union Of India on 5 July, 2008

In this context, I would place reliance upon the judgment dt. 26.09.1996 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 554 of 1992 in the case of Dharamvir & Ors Vs UOI, it was held that acquired land was surrounded by developed area which had already roads and railway line, therefore, there was no justification for deduction towards development cost to the extent of 30% or to the extent of 25%. However, even otherwise, if the maximum deduction @ 25% upon the aforesaid rate of Rs.75,878/­ is allowed, it would come to Rs.56,908/­ per sq. mtr. as on 31.03.2000. Therefore, considering all the facts & circumstances, evidence led by the parties and also relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I have no hesitation to hold that the fair market value of the property in question was Rs.56,908/­ per sq. mtr. as on 31.03.2000.
Delhi District Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next