Delhi Court March 1993 Judgments

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (W.D. and D.V.) Vs. Narinder Kumar Roht ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This apeal has been filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum by which compensation of Rs. 1,000/- has been granted to the complainant against them and they have been directed to take immediate steps for supplying water free from impurities to the complainant. 2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant has got a municipal water connection at his house. It is alleged that he was being supplied contaminated water and inspite of his requests the quality of water was not improved by the opposite party. Consequently, he took a sample of the water front that tap for laboratory test and filed a complaint before the District Forum-1 for directing the respondent to take steps for supplying pure and uncontaminated water and pay damages. It is further alleged that on account of contaminated water the complainant and the members of his family suffered ailments and he had to incuran expenditure of about Rs. 3,000/- on treatments. 3. The respon...

i.K. Gujral Vs. Election Commission of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT458

ORDERWhereas, the Election Commission in its Notification No. 464/91(1) dated 19/04/1991, issued under Section 30 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) had(i) fixed the 20/05/1991, as the date on which poll shall betaken in the Parliament Constituency of 35 Patna of Bihar and(ii) specified the 31/05/1991, as the date before which the election shall be completed in the above constituency:andWhereas, the Election Commission has received information based on the reports of the State Government, the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, the Returning Officer, the Observers and other relevant sources of information that on the date of polling, i.e.,20.5.1991 there had been large scale incidents of electoral malpractice involving booth capturing by seizure of polling stations, making polling authorities surrender the ballot papers, making forcible possession of polling stations and prevention of free access to for the purpose of voting, threatening electors and preventi...

Prem Prakash Vs. Air India Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)ILLJ393Del

ORDER TO ACCEPT HIS RESG EFF 03 FEB ONE MONTH PAY IN LIEU OF NOTICE MAY BE DEDUCTED AT THE TIME OF FINALSETTLEMENT STP.'10. The purport of the letter which admittedly is addressed to respondent No. 2 is that the recommendation made by Delhi office to the Bombay Head Office for acceptance of the resignation was approved subject to the condition that at the time of settlement of accounts one month's salary in lieu of notice be deducted. It was recommended to accept resignation with effect from February 3, 1993. The other document attached with the reply is letter dated February 18, 1993 from the Commercial Department Bombay addressed to the Deputy Manager (Admn.) which reads : 'From : Commercial Department Bombay. Date : Feb 18, 1993 To : Dy, Manager-Admin., Ref No. EST/D-New Delhi. Sub : Mr. Prem Prakash, Ta St. No. 46791 - Resignation. Please refer to our telex No. EST/D-6 of February 17, 1993, confirming acceptance of Mr. P. Prakash's resignation effective February 3, 1993. 2. As ...

Amir Singh JaIn Vs. Bimla Devi Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(1)ARBLR20(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT32; 1993(27)DRJ74; (1993)105PLR54

C.L. Chaudhry, J. (1) Amir Singh Jain filed a suit against Smt. Bimla Devi jain, his daughter-in-law and Surinder Kumar Jain his grand son, for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. It was stated in the plaint that on 29th May, 1969, Amir Singh Jain and Bimla Devi Jain entered into an agreement of partnership whereby Amir Singh Jain took Bimla Devi Jain as his partner in the business being carried on under the name and style of 'M/s. Mahavir Atta Bhandar' on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It was further averred that the partnership deed was executed by him on the repeated requests of his son Attar Sain jain, the husband of Bimla Devi Jain. The case of the plaintiff was that this was done by Attar Sain Jain in order to fraudulently and wrongfully usurp and misappropriate for himself and the defendants large amounts of money out of the said business. By another agreement dated 1.4.1972 Surender Kumar Jain was also admitted as a partner in the running business...

Vishal International Production Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1993)46ITD312(Delhi)

1. These appeals are directed against the" separate orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 raising for our consideration the following common ground: That the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the finding of the learned IAC (Asstt.) that the appellant is not an Industrial Company'; consequently the rate applicable to work out the tax liability of an Industrial Company would not be applicable in appellant's case.2 The appellant in this case is a Private Limited Company and as stated by by Assessing Officer, deriving income "from distribution of films mostly produced by the company in the earlier years".3. The Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings levied tax at the rates applicable to non-industrial companies. On further appeals, the CIT (Appeals) upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had not carried on any manufacturing or processing of goods during the relevant accounting peri...

Goodwill India Ltd. Vs. Shri Pala Singh and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(1)ARBLR11(Delhi); 1993(26)DRJ147

Arun Kumar, J.1. M/s. Goodwill India Limited is a finance company which finances the purchase of vehicles on hire-purchase basis. The finance company entered into a hire-purchase agreement regarding a truck with respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the guarantor. Hire-purchase agreement contains an arbitration clause. As per an order passed by this court on 30th April, 1979 on a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act Shri Rajpal Sagar, the arbitrator named in the agreement was appointed the sole arbitrator. 2. The arbitrator gave his award on 4th September, 1980. The said award was set aside by this court vide order dated 11th November, 1983 and the proceedings were remanded back to the arbitrator with a direction that fresh opportunity be granted to respondent No. 1 Shri Pala Singh. In pursuance of the said order of this court the claimant company and respondent No. 1 appeared before the sole arbitrator on 22nd November, 1983. Respondent No. 1 filed a reply dated 30th Novem...

Naresh Kumar and Bittu Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ599

Sat Pal, J. (1) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for release on bail under Section 439 of the of Crl.Procedure. The petitioner had filed earlier a similar petition bearing No.Crl.M(M)1062/92 and inter alias had contended that two co-accused, namely, Suresh Kumar and Pradeep Kumar had been released on bail. The said petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 29th July, 1992. It was mentioned in this order that the said two accused simply caught hold of the deceased whereas the petitioner was armed with a knife and is alleged to have caused injury on a vital part of the body.(2) In the present petition, it has been submitted that when the earlier bail petition, of the petitioner was dismissed on 29th July. 1992, the evidence of the eye witnesses had not been recorded. But now the evidence of both the eye witnesses, namely, Pawan Kumar, S/o Laxman Dass, (Public Witness -1) and Pawan Kumar S/o Rameshwar Dass, (Public Witness -2) has been recorded...

Suresh Chand Verma Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 50(1993)DLT416; 1993(25)DRJ593

Sat Pal, J.(1) The petitioner in this case was detained in terms of the order dated 2nd September, 1992 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA'). Without waiting for the grounds of detention being served upon him, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order of detention. Along with the writ petition the petitioner has annexed a copy of the grounds of detention of the same date in respect of the other co-detenu, namely, Mohideen Khan. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the grounds of detention in respect of the petitioner are exactly the same as those of Mohideen Khan.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 25th April, 1992 Mohideen Khan arrived at Igi airport, New Delhi from Dubai and he was inter...

B.L. Kumar Vs. M/S. International Engineers

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant is an ex-serviceman having retired from Indian Air Force. The respondent is a limited company and carrying on the business of providing telephone facilities under the direct agreement with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (M.T.N.L.). They advertised in various newspapers calling upon the members of the general public to book the telephone with them for the purpose of Public Call Office (P.C.O.). The complainant approached the respondent for that purpose and he was provided with one telephone on 24.1.91 for a Public Call Office, which was installed in the space provided by him. 2. It is further pleaded that according to the terms of the contract the complainant used to collect the charges from the customers and the amount so charged by him was fed in the computer/instrument which had been provided by the respondent. The authorised representative of the respondent used to visit bis premises and collect the amount ever...

M/S. Kamal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anot ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member: 1. This Complaint has been filed by M/s. Kamal India Pvt. Ltd. running its business of Garments Exports in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi -110020. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainants were sanctioned three power connections; an Industrial Power Connection with a load of 95 HP, an Industrial Light connection with a load of 10 KW and a not her connection having a load of 0.95 KW by the respondent No. 2 i.e. (DESU). It is further stated that for obtaining these connections all the formalities and documents duly completed were filed with the opposite party No. 2. 2. In their contention the complainant has stressed the point that being an S.I.P. consumer, (having a sanctioned load of less than 100KW) they should have .been charged as per the S.I.P tariff. They further contend that it was obligatory on the part of D.E.S.U. to supply electricity to the complainant on the same terms and conditions as applicable to S.I.P. consumers within ...