Delhi Court March 1993 Judgments

Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal Vs. High Court of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ602

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner was a candidate for appointment to the Delhi Judicial Service constituted under the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, as amended (for short 'the Rules') and for that purpose he took the competitive examination held in October 1991. He did not qualify the written test and was not called for viva voce test. The petitioner sought revaluation of one of his written papers. His request was declined as the Rules did not envisage revaluation. He was informed by letters dated 22 October 1992 and 8 December 1992. By this petition he has challenged those two communications and seeks a mandamus that his paper of Essay and General Knowledge (Paper-IV) be revalued and if he qualifies in that peper, he be considered for appointment to the Delhi Judicial Service. (2) As per the Rules the written examination is of the following subjects and carry the number of marks shown against them :- SUBJECTS:1 .Essay and General Knowledge 150 2. Language. 100 3. Law Paper (I) Ci...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. J.N. Luthra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. In this appeal an application has been filed on behalf of the D.D.A. for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is stated in the application that the impugned order dated 1st April, 1992 was received in the office of the appellant on 15th May, 1992. In order to obtain the sanction for filing the appeal the papers had to pass through various officers and that process was completed on 31st August, 1992. Thereafter the lawyer of the Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A) was contacted on 31.8.92 and he promptly drafted appeal and filed the same on 23rd September, 1992. 2. An objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained that the appeal was filed after more than 4 months of the receipt of the order by them and therefore, it was liable to be dismissed on this short ground. Mr. S.C. Varshney, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that he has good appeal on merits and therefore, i...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maharaja Jagat Singh

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1993)46ITD340(Delhi)

1. By this reference application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Revenue has requested the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following one question, stated to be the question of law, arising out of its order dated 4th March, 1992 in ITA No.2609/Delhi of 1988 pertaining to the assessment year 1983-84 for the esteemed opinion of Hon'ble High Court : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in dismissing the appeal of the department and upholding the order of CIT(A) that no share in the income from the assets left by Late H.H. Sawai Man Singh is includible in the hands of the assessee when the department is already in reference in respect of estate of Late Maharaja Man Singh Ji 2. The assessee was assessed in the status of individual. He is one of the heirs of Late H.H. Sawai Man Singh Ji who held certain assets, during the lifetime of H.H. Sawai Man Singh Ji he had filed the returns of income as also wealt...

Thomson-csf and ors. Vs. National Airport Authority of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1993Delhi252; 1993(26)DRJ210

Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) By this writ petition the petitioners, inter alia, 63 seek a writ injuncting. first respondent National Airport Authority, (for short' NAA') from granting the contract for modernisation of Air Traffic services and other connected facilities at Delhi and Bombay Airports to the third respondent Raytheon Incorporated.(2) Though the petition is still at the admission stage parties have filed detailed pleadings and documents and have addressed arguments at length.(3) In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the petition, it will be necessary to give relevant facts, which are as under:(4) Naa prepared a scheme for modernisation of Air Traffic Control Services at Bombay and Delhi Airports with the avowed purpose of installing sophisticated state of art radar, navigation, automation and communication equipment and for providing services so as to raise the capacity of the aforesaid airports from the present level of ten aircraft moments, per hour to forty aircraft ...

Ravinder Singh Vs. Jatinder Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994ACJ48; 50(1993)DLT254; (1994)108PLR65

Usha Mehra, J.(1) Ravinder Singh, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal(hereinafter called the M.A.C.T.) dated 27/03/1983.(2) The admitted facts on accord are that the petitioner sustained injuries because of the collusion of two buses bearing No. D.L.P. 4342. and bus No. D.L.P-3793 driven by respondent No. 1 namely Jatinder Singh.Both these buses were operating under the operation of Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'D.T.C'). Bus No. D.L.P. 3793 was being driven by respondent No. 1. Respondents 2 and 3 are stated to be the owners of this bus. This bus was insured with respondent No. 4 i.e. the New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter called the insuranceCo.). The second bus D.L.P. 4342 was being driven by respondent No. 5Dilbag Singh. Respondent No. 7 is the owner of the said bus and that bus was attached with respondent No. ...

Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.N. Tripathi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 51(1993)DLT240; (1994)ILLJ1207Del

Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The question involved in this writ petition,filed by the Management, namely, M/s. Delhi Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, falls in a very narrow compass, namely,as to whether the Industrial. Tribunal, Delhi committed any error or overstepped its jurisdiction by dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by order dated 19.2.90.(2) The facts giving rise to this controversy are that Shri A.N. Tripathi,respondents. No. 1, was employed as a Boiler Operator with the petitioner company, and that some time during March 1982, certain charters of demands were raised by the workmen of the Company through the Trade Union of which respondent No. 1 was also a member, wherein a settlement was arrived at on 10.6.82 between the management and the workmen with the stipulation that the said agreement would remain binding on the parties for a period of...

M/S. Sawhney Export House Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant is carrying on the business as exporter of readymade garments. The opposite party has been sponsored by Ministry of Commerce, Government of India and constituted for issuing quota certificates and export certificates etc. to the exporters of garments etc. It regulates the distribution of all types of export quotas, allocates quotas and grants permission for export of different types of garments to the exporters against 5% Bank Guarantee/Bank drafts called earnest money deposit (EMD) as a guarantee for utilization of full quantity of quota allotted. In case the exporter utilizes the full quota, he is entitled to refund of the EMD. 2. It is averred that the complainant had been depositing 5% EMD by Bank Draft for the utilization of full quantity of export quota allotted to them. The opposite party was bound to release the earnest money deposit on receipt of the proof of shipment of the goods. They, after utilizing the ...

Kumari Alka Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995ACJ1254; AIR1993Delhi267; 1993(25)DRJ560; ILR1993Delhi303; (1993)105PLR24

ORDER1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff through her next friend and natural guardian, for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/-as compensation and damages, on account of the injury received by her in an accident in the precincts of defendants I and 2 on August 11, 1980. Plaintiff at the time of the accident was a minor girl aged about 6 years. The suit was filed as an indigent person and this Court, vide order dated May 11, 1984, declared the plaintiff as an indigent person and the suit was registered accordingly.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is residing with her father and next friend Shri R. L. Suneja, who is employed with defendants I and 2, as Assistant Engineer, Equipment Planning, Eastern Court, New Delhi. The plaintiffs father was allotted a residential quarter No. 4, attached to Shakti Nagar Telephone Exchange, Delhi-7, and the plaintiff along with her father and other family members was residing in the said premises at the time of the accident. It is al...

N. Paul and Co. Vs. Ram Kali and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994ACJ189; [1994(68)FLR316]; (1993)IILLJ885Del

1. This appeal is directed against order dated November 6, 1975, of Shri R. N. Mehrotra, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, awarding Rs. 8,000 as compensation on account of death of Shri Keshav Ram. 2. The facts, in brief, as put up before the said authority under the said Act were that Keshav Ram was in employment of the appellant and while performing his duties with the appellant, he suffered injuries in an accident on February 17, 1969, and succumbed to his said injuries on February 22, 1969. He had left behind Smt. Ram Kali, his widow, two sons, namely, Suraj Prakash and Ravinder and one daughter named Lali. An amount of Rs. 50,000 was claimed as compensation. The deceased was working as a 'Jamadar' and was employed in the construction work regarding maintenance of roads and electrical fittings at Palam Airport. On the day of accident, it is alleged that he was supervising the labour at work when he was struck by a nozzle of the fire-brigade at the Palam Airport whi...

Maintech Engineers Vs. Jotindra Steel and Tubes Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1993(2)ARBLR427(Delhi); 51(1993)DLT463

V.B. Bansal, J. (1) M/S. Maintech Engineers has moved this petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with a prayer that the respondents be directed to file the agreement between the parties, in Court, and make a reference of the disputes between the parties to the arbitration of the General Manager. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), which is in consonance with the Arbitration Agreement between the parties.(2) Briefly stated, the averments made in the petition are, that the petitioner is a partnership firm, duly registered under the .Indian Partnership'Act and Shri Parvinder Singh is one of its registered partners and is competent to sign, verify and institute the suit. It is also pleaded that the respondent No. 1 is a company, duly incorporated under the Companies Act and respondent No. 2 is a division of respondent No. 1. It is further pleaded that the petitioners are consultants and maintenance specialists in dieselen...