Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments

Alka Vs. R.K. Gautam

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT702; I(1996)DMC437; 1995(35)DRJ390

Vijender Jain, J. (1) Aggrieved by the dissolution of marriage by the Additional District Judge, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. (2) MR.KANWAL Narain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset has argued that Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') imposes a vital condition on the power and duty of the Court in the matter of granting any relief under the Act. The Court must reach its satisfaction on each of the matters in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 23(1) before it grants any relief including the relief based on the allegation of cruelty. Mr.Narain has argued that no such finding has been returned by the Additional District Judge and on this ground alone appeal has to be allowed. In support of his contentions, he has cited Anupama Misra v. Bhagwan Misra : AIR1972Ori163 , Dr. N G Dastane v. Mrs.S Dastane : [1975]3SCR967 . Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that if a decree is to be passed under Section 23 of...

Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT739

Vijender Jain, J.(1) This petition challenges the validity of the resolutions of Executive Council dated 29.4.75 and 28.4.76. (2) Mr. G.D. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was to be assigned the seniority from 4.8.58 when he was appointed as 'Senior Laboratory Assistant' though he was performing the duty of Clerk Typist from the date of his first appointment to the date when he was transferred in public interest as Clerk Typist from 1.1.64. (3) The short controversy in this writ petition is as to whether transfer of the petitioner from the cadre of 'Senior Laboratory Assistant' to 'Clerk Typist' was in public interest or at the behest of the petitioner. In this context Mr. Gupta has argued that the petitioner who was performing the duties of Clerk typist since his appointment could not have opted for transfer as the pay scale at the relevant time of the two categories of posts, i.e. Clerk Typist and Senior Laboratory Assistant were similar. Anoth...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. D.C. GuptA.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts relating to this appeal are that the respondent got himself registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme of 1979 and deposited Rs. 250/- as registration fee. On 17.3.93 the respondent requested for cancellation of the registration and refund of the said registration fee alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. Having failed to secure the refund he approached the District Forum. The D.F. gave reasonable opportunity to the opposite party to file its reply in order to explain the reasons why the refund of the deposit had not been made. It was observed that the deposit of the registration fee was not disputed nor was it in dispute that the complainant had surrendered the allotment and the surrender was accepted by the opposite party. For inordinate delay in refunding the amount of Rs. 250/- the D.F. held the opposite party to be grossly deficient in service and accordingly directed refund of Rs. 250/- alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of depos...

M.S.J. (Engineers) and Company Private Limited Vs. Union of India and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT705

S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The petitioner was awarded the work of providing Rcc Cast-in-Site friction piles and under reamed piles for the electric loco shed at Vijayawada vide letter of Railways dated 21st January, 1977. During the course of execution of the work, certain disputes had arisen between the parties which were referred for adjudication to the Arbitrators. The Arbitrators after hearing the parties, made and published their award on 26th June, 1989. Notice of filing of award was given to the parties. The respondents have filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, challenging the award of the Arbitrators, in so far as the same related to claim Nos. 1, 3, 8 and 9. It is also stated in the application that the Arbitrators had not considered the counter-claims of the respondents and as such the award is liable to be set aside. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside for the reasons given ...

Parmar Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ516

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) Objections by Delhi Development Authority are against the award made and published on 13th November, 1992 by Shri Shyam Narayan, the Sole Arbitrator on the disputes pertaining to the execution of the work of redevelopment scheme of Kingsway Camp (SH;Construction of Sw drains at Outran Lines) awarded vide agreement No.3/EE/CD.VLL/85-86.(2) The objections are against the rejection of D.D.A's counter claim and against the award made in claimants' favor for claim Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Against its counter claim the objector laid a claim for Rs.79,408.00 towards compensation levied under clause 2 of the agreement on account of delay in the completion of the work. (3) The arbitrator placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vishwa Nath Sood v. Union of India, : [1989]1SCR288 , held the quantum of levy to be non-arbitable. The arbitrator held that the power of Superintending Engineer had been kept outside the scope of arbitration but its justification is cove...

C.R. Gulati Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)582; 60(1995)DLT715; 1995(35)DRJ520

S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) Under an agreement for the construction of staff quarters for Lal Bahadur Shastri Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, awarded to the petitioner, certain disputes had arisen and the same were, referred for adjudication to the arbitration of Mr.S.S.Juneja. The arbitrator after hearing the parties, made and published his award on 12th March, 1993. The said award was filed in Court and after notice of filing of the award was given to the parties, Union of India has filed these objections for setting aside the award on the grounds as contained in the objection petition.(2) The challenge to the award is only in respect of claim No.6 and 7. Under claim No.6, a claim of Rs.8,00,000.00 was made on account of infructuous expenditure and damages alleged to have been sustained by the petitioner due to various breaches committed by the Department. This amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 included a sum of Rs.6,50,000.00 being the difference of reasonable price and the price allegedly paid after ...

Union of India Vs. AydIn Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 61(1996)DLT20

S.D. Pandit, J. (1) On 3.9.1976 the President of India and respondent entered into an agreement whereby the respondent undertook to manufacture and supply to the petitioner six mobile troposcatter communication equipment on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement and the schedules thereto. (2) A supplementary agreement was also entered into between the parties on 20.1.1981. The original agreement provided for the arbitration clause. As the differences and disputes arose between the parties and in view of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties and the provisions of Section 9B of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the said differences and disputes were initially referred to as Sole Arbitrator on 23.2.1987. But the said Sole Arbitrator resigned. (3) Thereafter on finding that the disputes and differences were to be adjudicated de novo, petitioner Union of India appointed Mr. P.G. Gokhale as its Arbitrator and respondents appointed Mr. David R. Solar as th...

Paramjit Singh Vs. Sohan Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)739; 60(1995)DLT842

S.D. Pandit, J. (1) This application is filed by the plaintiff Paramjit Singh under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is alleged by the plaintiff/ applicant in this application that defendants 1 to 4 are getting income of more than Rs. 25,000.00 and that he has got 40 per cent share in the same. He has further alleged that he has suffered in 1984 riots and his house and factory has been listed and he is residing at Ludhiana Along with his wife and two school going children and he cannot work at Ludhiana due to various Court matters at Delhi. Thus, he is finding it difficult to maintain himself and his family. thereforee, he may be provided maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000.00 per month to support his wife and two school going children, as per the Supreme Court order dated 21.8.199. (2) The claim of the plaintiff is resisted by defendants 1 to 4 by filing the reply. They have contended that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts from the Supreme Court in his Special...

Sucheta Engineering Co. and anr. Vs. Apitron India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 61(1996)DLT180; (1996)112PLR34

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for the recovery of Rs-1,88,943.42 paise on the allegations that the plaintiff No. 2 being the sole proprietor of plaintiff No. I had dealings with the defendants I to3 and had been supplying to the said defendants pressure feed type bleaching doser chlorinetor, chlorine tablets, chlorine liquid and chlorine testing kit and discount at the rates of 25% and 30% were being given as per agreement arrived at between the parties. It is stated that between the period 24th September, 1986 to 21st August, 1987, the plaintiffs had supplied goods of the total value of Rs. 64,279.50 paise to the defendants vide bills mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint. It is also stated that besides the suit amount, the plaintiff had also advanced a total sum of Rs. 41,900.00 to the defendants by way of cash or traveller cheques to enable the defendants to submit tenders with the authorities on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is furthe...

inalsa Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT873

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Inalsa Limited, the petitioner herein is Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has five existing Small Scale Undertakings manufacturing different products First small scale industrial undertaking was set up at 8/9, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi, in 1973-74 for manufacturing plastic blow-molded items. Other existing undertakings of the first petitioner arc manufacturing items reserved under Schedule I for the small scale sector. These industrial undertakings besides manufacturing different items are in fact situated at different locations namely at G.T. Karnal Road Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, Rajinder Nagar Industrial Area, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad etc. (2) On 7th 0ctober,1988 respondents 3 and 4 issued a certificate certifying that first petitioner has separate industrial undertaking registered as Small Scale Industrial Unit (In short Ssi Units). On 25th March,1989 respondent No.2 issued a circular purporting to club invest...