Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Mr. C.R. Tanwar Vs. Delhi Jal Board and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)528

ORDERVikramjit Sen, J.1. The Writ Petition is directed against the Order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court II. Delhi. The Petitioner was issued a Charge Sheet and after a Department Enquiry was issued a Charge Sheet and after a Department Enquiry was duly conducted, the penalty of the withholding of five increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. These proceedings and the punishment are not under challenge. The 'contention of Mr. R.K. Saini, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the five increments should be released in favor of the Petitioner. now that the period of five years has elapsed. It is contended that the penalty of the cumulative withholding of increments is not envisaged by law; and that the period for which the increment is withheld is required to be clearly and precisely stated by the Disciplinary Authority and has not been so done. I see not merit in the Writ Petition and the arguments...

Mr. Uttam Kumar Vs. Delhi Jal Board and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)166

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Delhi. The Petitioner was issued a Charge Sheet and after a Department Enquiry was duly conducted, the penalty of the withholding of five increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. These proceedings and the punishment are not under challenge. The contention of Mr. R.K. Saini, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the five increments should be released in favor of the Petitioner, now that the period of five years has elapsed. It is contended that the penalty of the cumulative withholding of increments is not envisaged by law; and that the period for which the increment is withheld is required to be clearly and precisely stated by the Disciplinary Authority and has not been so done. I see no merit in the Writ Petition and the arguments raised before me. The impugned Order is refreshingly suc...

Modi Korea Telecommunications Limited Vs. Indus Ind.Bank Limited and O ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi254; 91(2001)DLT150; 2001(58)DRJ222

ORDERK.S.Gupta, J.1. In the suit plaintiff filed I.A.No.12021/2000 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC for issue of ad interim injunction restraining Union of India, defendant No.2 from encashing financial bank guarantees No.IIBLND/BG/F/96/0008 dated 28th February 1996 as renewed from time to time in the sum of Rs.1,59,83,000/- or in the alternative, restraining Indus Ind.Bank Ltd., defendant No.1, from releasing any amount to defendant No.2 against the said financial bank guarantee. In the reply filed to application by defendant No.2 one of the (SIC) preliminary objections raised is that plaintiff, concerning the same subject matter, had instituted Suit No.564/97 which was withdrawn on 5th March 1998 without seeking liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action and the suit is, thereforee, barred under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC.2. I have heard Sh.A.S.Chandhiok, Senior Advocate for plaintiff and Sh.U.Hazarika for defendant No.2 on the ground of alleged non-maintaina...

Rajinder Dass Gupta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)537; 2001CriLJ2310; 90(2001)DLT527; 2001(58)DRJ276

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. The only question raised in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Mr. D.C. Mathur, Senior Advocate, is in regard to the essentials of the order required to be issued under second proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only) for investigation into an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the said Act.2. Section 13(1)(e) brings a public servant within the definition of 'criminal misconduct' under Section 13 of the Act if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Section 17, which speaks of the persons authorised to investigate the offences under the Act lays down that in case of Delhi Special Police Establishment, no officer below the rank of an Inspector of...

Shri Narinder Kumar Vaid Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)324; 92(2001)DLT311; 2001(59)DRJ454

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. (Oral)1. Rule.With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. By this writ petition, petition seeks a mandamus, restraining the respondents from interfering, in any manner, with his possession of Plot No.R-262 and R-263, situated at Ramesh Park, New Delhi, earlier numbers being Plot numbers 46-47 of 'J' Block situated in Khasra No.57/13, Khureji Khas, Delhi. The immediate provocation for the petitioner to file the writ petition was that officials of the Corporation, in the month of July, 1988, sought to restrain the petitioner from carrying out any construction on the said plot.3. Petitioner claims that on enquiry being made by the SDM and other officials, he informed them that he was the owner of the plot and showed them the documents of title. Petitioner further claims that the municipal officials, later on, threatened him that they would remove the barbed wiring and fencing put up by the petitioner.4. Respondents...

Ti Diamond ChaIn Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 92(2001)DLT190

N.G. Nandi, J.1. In this suit, the plaintiff pray for relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale and distributing Chain Packet Kit for use in Automobiles under the trade mark Diamond, both device and words, DIAMOND SUPER or any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark amounting to infringement; ALSO seeking to restrain defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale and distributing packing material like Annexure 'B' so as to pass off the defendants' goods and products as and for the goods and products of the plaintiff or in any way connected with the plaintiff's trade mark DIAMOND both device and words, DIAMOND SUPER as well as packing material like Annexure 'A' and ALSO restraining the defendants from infringing the copy right of the plaintiff and reproduction of the artistic work as shown in Annexure 'A'.2. Defendants were served with the summons in the suit. Despite se...

Rama Vision Ltd. Vs. Couvery Electronics Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT184

ORDER1. On 16th November, 2000, a direction was given to the parties to file their short synopsis within two weeks. Neither of the parties have filed any short synopsis. Today learned Counsel for the defendants says that she wants some more time to file a short synopsis. I do not think it appropriate to adjourn the matter for filing synopses since sufficient time has already been given.2. On 10th January, 2001, learned Counsel for the defendants took some time to argue the application for leave to defend. Since this application has been pending for the last more than a year, the request was acceded to on payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Today also learned Counsel for the defendants requests for some time to argue the matter. I do not think that such a request should be entertained.3. The application for leave to defend was filed in August, 1996. For some reason it was given a number only in 1999.4. The application for leave to defend filed by the defendants is not supported by an affid...

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited Vs. Manu Kosuri and Anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)583; 2001(58)DRJ241; 2001(3)RAJ122

N.G. Nandi, J. 1. In this suit, the plaintiff pray for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from registering a domain name or operating any business and/or selling, offering for sale, advertising and in any manner dealing in any services or goods on the internet or otherwise under the trade mark/domain name 'drreddyslab.com' or any other mark/domain name which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark DR. REDDY'S or that contains the said word as an essential or dominant feature thereof and from doing any other thing as is likely to lead to passing off of the business and goods of the defendants as the business and goods of the plaintiff. Also for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trade mark/domain name 'drreddyslab.com' or any other mark/domain name which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark DR. REDDY'S for internet related services or any other business as may lead ...

Punj Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Del)596

ORDERSikander Khan, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessed which is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Lloyd wool and other allied products. It also derived income from dividend, rent, commission, etc.2. Ground No. 1 is directed against the disallowance of the claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 1,55,820 paid in pursuance to section 40 of the Finance Act, 1981. The assessing officer disallowed the claim on the ground that such deduction was prohibited by section 40(a)(iia) of the Act.3. In the first appeal, it was submitted on behalf of the assessed that the claim was allowable in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Director of Inspection Customs & Central Excise case reported in : [1985]153ITR322(SC) . The learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept the assessed's contention. He observed that the wealth-tax in question paid in pursuance to section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 was wealth-tax and was cover...

The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellants, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 12.1.2001, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), in Complaint Case No. TC/1070/98entitled Smt. Krishna Devi v. The Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-II, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent, Smt. Krishna Devi had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that her husband late Shri Desh Ram Yadav had taken a Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 120293896 for Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was issued by the appellants. It was stated that the complainant, being the wife of the deceased, was appointed as a nominee to receive the amount in respect of the abovesaid policy in case of death of the person, whose life was assured. It was stated that ...