Delhi Court September 2001 Judgments

Madan Lal Jassal Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This is a second appeal against order dated 18.7.2001 passed by the first Appellate Tribunal being DRT-II, Delhi arising out of a matter in execution proceedings of the decree passed by DRT in O.A. No. 195/95 Punjab & Sind Bank v. Avtar Singh and Anr.2. Before the Recovery Officer, the appellant had made an objection that he was bonafide purchaser in possession of the property and, therefore, the same cannot be sold in the aforesaid execution proceedings. The Recovery Officer by his order dated 29.5.2001 dismissed the objections saying that the sale deed in favour of the objector was void ab initio being in contravention of the interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court. Being aggrieved with that order, the objector filed appeal before the concerned DRT.3. By the impugned order, DRT-II has rejected the appeal filed by the objector against order dated 29.5.2001 passed by the Recovery Officer.In the appeal before DRT-II, Delhi in addition to the request for setting aside the Recove...

Shri Nem Chand Daga Vs. Shri Inder Mohan Singh Rana

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT683; 2002(61)DRJ410

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Revision Petition the challenge is in respect of the Order dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in which he has declined to grant the Tenant 'Leave to Contest' the eviction petition. Such orders invariably require the court to successfully undertake a tightrope walk, since the competing interest of the tenant and the landlord have to be kept in balance. The Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') accorded protection to tenants against eviction. While it contained several grounds on which eviction could be prayed for, in almost all of them, the Tenant was afforded an additional protection. For example, even if there is a default in payment of rent, the tenant is not to be evicted for his first default; if it is found that the Tenant has misused the property the Landlord has still to prove that such misuse is detrimental to his interests; if the Tenant used the premises contrary to any conditions imposed o...

Mr. Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal Vs. Cimmco Birla Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT695; 2001(60)DRJ816

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor. J. 1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking a limited relief in terms of clauses 90.1 of the Contract whereby parties agreed that all questions of disputes shall be referred to sole arbitrator appointed by the President of respondent-Cimmco Birla Ltd whereas arbitrator has been appointed by Executive Director & Chief Operation Officer.2. The letter dated 21.9.2000 shows that Mr.H.S.Basur, Executive Director & Chief Operation Officer informed the petitioner about the appointment of the Arbitrator in the following terms:-'As desired vide last para of your letter dated 4th September, 2000, we hereby appoint Sole Arbitrator as under:- Shri R.G. GaggarAdvocate and SolicitorW-6, Greater Kailash-II,New Delhi-110048.' 3. The petitioner lodged protest vide letter dated 14.10.2000 pointing out that as per clause 90. of the agreement appointing authority of the Sole Arbitrator is only the President., CIMMCO and no other pers...

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-iv, New Delhi Vs. M/S Sardari Lal an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT102; 2002(61)DRJ632

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Feeling that a fresh look may be necessary to be taken on the question of first appellate authority's power to take into account a new source of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), matter was referred to a larger Bench to consider the correctness of the view expressed by this Court in C.I.T. v. Union Tyres, (1990) 240 ITR 556, and that is how the matter is placed before us.2. It is to be noted that the question has been considered by the Apex Court and various High Court at different times. In fact, in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. C.I.T. 0044/1991 : [1991]187ITR688(SC) , it was observed that the Act does not contain any express provision debarring an assessed from raising an additional ground in appeal and there is no provision in the Act placing restriction on the power of the appellate authority in entertaining an additional ground in appeal. In the absence of any statutory provision, the general principle relating to the amp...

M/S New Era Steel Company Vs. Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ54

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Disputes arose between the parties and matter was referred in terms of arbitration clauses to the arbitrator appointed by objector. The arbitrator was a serving Chief Engineer of the respondents. The arbitrator gave the award on 3.7.1998. Objections to the award have been filed by the respondents.2. Mr. Rajinder Nischal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently contended that award of the arbitrator was bad as the arbitrator did not take into consideration the relevant material and the conditions of contract before giving the award. He has assailed the finding of the arbitrator vis-a-vis claim nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the award by the arbitrator under claim no.1 Loss suffered due to provision of additional quantities of the items without proper amendment being carried out amounting to Rs.33,750/= was bad as the claimant has signed the deviation order without any protest and w...

Indian Institute of Technology Vs. Co-ordination Committee and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT468; 2002(61)DRJ212; [2002(92)FLR577]; (2002)IVLLJ878Del

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. The plaintiff, which is country's ace Institution for Technical Education, has approached this Court through this suit for restraining the defendants, who are involved in union activities and their office bearers, associates, servants, agents from holding any agitation, demonstration or 'dharna' in any manner whatsoever within the radius of 200 meters from the main entrance of the campus of the IIT Delhi at Hauz Khas, New Delhi, a premier Institute of the country and also from gheraoing any of its officers, causing any wrongful restraint, nuisance or annoyance of any of the employees of the defendants, intimidating or preventing or obstructing their access to and ingress and egress From the said premises of the Institute and from causing any obstruction or disturbance in any manner whatsoever in the conduct of classes, sessions in the laboratories and departments.2. However the defendants have challenged the very maintainability of the suit as according to them t...

Mrs. Indu Bala Toppo Vs. Mr. Francis Xavier Toppo

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi54; 94(2001)DLT306; II(2001)DMC631; 2001(60)DRJ331

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short the Act') seeking confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by learned Additional District Judge. Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as the wife') filed and application under Section 10 of the Act praying for a decree of divorce from the respondent (hereinafter also referred to as the husband') on the ground that cruelty was meted out to her by the husband and his family members. Said prayer was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi in I.D.A. 661 of 1998.2. Factual background according to the petitioner is as follows:Parties entered into marital ties on 7th September 1996 and the marriage was solemnized according to Christian rites at Sacred Heart Cathedral, Ashok Place, Gole Dakkhana, New Delhi. Five priests conducted the ceremonies. After they entered into the marital life, husband and his family members did not treat the wife...

Sh. Sangam Singh and ors., Abdul Hamid and ors., Noor Ahmed and anr., ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ449

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.2. With the consent of parties, these writ petitions involving common questions and reliefs are taken up for disposal.3. These batch of writ petitions are field by the petitioners, who were found to be ineligible for squatting rights. In terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 1.12.2000 in CW.No.D-13257/2000, titled Jant'a Hawkers Welfare Committee v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, applications of the ineligible squatters were to be considered by the Corporation for the grant of hawking license under Section 420 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The Court had also given liberty to the petitioners to move the High Court Counsel for respondent submits that due to sheer volume and magnitude of the work involved, it has not been possible to dispose of the applications. In my view this is a piquant situation, where the directions given by the Supreme Court to dispose of the application within two months, could not be carried out. As such, pet...

itc Limited Vs. Maurya Sheraton Hotel Kamgar Congress and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT133; [2002(93)FLR277]

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The defendants were once the employees of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a known Five Star Hotel. After the termination of their services for insubordination they started indulging in dirty and filthy gesticulations and slogan shouting, display of placards, demonstrations, picketing, abusing and harassing the guests and other visitors, business associates and the non-demonstrating staff entering the Hotel premises. The demonstrations and the shouting and abusing become more aggressive when a foreign tourist enters into or goes out of the Hotel. 2. Through this suit permanent injunction has been sought as these demonstrations are continuously held and the defendants 2 to 7 have threatened the direct action. The plaintiff also apprehends that there is a serious and immense danger of the defendants indulging in various acts of violence, threats, demonstration and tortuous action. 3. In view of the fact that the plaintiff is dealing with hyper-sensitive guests of differ...

Cit Vs. Sardari Lal and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]251ITR864(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Feeling that a fresh look may be necessary to be taken on the question of the first appellate authority's power to take into account a new source of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the matter was referred to a larger Bench to consider the correctness of the view expressed by this court in CIT v. Union Tyres : [1999]240ITR556(Delhi) and that is how the matter is placed before us.It is to be noted that the question has been considered by the Apex Court and various High Courts at different times. In fact in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT 0044/1991 : [1991]187ITR688(SC) , it was observed that the Act does not contain any express provision debarring an assessed from raising an additional ground in appeal and there is no provision in the Act placing restriction on the power of the appellate authority in entertaining an additional ground in appeal. In the absence of any statutory provision, the general principle relating...