Delhi Court January 2002 Judgments

Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)713; AIR2002Delhi275; 96(2002)DLT629; 2002(62)DRJ818

S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The afore-mentioned writ petitions have been filed, inter alia, questioning the right of various aided and unaided schools to fix tuition and other fees from students. The case of the petitioner is that lakhs of students studying in unaided recognized private schools in Delhi would be affected by the decision of this Hon'ble court on the vital question of law which have been raised by the petitioner-association in these Public Interest Litigations. The petitioners state that the respondent schools are not entitled to hike fee w.e.f. 1.4.1999 without following the procedure as laid down by this Hon'ble Court in judgment dated 30th October 1998. It is also submitted that the respondent schools are required to consult the representatives of the parents before taking any decision about the fee hike but the same has not been done. It is alleged that in absence of any valid decision regarding fee hike, the respondent schools are entitled to charge fee from the students w....

Asian Hotels Ltd., Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Del ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi227; 97(2002)DLT156

ORDER This petition has been moved by M/s Taj Mahal Hotel (The Indian Hotels Company Ltd.) No. 1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi under Section 33(1) and 33(2) of the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996. The petition has been carefully examined and various points raised therein are listed and determined as follows: 1. TELEPHONE CHARGES & LAUNDRY CHARGES SEPARATELY BILLED:- Point: Point of determination is whether telephone calls and laundry for which the hotel charges separately attracts the Luxury Tax. Determ: The Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996 envisages levy of Luxury Tax on luxury provided in a hotel where rent per room per day is Rs. 500/- or more. The term 'hotel' has been defined in Section 2(g) of the Act as 'hotel includes a residential accommodation, a lodging house, an inn, a club, a resort, a farm house, a public house or a building or part of a building, where a residential accommodation is provided by way of business.' The term 'business' has been defined in Section 2(b) of the...

Northern Sanitations (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Chartered Accountants Co-opera ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ229

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Disputes having arisen between the parties while executing the work of Sanitation, Water Supply Installation in the flats constructed in phase-II an phase-III of Delhi Chartered Accountants Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, the said disputes were referred to the arbitration of Shri Swami Dial, Retired Chief Engineer (CPWD) and Shri S.S.K. Bhagat, Chief Engineer (NDMC) in terms of Clause 35 of the Agreement. The aforesaid tow Arbitrators entered into the Reference and mutually agreed in a preliminary meeting held on 13.3.1996 to appoint Shri C. Rama Rao, Retired Director General of Works (CPWD) as Umpire after obtaining his consent. The two Arbitrators thereafter proceeded to hear the arbitration proceedings and received the evidence on record and thereafter passed an Award on 9.8.1997.2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Award passed by the Arbitrators the petitioner herein has filed objections, to which reply also stands filed. T...

Dcm Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kala and Co. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)245; [2002]112CompCas457(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT700; 2002(64)DRJ267

Sharda Aggarwal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of an application moved by defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. Briefly the facts of the case are that plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 44,19,573/- Along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 27% per annum. Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship concern of defendant No. 2. Plaintiffs on the asking of defendant No. 2 provided to defendant No. 1 Inter Corporate Deposit (hereinafter referred to as ICD) loan for a period of 90 days at different times and rates of interest. The first ICD of Rs. 10 lakhs was advanced on 2nd August, 1994 for a period of 90 days with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. This loan was paid back with interest on 1st November, 1994. Another ICD for Rs. 10 lakhs was advanced on 9th November, 1994 for 90 days with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The third ICD for Rs. 15 lakhs was advanced on 16th November, 1994 for 90 days. On 17th January, 1995,...

Krishna Gupta and ors. Vs. Madan Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003ACJ933; 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)333; 96(2002)DLT829; 2002(62)DRJ448

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This appeal and cross-objections arise out of a judgment of a learned single Judge of this court passed in FAO 230/79 and 231/79 arising out of an award made on 31st July 1979 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. FAO 230/79 which was filed by the appellant, was allowed in part and FAO 231/79 filed by the respondents, was dismissed. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.3. On 26th August 1974, the deceased Prem Chand Gupta was going in car No. DLJ-4598 driven by respondent No. 3 following the truck driven by respondent No. 1 when the said truck suddenly stopped in the middle of the road allegedly without giving any signal or indication and both the vehicles collided together resulting into the death of Shri Prem Chand Gupta and another occupant of the car. Both the vehicle were comprehensively insured with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, now known as Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 4. The learned Tribunal, having regard to the ma...

University of Delhi and anr. Vs. Shri Karan Ahuja and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)822

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. These two Letters Patent Appeals are filed against common judgment and order dated 5-11-2001 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP Nos.5307/2001 and 4656/2001 allowing the said writ petitions. 2. The appellants herein are University of Delhi and one of its faculties, namely, Faculty of Technology (hereinafter referred to as `University of Delhi'). Official respondents are All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), Government of NCT of Delhi and also Delhi College of Engineering and Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology (hereinafter to be referred as `Colleges'). Both these Colleges are run by Government of NCT of Delhi. Other respondents who are private respondents are the students who were the etitioners in writ petitions. These Colleges are affiliated to Delhi University. As the Colleges are imparting technical education, such courses are governed by the provisions of All India Council of Technical Education Act,1987 as well( hereinafter to be referred as`Te...

Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Gmbh and ors. Vs. G.D. Rathore ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(25)PTC243(Del)

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Plaintiff claiming themselves to be the owners of the copyright in the precision moulds used for manufacturing toothbrushes under the name and style of DR. BEST, AQUAFRESH FLEX, AQUAFRESH FLEX 'N' DIRECT, have filed this suit against the defendants for an injunction restraining them from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale toothbrushes having dimensions like the toothbrushes CELLO FLEXY or any other toothbrush having dimensions substantially similar thereto or any other manner whatsoever infringing the copyrights of the plaintiffs in respect of the drawing and moulds for the DR. BEST and/or mould for the Flex 'N' DIRECT toothbrushes. Plaintiffs have also claimed an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale toothbrushes which were identical in appearance to the AQUAFRESH FLEX toothbrush or any other toothbrush confusingly similar in appearance to the plaintiffs DR. BEST, AQUAFRESH FLEX and/or AQUAFRESH FLEX ...

Lml Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002(93)FLR618]; (2002)IILLJ428Del

1. This writ petition arises out of order dated August 14, 1998 passed by the first respondent whereby and whereunder the petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte award dated January 10, 1998 was rejected on the ground that he did not have requisite jurisdiction to entertain the same having regard to the fact that the period of thirty days had expired from the data of publication of the award in terms of Section 17 read with Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman raised an industrial dispute as regards the termination of his services which allegedly took place in the year 1991. Delhi Administration which is the appropriate authority having regard to the existence of the industrial dispute referred the same for adjudication by the first respondent. Before the first respondent the matter was marked as ID No. 491/92. Contention of the petitioner is that no notice was served on him. Contention of the workman is that it was so served and in fact the petition...

Lajya Ram Kapur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ634

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the licensees of the shops in the Indian Oil Bhawan building situated at Janpath seeking ownership rights on the same basis as granted in other refugee markets and for quashing the letters dated 9.11.2000 and 28.11.2001 increasing the license fee for the occupants.2. In order to appreciate the controversy in question it is necessary to set out the background in which these petitioners came to occupy the shops in the building. The petitioner or their predecessors in interest were refugees from Pakistan but having migrated to India came to squat in the verandas of Connaught Place to make out a living in those difficult circumstances. In order to provide a source of livelihood and to clear the squatting, such persons were given temporary stalls at road berms of Janpath, Irwin Road and Punchkulan Road by holding a draw of lots. Thus such persons came to the distributed in different areas only by reason of their fate in the d...

World Gem Corpn.Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. Through the medium of this application, the appellant (in Defective Appeal No. 221 of 2001) has sought the reliefs of transfer of the appeal before Special Director (Appeals) under section 17 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, (the FEMA) and its maintainability in the form of a joint appeal filed on behalf of the firm and its partner. The fee payable is to the tune of Rs. 5,000 and not Rs. 10,000. 2. In support of these averments, Shri Rana, the learned counsel, has contended that appeal was filed after the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the FERA) which was replaced on 1-6-2000 by the FEMA. The order under appeal was passed by the Asstt. Director of Enforcement, and, under section 17; the appeal lies to the concerned Special Director (Appeals), and not under section 19, before this Tribunal. Till today, no appointment has been made of the Special Director (Appeals) and the Adjudicating Authority (Assistant Director of Enforcement) is taking steps for...