Delhi Court July 2002 Judgments

Shri J.P. Kansal Vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT435; 2003(1)SLJ187(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents inter alias to reimburse an amount of Rs. 79,548/- along with Rs. 27,806/- as losses, damages and interest @ 18% p.a. up to 9.2.2002, together with pendentelite and future interest at 18% p.a. from 10.2.2002, till the date of its realisation etc..3. Petitioner, Mr. J.P. Kansal, was working as Dy. Manager with M/s. Gas Authority of India Ltd. Petitioner retired as Dy. General Manager on 28.2.1998. Respondents have a scheme for provision of medical facilities to retired employees. Petitioner availed of the scheme.4. The writ petition shred off all unnecessary details and pleas can be confined to the petitioner's claim for being reimbursed at 100% of the cost incurred for treatment at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre in October, 1999 instead of 75%. Besides claim is made for reimbursem...

Sh. Rajinder Jaipuria S/O Late Shr Hardwari Lal Jaipuria, Kamla Nagar, ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT800

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Rajinder Jaipuria, hereinafter described as the petitioner, has filed the present petition under Sub-section (2) to Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of the bail order of 29th January, 2002 granted to respondent no.1 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.2. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate disposed of the application of respondent no.2 and admitted him to bail. On 17th January, 2002 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate admitted the respondent no.2 to interim bail for a period of seven days subject to furnishing personal bond to a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each with the condition to pay Rs.2,60,000/- to the petitioner. The said order was confirmed on 29th January, 200. The first information report has been registered against respondent no.2 with respect to an offence punishable under Section 406/409 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.3. The grievance of the petitioner in ...

VipIn Kaul Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT835

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed has present petition seeking quashing of the decision of the respondent Board, i.e. Central Board of Secondary Education, not to permit the petitioner to appear in Chemistry (Code 043) Examination of the All India Senior Secondary School Examination on 11.3.2002. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to hold a special examination to permit the petitioner to appear for the Chemistry examination or to appear in any special examination for the said subject, being held in riot affected areas.2. Petitioner Vipin Kaul claims that on the morning of 11.3.2002, he developed acute right abdominal pain accompanied with vomiting and retching. He was immediately rushed to a local doctor, who gave emergency treatment. The petitioner claims that even though the Doctor had advised immediate admission for carrying out tests to rule out the possibility of acute Appendix IT is or acute renal colic. The petitioner with a view to avoid the prospec...

Ritu Sharma Vs. M.T.N.L.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT246

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.Petitioner by this writ petition seeks to assail the award dated 28.1.2000 made and published by the Arbitrator Mr. Ashish Joshi, who had been appointed by the Appointing Authority pursuant to the directions given by the senior Civil Judge, Delhi. The petitioners had challenged the award as made by the Arbitrator by filing of objections before the senior Civil Judge also. However, the parties realised that these objections would not be maintainable in the proceedings in respect of the arbitral award given pursuant to Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. As such the petitioner filed this writ petition.2. Counsel for the petitioner made a very fervent plea for justice being done to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was a lady, without any other means of livelihood, except the STD booth. The show cause notice simply was on the basis that the petitioner was found absent and ...

Essex Farms Private Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT131

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Correctness or otherwise of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Pragati Builders and N.R.D.C. India and Anr., : AIR1991Delhi212 , having been doubted, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New Manek Chowk Spg. and Wvg. Mitts Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors., : [1967]2SCR679 , the matter was referred to the Larger Bench by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 13th March, 2002.2. Petitioners are the owners of the premises in question. Either lift or air conditioner or both are installed therein. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in purported exercise of its power conferred upon him under Sub-section (3) of Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (in short the 'DMC) issued the following Notification on 23.10.1989 and 24.10.1989, which reads thus:MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI PUBLIC NOTICE Lift contained or situated in or upon any b...

Modicare Ltd. Vs. Shankar Narayan Sagari

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(25)PTC662(Del)

C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from operating any business, making, selling/transferring, offering for sale, advertising and in any other manner dealing with the goods or services using the plaintiffs trade mark MODICARE or any other mark/name which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff trademark MODICARE whether as a domain name or otherwise and from doing any other thing as is likely to lead to passing off of the business and goods of the defendant as those of the plaintiff. A prayer is also made for transfer of domain name modicarenetwok.com to the plaintiff from the register of the Registrar, Domain People, Inc. and for delivery-up of all impugned materials, including brochures stationary and other printed matters for purposes of destruction and/or erasure. A prayer is also made for rendition of accounts of profit illegally earned by the defendant on account of the infringing activitie...

General Manager, Northern Railway and Another Vs. Amar Nath Aggarwal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 13.3.2002, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. TC/649/1998 - entitled Shri Amar Nath Aggarwal v. General Manager, Northern Railway. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent, Shri Amar Nath Aggarwal, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the respondent had purchased a circular ticket (PNR No. 710772) from New Delhi Railway Station for journey from New Delhi-Bombay-Vasco de Gama-Banglore-Kanyakumari-New Delhi. As per the tickets purchased, the journey was to commence from 20.5.1999 from New Delhi and was to end at New Delhi, after 30 days. It was stated that in the journey which was an excursion, the respondent had t...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jagmandar Dass Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed against order of the District Forum-II dated 1.6.1998 passed in Complaint Case No. 2643/1994 entitled Shri Jagmandar Dass Jain v. Delhi Development Authority. 2. The facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent was registered with the appellant for the allotment of a Category III flat under the VIth Self Finance Scheme, 1985 and had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. fifteen thousand only) as registration amount. Thereafter the respondent vide draw of lots held on 21.11.1988 was allotted a Category III flat on the ground floor Pocket GH-10, Paschim Puri, Delhi and vide demand letter dated 24.1.1989 an amount of Rs. 2,08,779.50 (Rs. two lakhs eight thousand seven hundred seventy nine and paise fifty only) was demanded from the respondent towards price of the flat allotted to him, after deducting/adjusting the amount of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand only) deposited by the responde...

Ved Rattan Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Tata Power Co. Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 31st May, 2002, passed by District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1005/2001 entitled Shri Ved Rattan v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Shri Ved Rattan, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that the appellant is the son and legal heir of late Shri Ram Gopal, who was a registered consumer in respect of electricity connection, bearing K. No. 2328399-IP, installed at premises No. 1624/2, Chandrawal Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. In the complaint, the appellant had assailed the demand of Rs. 32,853/-, raised by the respondent on the basis of the inspection carried out on 13th June, 2001. It was stated that the above demand had been ra...

indo Nissan Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT664TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 21-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Delhi-III Commissionerate. The issue relates to denial of Modvat credit on parts of chimney by holding that they are ineligible for credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The amount involved is Rs. 46,034/- and the period in dispute is 7/99 to 9/99. Besides, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been imposed under Rule 173Q.2. Shri C.S. Gupta, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and he has submitted that the chimney is of 150 feet height and it cannot be used without the necessary support. He submitted the photographs whereby it is seen that the same is getting support by the wire embedded in the earth; that the steel support provided to the chimney is capital goods; that in support of his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of New J.K. Cement Works reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 428, Crystal Cable Industries Ltd. reported in ...