Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Smt. Prem Lata Gupta and anr. Vs. Dunlop India Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)817; III(2003)BC542; [2003]114CompCas689(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT112; 2003(68)DRJ29; [2004]51SCL616(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This suit has been filed praying for the passing of a decree for ejectment of the Defendant from 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi; for a decree in the sum of Rs.2,40,000/- being arrears of rent with effect from 1,3,1998 to 23.9.198 and damages with effect from 24.9.1998 to 31.12.1998; and for a decree for the payment of future damages at the rate of 24,000/- per month.2. On a perusal of the plaint it will be evident, inter alia, that the parties had entered into a Lease Deed dated 11th July, 1991. The allegation is that the Defendant failed and neglected to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per month from March 1998 onwards. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it has been stated that in compliance with Clause 4(a) of the Lease Deed a legal Notice dated 8.7.1998 was served on the Defendant by means of Registered A.D. post as well as by Courier calling upon the Defendant to pay the arrears of rent for the months of March 1998 to June 1998 within sixty days of the receip...

Anita Electricals (P) Ltd. Vs. National Buildings Construction Corp. L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)78; 2003(3)ARBLR264(Delhi); 2003(67)DRJ208; 2003(1)RAJ577; [2003]48SCL468(Delhi)

S. Mukerjee, J. 1. This arbitration application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the prayer for this Court to appoint an Arbitrator pursuant to the refusal of respondent No.1 to fill up the vacancy caused by the resignation of Shri B.P. Gupta who was earlier the nominee of respondent No.1.2. The only fact which needs to be mentioned at this stage is that the arbitration proceedings have been continuing before an Arbitral Tribunal which was lastly comprised of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Palli Retired Judge and Shri V.P. Gupta officer/nominee of respondent as Arbitrators and Justice A.B. Rothagi (Retired Judge) as Presiding Arbitrator. 3. Vide letter dated 2.7.2002, Shri V.P. Gupta the nominee of respondents on the Arbitral Tribunal, resigned. Thereupon in the next meeting of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 6.7.2002, the respondents were called upon to nominate another Arbitrator in place of Shri V.P. Gupta 4. The respondent No.1, vide impugned...

Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)115; 2003(3)ARBLR284(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT82; 2003(68)DRJ50; 2003(1)RAJ625

S. Mukerjee, J.1. This execution petition involves an interesting point of law.2. M/s Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. filed an execution petition in relation to the Award dated 25th September, 2001, seeking execution thereof in the manner of a decree.3. Under the Arbitration Act, 1996 it is provided in Section 36, that an Award may be enforced as a decree only in either of the two eventualities referred to below :-(a) When time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, or (b) When such application having been made, same has been refused. 4. In the present case admittedly no application for setting aside the Award has been made up to the relevant time, and as such no question arises of the same having been refused.5. As such it has to be considered whether the statutorily prescribed time for making of such an application (Objections), has expired or not.6. Reference may be made to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, which reads as under :-'S...

Ms. Preeti Arora Vs. Vijender Singh Chaudhary

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)45; 104(2003)DLT95; 2003(67)DRJ683

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Both these appeals, i.e., SAO No. 30/92 and SAO No. 31/92 are taken up together since they arise out of the common impugned judgment and/or order dated 26.8.92. In these appeals the order dated 26.8.92 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi while dismissing RCA 63/91 and RCA 62/91 is impugned. The said RCAs in turn arose out of two orders both dated 9.1.91 in Eviction Petition 363/87 passed by the Additional Rent Controller. By the first order dated 9.1.91, the Additional Rent Controller struck off the defense of the appellant/tenant on the ground of non-payment of costs of Rs.150/- imposed on the appellant /tenant on the previous date i.e. 6.3.90. The second order dated 9.1.91 has been passed ordering eviction of the appellant/ tenant on the ground mentioned in Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 after recording the statement of the respondent as AW1 and having struck off the defense of the appellant/ tenant.2. The facts so much as are like...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Khem Chand and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)197; 107(2003)DLT346; 2004(2)SLJ293(Delhi)

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. Respondent was employed as a fireman with the Delhi Fire Service on 13th June, 1945. In 1957, Delhi Fire Service became a part of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and service rules of MCD became applicable to its employees. As per rules applicable to the employees of the Delhi Fire Service, before it became a wing of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the age of retirement of a fireman was 50 years. Age of superannuation in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was regulated by F.R.-56. In 1963, the Fundamental Rules were amended and the age of superannuation of the employees was raised to 58 years. On coming into force of the amendment in FR-56, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi also amended its regulations making the age of retirement of its employees as 58 years, however, the age of retirement of the employees working in Delhi Fire Service was raised only up to ...

Subhash Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)314; 106(2003)DLT686

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The short point involved in the case is whether the services of the petitioner could be terminated taking recourse to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Temporary Civil Service Rules when in fact the action is taken against the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Enquiry held into the allegations leveled against him. The facts in short relevant for deciding this petition are : Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer on ad-hoc basis initially vide order dated 9th August, 1988. Petitioner joined the service on 12th August, 1988 and was posted in the Bridge Division-I of the respondent as Junior Engineer vide order dated 23rd August, 1988. Vide the order dated 19th April, 1989, the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner was changed to appointment purely on temporary basis with prospects of further continuation depending upon the availability of post and completion of requisite formalities. By the same order 66 junior engineers were appointed on temporary basi...

Siliguri Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Escorts Finance Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)203; 2003(2)ARBLR497(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT225; 2003(67)DRJ668; 2003(2)RAJ369

B.A. Khan, J.1. Parties are governed by a Hire Purchase Agreement in respect of a CT Scan Machine. Under this, appellant borrowed Rs. 96 lacs from respondent a finance company headquartered at Delhi for financing the purchase of the machine. He, however, defaulted in repayment. For this, respondent first served him a notice dated 17.3.1999 asking him to pay back the Outstanding amount and also invoked the arbitration clause and filed OMP No. 98/99 under Section 9 of the new Arbitration Act before this court for appointment of a Receiver. Appellant contested this primarily on the plea that this court had no jurisdiction in the matter as the whole transaction had taken place at Calcutta through respondent's sub office. His plea was, however, over-ruled by Ld. Single Judge on noticing that he had consented to the settlement of all matters arising out of the agreement by Delhi courts vide Clause 27 of the agreement and that his petition for transfer of the matter to Calcutta court was also...

Parasarampuria Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Shankar Prasad

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)401; AIR2003Delhi348; [2005]123CompCas419(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT213; 2003(69)DRJ53

B.A. Khan, J.1. Appellant is contesting ex-parte decree dated 1.9.2000 passed in respondent's Suit No. 2063/98. For this he had filed two applications is Nos.3608-09 /2001 -- one for condensation of delay and the other for setting aside of the ex-parte decree which stand rejected by the impugned order dated 9.11.2001. Hence this appeal.2. The only issue involved is whether or not summons were validly served on appellant under Order 29 Rule 2, CPC. Learned Single Judge has held that service of summons was valid but appellant disputes this.3. Respondents filed Suit No. 2603/1998 showing appellant's (defendant) address its corporate office in Haus Khas, Delhi instead of its registered office at Bhiwadi in Rajasthan. Summons were issued by the Joint Registrar on 5.10.1998 and were eventually served on some employee of appellant at the Hauz Khas corporate office on 17.3.1999. The Process Server submitted his report in this regard culminating in order dated 20.8.1999 taking ex-parte proceedi...

Yashod Kumari and anr. Vs. Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT33

B.A. Khan, J.1. Appellants filed a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction claiming to be the owners in possession of plot of land measuring 436.5 sq. yds. comprising Khasra No. 52/18/2 with a structure thereon at village Kishangarh, which was free from acquisition proceedings. The suit was filed before this Court first wherein an ex parte interim injunction was also granted. It was later transferred to District Courts at Tis Hazari and was assigned to learned A.D.J. for trial who framed the following preliminary issue for decision first:'Whether the present suit is not maintainable as alleged in para 2 of the preliminary objections in the WS?'2. While examining this issue the whole debate seems to have turned on the non-service of notice under Section 80, CPC.3. While appellants (plaintiffs) contended that the suit was maintainable even in the absence of notice under Section 80, they also prayed for grant of leave in the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 80(2)....

S.N. Gupta Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on the appellant Shri S.N. Gupta for contravention of section 8(1) of FERA, 1973. According to the record, the appellant has deposited the penalty. 2. The same amount of penalty has been imposed on Mrs. Chaman Padda. She has also deposited the penalty. 3. The charge against the appellant was that Mrs. Chaman Padda, Principal and Capt. S.N. Gupta, Chairman of Manav Kendra School, Manav Kendra Enclave, Keshav Puram Pump House, New Delhi acquired DM 20,000 from one German Lichtheim Society, Germany, without any general or special permission of Reserve Bank of India. Acquisition of foreign exchange by an Indian citizen without permission of RBI is prohibited under section 8(1) of FERA, 1973. The charge was based on three documents viz. (i) Certificate bearing No. MKS/D/92 dated 1-4-1992 signed by Mrs. Chaman Padda, (ii) Certificate dated 24-2-1994 signed by Sabine Krautstrunk of West Germany and (iii) Letter dated 1-9-1994 of Sabine Krautstrunk...