Delhi Court November 2003 Judgments

Dr. K.S. Jawatkar Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)349; 108(2003)DLT607; 2004(3)SLJ460(Delhi)

1. The Petitioner has prayed that this Court should"(a) Issue an appropriate Writ, or Order or direction, including a Writ of certiorari, to quash recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment of respondent No. 10 to Professor A.Appadorai Chair in International Relations without interview as ultra vires the JNU Act, 1966, its Statutes and the petitioner's Fundamental Rights under Article 14, 16(1), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India;(b) Issue Mandamus directing the respondent University & its Vice-Chancellor to reconstitute the Selection Committee with due regard to specialisation i.e. International Relations in accordance with relevant Statute and reasoning provided for amending the said Statute having regard to the recommendation of the Gajendragadkar Committee on Governance of Universities and Colleges;(c) Direct the respondent University and its Vice-Chancellor to comply with Academic Council Resolution No. 5-AC (b) Dated 12.2.1993 for rotating Appadorai Chair...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shri Bani Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)ACC152; 2005ACJ1763; 112(2004)DLT928; 2004(72)DRJ44

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in favor of the dependents of the deceased. The respondents-claimants have also been held entitled to interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation.2. The only ground taken in appeal is that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to award interest. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal could award interest only if the Act specifically authorises the tribunal to award such interest and in the absence of any such provision, the tribunal could not award pendente lite interest. For this reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Union of India v. Sanjay Sampatrao Gaikwad etc. - : AIR2002Bom436 . In this case, it was held that the compensation claimed by the applicants had to be determined under Section 127 of the Railways Act and the same...

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Smt. Koel Kanta Kohli and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]125CompCas183(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT682; 2004(72)DRJ42

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the applications of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay were dismissed. 2. The plaintiff bank had filed suit for recovery against the respondents on the allegations as set out in the plaint. One of the witness of the plaintiff, namely, Jeewan Kumar, Head Cashier, Branch Office Okhla was examined by the Court on 20.12.1996 and his cross-examination was deferred at the request of the defendant. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time, sometimes at the request of the plaintiff and sometimes at request of the defendant and lastly it was fixed on 20.9.2000. The lawyers were on strike on that day and though PW-1, the witness of the bank was present in Court but his cross-examination could not be conducted due to the strike of the lawyers and the matter was thereforee, adjo...

Mohd. Israil Vs. Dtc and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)ACC749; 116(2005)DLT442

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT.2. For the last number of hearings no one is appearing on behalf of the respondent/DTC and I have, thereforee, proceeded to decide this matter in the absence of the counsel for the respondent.3. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The only ground taken in the appeal for enhancement of compensation is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased to arrive at the loss of future earnings and appropriate compensation has not been granted for pain and suffering caused to the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant remained in the hospital for a period of about three months and his right leg above knee was amputated and still a meager sum of Rs. 16,000/- has been awarded as compensation ...

Raj Rani Vs. G.T.B. Hospital and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT522; [2005(105)FLR187]; 2006(2)SLJ218(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner not having completed 240 days in service is not claiming any benefit under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in this Court. However, in so far as Sections 25G and 25H of the Act are concerned, the Labour Court while holding against the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in , titled Kamal Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. P.O. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and Ors., to hold that any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not available to the petitioner who does not fulfill the criteria of having worked for 240 days. Sections 25G and 11 of the Act read as under :'25 G. Procedure for retrenchment.--Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and be belongs to a particular category of workmen in...

Ranjit Tukaram Choudhury Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)164; 108(2003)DLT689; 2004(72)DRJ459

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C. petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 68/2003 under Sections 420/406/120-B, IPC, P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi opposing the bail. 2. Prosecution allegations, in brief, are that petitioner is the Founder Director of M/s. Bombay Bazaar Ltd. In the month of June, 2002 the company advertised for appointment of franchisees and distributors in Delhi, offering them minimum guaranteed return to the extent of Rs. 33,000/- to 75,000/- per month -- The directors of the company, including the petitioner, had dishonest and mala fide intentions right from the beginning; they collected huge sums of money on the basis of their false representations. They did not even open a Bank account in Delhi. A sum of Rs. 1.06 crores was deposited by them in their account at Bombay till 19.8.2002. A Chartered Accountant was appointed to probe their accounts; in his provisional report he has stated that the company collected Rs. 4,66...

Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(80)DRJ532

B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. Notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 23.1.1965 followed by & declaration Under Section 6 of the Act on 7.12.1966. It is thereafter, the petitioner purchased the land in question from erstwhile owner Shri Subhash Chand Gupta vide sale deed dated 10.2.1993. On 18.3.1993, vide notification the area was declared as development area. Thereafter, in 1995 the petitioner filed a Suit No. 1586 of 1995 for permanent injunction before Civil Court, as according to the petitioner some of the employees of respondent No. 5 (DDA) came to the petitioner to dispossess hm without notice. Interim application (IA. 7226/95) was also filed by the petitioner on 12.7.1995 for restraining the said respondent from demolishing and dispossessing the petitioner as also from taking forcible possession of the suit land. Suit was Dismissed on 17.7.1996 against which Regular First Appeal No. 25/96 with CM. 1278/96 was fil...

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. J.K. Mittal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 21.9.2002, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 87/2002 entitled Shri J.K. Mittal v. National Insurance Company Limited. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent Shri J.K. Mittal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant on the ground that the respondent had purchased a Maruti Car, bearing Registration No. DL-7C-B-6513 from M/s. Bagga Link Motors Limited on 29.9.2001 which was duly insured with the appellant through its Preet Vihar Branch for Rs. 2,65,952/- vide Cover Note No. 0855105. The delivery of the above said car was, however, taken on 18.10.2001. The said car was stolen on 19.11.2001 i.e. after one month of delivery for which the respondent had lodged a complaint with the concerned Polic...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Pushpa Verma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 19.10.2001 passed by District Forum, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 809/1996, entitled Mrs. Pushpa Verma v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent and has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 12,652/- together with 9% interest from the date of lodging of the claim till its realization together with cost and damages of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of 45 days of the date of order. The learned District Forum also directed that if the amount is not paid within 45 days, the appellant shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. 3. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the appellant, New India Assurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal mainly on the ground that the claim of the respondent was repudiated on t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kanam Foam Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT237TriDel

1. Revenue's appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 36 of 2001, dated 16-4-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. That order was passed pursuant to an order of remand of this Tribunal (E/139 to 142/93-D, dated 8-4-93). The issue for consideration was the valuation of rubber foam goods manufactured by the respondents herein. The Commissioner held that there was no duty evasion in respect of sales made to related party inasmuch as those sale prices were same as sale prices to unrelated dealers. It is also submitted that sale to unrelated dealers came to about 80% of the total sales. The present appeal points out that the Commissioner's finding regarding sale price was reached on verification of only sample invoices, that there were some financial transactions between the respondent-manufacturer and the related buyers and the related persons resold the goods at a much higher price. On verification of the invoices of sales, it is now admitted that the posi...