Delhi Court February 2003 Judgments

R.S. Avtar Singh and Co. Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2003Delhi249; 2003(2)ARBLR503(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT227; 2003(71)DRJ500

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by the petitioner seeking an appointment of the Arbitrator on the ground of the failure of the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator within the notice period as given by the petitioner.2. Before coming to the legal issues arising for consideration, the salient facts may be noted.(I) The petitioner had been awarded a contract for construction of a Five Star Deluxe Hotel, for the respondent-Corporation at Chandigarh, vide a work order issued on 7th May, 1999. (II) Disputes had arisen in execution of the construction contract. The construction contract contained an arbitration agreement between the parties in the following terms; Arbitration Clause-48 Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on th...

Major N. Radhakrishnan (Retd.) Vs. Acme Decor India Pvt. Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]123CompCas127(Delhi); (2007)2CompLJ450(Del); 104(2003)DLT546; 2003(68)DRJ340; [2007]78SCL330(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This winding up petition is based on notice under Section 434 issued on 22nd May, 1998. The crux of the notice under Section 434 and indeed this winding up petition is a short term deposit said to be given by the petitioner to the respondent company from time to time totalling Rs. 3,25,000/-. This deposit was said to carry interest @ 18% p.a. The notice was served on the respondent. There is some dispute by the respondent company regarding the service which prima facie is not capable of belief and I proceed on the presumption that notice under Section 434 was served on the respondent company. Accordingly, it is necessary to look at the contents of the reply of the respondent company filed in this Court. The essence of reply of the respondent company is that there was an arrangement of the petitioner for securing work for the respondent company which did the work of interim decoration and the petitioner forwarded the said payment some time received in cash to the pet...

Brij Kod Vs. Commissioner Food and Supplies and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)431; 104(2003)DLT467

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 28th September, 2001 passed by the Commissioner, Food and Supplies, Government of NCT of Delhi in Appeal No. 50/01 which was preferred by the petitioner. It is not the first time that the petitioner has approached this Court. Earlier the Commissioner, Food and Supplies had passed order dated 23rd June, 2000 against which petitioner had preferred CWP No. 3782/2000. It may be mentioned at this stage that petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 had filed appeals against rejection of their applications for grant of license to run kerosene oil depot in the notified area. By impugned order dated 23rd June, 2000 both these appeals were dismissed. However, while dismissing the appeal of respondent No. 5, the Commissioner passed an order granting him additional license. In the aforesaid CWP No. 3782/2000 apart from challenging order on the ground that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, another contention raised by...

Anil Partap Singh Chauhan Vs. Onida Savak Ltd. Etc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2003Delhi252

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, I would be deciding applications made under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the abovementioned five suits and passing consequential orders regarding the maintainability of the suits. These IAs and suits are being decided by this common judgment as the relevant facts and legal issues involved are common. Besides, the suits have been instituted by the same plaintiff.2. Before proceeding to decide the applications under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in each of these suits, application for extension of time for payment of Court-fee is being taken up. The plaintiff has paid requisite Court-fee in Suits Nos. 2150/02, 2151/02 and 17/03. The plaintiff has moved I.A. 33/03 dated 21-12-2002 in Suit No. 2 of 2003 for extension of time for making payment of Court-fee in Suit No. 20/2003. The application seeks ten days time to make payment of Court-fees. This time has already expired. Mr. R. P. Sharma, learned Counsel, however, prays that ti...

Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)134

ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.M.:This is an appeal by assessed against the order of the assessing officer for the block period from 1-4-1986 to 20-6-1996, under section. 158BD of the Income Tax Act. As many as 8 grounds of appeal have been taken by the assessed at the time of filing of the appeal.Ground Nos. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 were not pressed by the counsel of the assessed at the time of hearing. thereforee, they are dismissed as not pressed.2. Ground No.. 5(a) is against the addition of. Rs. 38,50,772 for assessment year 1996-97 and Rs. 12,83,642 for assessment year 1997-98 (up to 20-6-1996) as un disclosed income by taking the GP rate at 1. 37 per cent.3. The proceedings under section 158BD were initiated against assessed on the basis of search and seizure action taken in the case of Shri Sunil Agarwal group of cases. During the assessment proceedings the assessing officer noted that while filing the return for assessment year 1995-96, the assessed has declared GP rate of 1.37 per cent on total s...

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas Rustogi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by therappellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 29.10.2002, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 3359/1999entitled Shri Ram Niwas Rustogi v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Ram Niwas Rustogi had filed a complaint before the District Forum averring therein that the respondent had taken a Mediclaim Policy, bearing No. 727/1998 valid from 21.10.1997 to 20.10.1998 for Rs. 2,00,000/-, issued by the appellant covering his ownself and his dependent wife Mrs. Prem Kumari Rustogi. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that his wife Mrs. Prem Kumari Rustogi, dependent on him, and covered under the above said policy, fell ill and for treatment, had ...