Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Mrs. Dimple Chopra Vs. Shri Vishal Swara and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)669; 103(2003)DLT642

S. Mukerjee, J.1. This order will dispose of two applications being is No. 635/2003 filed by defendant No. 3 and is No. 1125/03 filed by defendant No. 2. 2. Both these applications have been filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. 3. The case of defendant No. 3 is that the said defendant is a bona fide purchaser for consideration of the property in question being B-53, Sushant Lok-I, Gurgaon, Haryana measuring 400 sq. yds. in terms of a registered sale deed dated 9.4.2002. 4. Prior to the registration of the sale deed, the entire payment of Rs. 10 lakhs, was made by defendant No. 3, by pay order, which amount stands credited to the account of the deceased mother of the parties. 5. This sale deed was executed on behalf of the deceased mother by defendant No. 1 acting under a registered general power of attorney, which was witnessed by the plaintiff. 6. Initially the plaintiff denied being a witness but later on as per the latest stand contained in an application for amendment of the plaint fil...

Structural Waterproofing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Continental Foundation ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)613; AIR2003Delhi356; 103(2003)DLT552

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This order shall dispose of all the above mentioned applications. I.A. 11228/2002 has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accompanies the plaint. On 18.12.2002 the Defendants were restrained from selling, agreeing to sell, alienating or parting with possession of the property bearing Nos. Continental House, 28-29, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.2. I.A. 224/2003 is for the issuance of Summons for Judgment. Since the question of whether to grant Leave to Defend to the Defendants shall be addressed in these Orders. This application stands disposed of.3. I.A. 569/2003 has been filed by the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 praying for the dismissal of the suit and also for the initiation of criminal contempt. Counsel for Defendants, however, has not argued or pressed the prayer for Contempt of Court.4. I.A. 1247/2003 has been filed by Defendant Nos. 2 seeking Leave to Defend. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have filed ...

Ms. Bindu Sehgal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)537; 103(2003)DLT504; 2003(67)DRJ550; 2003(3)SLJ400(Delhi)

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Respondents promulgated Scheme of Assured Career Progression (in short ACP Scheme) by office memorandum dated 9.8.1999 to alleviate the problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the Central Government Civilian Employees in all Ministries/Departments due to lack of adequate promotional avenues and decided to grant two financial upgradiation as recommended by 5th Pay Commission to Group `B', `C' and `D' employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service.2. During its implementation various departments were confronted with the situation as to how upgradiation was to be made in respect of different categories of posts namely isolated posts, cadre posts and non cadre posts etc. On 10th February, 2000, the clarificatory memorandum under the said Scheme was issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training). Relevant clauses for the purpose of instant case are clause 10 and clause 32. Clause...

Bishnu Ram Vs. the Secretary, Goi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)769; 104(2003)DLT1; 2003(71)DRJ509; 2003(3)SLJ424(Delhi)

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner, a Head-Constable in Central Reserved Police Force(CRPF), underwent an operation for abdominal Hernia on 10th of October, 1986 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Again, on 2nd February, 1988, he had to undergo another surgery for removal of his cancerous right kidney at the same very hospital. He continued his post-operative treatment over a period of time. He purchased medicines from the market on both the occasions as the same were not available with the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi or the Base Hospital-I, CRPF. He submitted following medical claims to COY A/71 BN/PK for reimbursement thereof:( i) M-III -1/87-A-A-711 dated 15.1.1987 for Rs.10,000/- (ii) M-III-88 PKE dated 12.3.1988 for Rs.35,000/-. (iii) M-III-90 PKE dated 30.11.1988 for Rs.11,000/-. (iv) M-III-1/90 PKE dated 25.4.1990 for Rs.17,000/-. 2. The amounts of the aforesaid medical claims were, however, not released in spite of various representations in that respect made by the petiti...

Two Guys (P) Ltd. Vs. Shri Motilal Bhatia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)29; 104(2003)DLT91; 2003(68)DRJ97

S. Mukerjee, J.IA No. 805/2003 & is No. 11838/02 1. By this order I am disposing of two separate applications. The first is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant being is No. 805/2003. The application is under Order 39 Rule 1-2 CPC, being is No. 11838/2002, where the matter of confirmation or otherwise of ad-interim injunction granted ex-parte, is pending consideration.2. The matter has been argued at considerable length. Since there are certain proceedings pending under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which have culminated in an order passed by the SDM dated 29.2.2002, which is presently under consideration by the Revision Court, I would like to confine/limit my observations appropriately, so that the same may not operate to the prejudice the either party in the other proceedings.3. The subject matter of the proceedings is a commercial property bearing No. 18-B, Basant Lok Community Centre, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi measuring 120.52 Sq.Yds. Having three storey structure bu...

Standing Conference of Public Enterprises Vs. Delhi Office and Est. Em ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)38; 104(2003)DLT112; 2003(68)DRJ556; (2003)IILLJ1009Del

S. Mukerjee, J. 1. The present suit has been filed by the Standing Conference of Public Enterprises praying a decree of permanent injunction.2. Defendants No. 1, 4 to 9 and 11 to 13 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.4.99. Defendants 2,3,10,16,17,18 and 19 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.97. Defendant No. 15 was proceeded against ex-parte on 17.01.2001.3. The plaintiff has filed its affidavit by way of evidence in the present case and the various documents have been duly exhibited as PW/1 being letter dated 9th September, 1997 to the concerned Police Station. Exhibit PW1/2, letter dated 9th September, 1997, letter addressed to Labour Commissioner and PW1/3, letter dated 11th September, 1997 issued to the Station House Officer, Lodhi Colony Police Station.4. Shri U.K. Gupta, the General Manager of the plaintiff has deposed in his statement in affidavit that the plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is providing maintena...

K.M. Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Good Times Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(26)PTC428(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This application has been filed in the suit in which a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from passing-off his business activities as those of the Plaintiff has been prayed for. Both the parties are engaged in the Restaurant business in the name and style of 'Oxygen'. The Plaintiff has contended unlike the Defendant that it has obtained permissions from various Government Departments such as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Excise Department, Tourism Department in the name of 'Oxygen'. It is stated that the Plaintiff commenced business in July 2002. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant commenced a similar restaurant business also in the name and style of Oxygen with effect from 31st August, 2002. It has been emphasised by Shri A.K. Goel, learned counsel for the Plaintiff that one of the Directors of the Defendant Company had made a Complaint with the appropriate authority in the form of an affidavit dated 17.8.2002 against the use of...

Bal Kishan Kataria Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)740; 106(2003)DLT697; 2003(67)DRJ700; 2004(3)SLJ470(Delhi)

S.K. Muhajan, J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.2. Petitioner was working as Traffic Inspector with the respondent corporation. On 12th August, 1985, he was promoted to the post of Traffic Supervisor w.e.f. August 20, 1985. On 28th February, 1986 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and he was suspended from service. By order dated 18th August, 1986 the petitioner was reverted to the post of Traffic Inspector. The disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner vide a charge-sheet dated 28th February, 1986 was dropped by the respondent by its letter dated 6th April, 1988. Vide another letter dated 24th December, 1996 petitioner was promoted from the post of Traffic Inspector to that of Traffic Supervisor. Petitioner made a representation to give him seniority with effect from 20th August, 1985, when he was Initially promoted as Traffic Supervisor. The respondent considered the representation of the petitioner ...

Smt. Tripti Dhalla Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)209; AIR2003Delhi282; 2003(70)DRJ225

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 22nd July 2002 whereby the respondent has cancelled the admission given to the petitioner to the Ph.D. (Phase I) programme for July 2002-January 2003 session. A prayer is also made for allowing the petitioner to join Ph.D. Programme (Phase I) for the Session July 2002. 2. The petitioner applied to the respondent university for admission in Ph.D. Programme Phase I. The application of the petitioner was approved by the respondent and the petitioner was offered admission to the aforesaid course. The petitioner was asked to submit programme fee of Rs.10,000/-. The fee was deposited. The session was to commence in July 2002. However, the respondents vide letter dated 22nd July 2002 cancelled the admission of the petitioner. Thus by way of action of cancellation, the petitioner was not only denied admission to the Ph.D. Course but was also deprived of an opportunity of being absorbed permanently in ...

Ramesh Kohli Vs. Ei Power Engineers and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of State Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi, dated 20.1.1998, passed in Complaint Case No. 265/1997 entitled Shri Ramesh Kohli v. M/s. EI Power Engineers and Ors. 2. The brief facts, necessary for deciding the present appeal are, that the appellant had purchased an inverter for Rs. 13,500/- from respondent No. 1, a partnership firm, on 24.4.1996. At the time of placing the order, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had represented to be the partners of respondent No. 1. The inverter and the batteries purchased from respondent No. 1, had been installed at the residence of the appellant on 30.4.1996. Since the said inverter had worked satisfactorily for about a month, the appellant had placed an order for the installation of 625 KVA inverter at the residence of his brother, namely, Shri Rajesh Kohli at C-42, Gujranwala Apartments, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. As such the said inverter was installed at the premises of the brother of...