Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Murti Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004ACJ1329; 2003VIAD(Delhi)493; AIR2004Delhi216; 107(2003)DLT123; 2003(70)DRJ673; (2004)136PLR22

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs under Section 124A of the Railways Act in favor of the respondent for the death of her son who had alleged to have died due to 'untoward incident' while he was traveling in a train from Delhi to Ballabhgarh. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are: On February 18, 1997, the deceased was traveling in a second class compartment of the train in question. Near Faridabad Railway Station, the deceased appeared to have fallen down from the train as a result of which he received injuries which proved to be fatal. For the death so caused, the respondent filed an application under Section 124A of the Railways Act before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. In the claim petiti...

Tilak Ram (Since Deceased) Vs. Z.U. Siddiqui and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)262; 107(2003)DLT565

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. In this Contempt Petition it has been alleged that the Orders of the Division Bench dated July 15, 2002 have not been complied with by the Respondents. The relevant paragraph of the said Order in Civil Writ No. 1750/1996, whereby the Petition was allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by the Delhi Administration, Land and Building Department, New Delhi, reads thus: ''Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned letter Annexure-`J' dated 1.6.1982 and consequential actions taken there under are quashed and set aside. Consequently, DDA is directed to allot the plot in question and execute a lease deed in respect of the said plot reserved within a period of two months from the date receipt of this writ order of from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner to the DDA, subject to the petitioner complying with all other requisite formalities, including payment of requisite charges and the premium. In case for any reason whatsoever the plo...

Dr. Lipi Mukhopadhyaya W/O Mr. D.D. Mukhopadhyaya Vs. Indian Institute ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)213; 106(2003)DLT655; 2003(71)DRJ416; 2004(2)SLJ284(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-grant of selection grade of Lecturer pursuant to Career Development Scheme (for short 'CDS'). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was an Ph.D. and was entitled to designation of a Reader. The petitioner's case is that on the basis of circular issued by the respondent on 25.6.1990 and in view of the policy adopted by the respondent for CDS, promotions were to be made under CDS from the date of eligibility irrespective of the date of approval of the promotion by the competent authority. My attention was drawn to the said circular which is at page-12 of the paper book. The last paragraph of the said circular, at page-17 of the paper book, reads as under :- 'Promotions made under Career Development Scheme shall be from the date of eligibility irrespective of the date of approval of the promotion by the competent authority. As the scheme is effective from 1-1-86, the date of eligibility will be 1-1-86 or compl...

Mirza Saba Alam Baig Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)585; 107(2003)DLT331; 2003(71)DRJ88

Vikramajit SEN, J. 1. Rule. 2. Mr. Anurag Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Delhi University has produced the original file, and the matter has been heard in great detail. 3. By consent of parties the Petition is being finally disposed of. 4.In the impugned decision dated 20.8.2002 the Petitioner has been disqualified from passing the examination taken by him and has been further debarred from appearing at any examination of the Delhi University until the annual examination of 2002. He was informed that he would be admitted to the same examination to be held in April, 2003, if otherwise eligible. It has been emphasised by Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the University that the Petitioner has not appeared in this examination. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has immediately retorted by saying that the assailed decision is wholly illegal and has far-reaching consequences on the Petitioner's future as it affects his moral turpitude and unless challenged, it would leave an i...

indumati Pandey Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)419; 107(2003)DLT13

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CW No. 2795/1994:1. The property of the petitioner was demolished during the period 1975-76 and in terms of a policy of the respondent published in 1979-80, registration was invited for flats of the affected persons. The petitioner applied for registration under the scheme.2. The only controversy which arises in the present case is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to an LIG flat or an MIG flat. This entitlement is based on an income criteria which includes income of the husband and the wife. In case the basic salary of the husband of the petitioner is taken into consideration, the petitioner would be eligible only for an LIG flat. If however, the total income realised by the husband of the petitioner is taken into consideration, the petitioner would be entitled to an MIG flat.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner initially sought to contend that even the requirements for an MIG flat had been reduced in subsequent schemes by reducing the base lev...

Shameet Mukherjee Vs. C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(70)DRJ327

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Sections 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioner, who was a former judge of this Court, is seeking bail in the case R.C No. 3(A)/2003/ACU-X/CBI/AC-III, New Delhi under Sections 120-B, IPC, read with Sections 7, 8, 11 and 12 read with Sections 13(2) & 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'POC Act'). 2. CBI has filed reply opposing the petition and also praying for cancellation of interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 5.5.2003 passed in Crl. M. (M) No. 1817/2003. On 4.6.2003 Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.A. Khan, while issuing notice, extended the interim bail till further orders, observing: 'Meanwhile, he is asking for extension of interim bail granted to him by order dated 5.5.2003 on medical grounds of his wife and on other attendant circumstances which is to expire on 12.6.2003. The basis of his application remains the same though he asserts that conditi...

D.T.C. Vs. Ram Nath Mishra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC390; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)311

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal had awarded the compensation of Rs.3,47,500/- with interest to respondent no.1 for injuries sustained by him in a road accident alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by respondent/appellant and driven by its driver respondent no.2. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:-2. On 17.8.1989, at about 9.15pm when respondent no.1 was trying to cross the road at DCM Chemical Works, Zakhira, Najafgarh Road, Delhi, the DTC bus bearing registration no. DHP-3935 came from behind and despite respondent no.1 raising his hand signalling the driver to allow him to cross the road, the driver of the bus did not pay any heed and hit against the respondent no.1. As a result of the accident respondent no.1 was injured and was taken to ESI Hospital from where he was referred to Willington Hospital...

R.L. Khera Charitable Trust (Dr.) and anr. Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(71)DRJ97

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 was issued a notice dated 16.3.1991 under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the said Act') for enhancement of the rateable value on the ground of 'increase in R.V.s. due to re-erection of Bldg./Alteration/Add. and amendment in the DRC Act'. The petitioner No. 1 filed objections against the said notice and subsequently the impugned order dated 10.3.1994 was passed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly contends that the aforesaid order has been passed in violation of the Order dated 7,10.2003 passed in CWP No. 4009/1992 between the same parties. The petitioner No. 1 had impugned the earlier assessment order on the ground that petitioner No. 1 had applied for exemption from payment of property tax being a charitable institution under Section 115(4) of the said Act. The Division Bench held that the rateable value should be re-determined after considering the aforesaid applicat...

Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(27)PTC422(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By the present order, C.M.(M.) No. 394/94 and C.M.(M.) No. 395/94 are disposed of CM(M) has been filed by M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. challenging the impugned order dated 10.6.1994 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks whereby he had allowed application No. 421889-B dated 14.5.1984 filed by respondent No. 2 in both the petitions and had disallowed the objections Nos. DEL-7732, DEL-7733 and DEL-7734.2. In C.M.(M.) No. 395/94, the same order has been challenged by M/s. Tata Sons Ltd.3. Petitioners of both the petitions claim to be the Proprietors/license users of the trade mark 'TATA' alleged to be the trademark of internationally known business house operating under the group 'THE HOUSE OF TATAS'. It is averred that the word 'TATA' is associated with the petitioners and the House of TATAS. Manufacturing activities of the House of TATAS touches almost every aspect of day to day life from edible products to household products, automobile and computers. The trade mark/...

M/S. Misuki Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Proprietor/Manager, M/S. Com-sys-inc

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 8.7.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1332/2003 entitled M/s. Misuki Export Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Comm-SYS-INC. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant M/s. Misuki Exports Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Shri Shyam Sunder Verma had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that appellant was a reputed business concern, engaged in the business of export of readymade garments. It was stated that the appellant entered into a business contract with the respondent on 25.8.2002 for the installation of a Panasonic System for a total consideration of Rs 20,000/-. It was stated that it was agreed between the parties that the respondent woul...