Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Brij Kumar Aggarwal and anr. Vs. Mukul Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi93; 117(2005)DLT739; 2005(79)DRJ21

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th January, 2003, of the Civil Judge, whereby the learned Judge has allowed an application under Order 32 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and has restrained respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein from selling the ground floor flat of property No. 2-A, Commissioners Lane to the appellants herein or anyone else in violation of terms and conditions contained in agreement dated 17th October, 1978 and sale deed dated 29th September, 1979. He has further restrained the appellants herein from purchasing the same in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement and sale deed.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Civil Judge, are as under :'Brief resume of facts as necessary for disposal of these applications are that plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,24,000/- and permanent and mandatory injunction against 7 defendant. Averments as pleaded in plaint are that plaintiffs are owners of first floor with second floor a...

Ethopian Airlines Vs. Federal Chemical Works Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi158; 114(2004)DLT549

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge holding that the suit of respondent is not barred by time. Initially a suit was filed by M/s.Federal Chemical Works Ltd., respondent herein, against M/s.Nutsco (Nigeria) Ltd. and the second defendant was M/s.Ethopian Airlines, which is appellant herein. We were told that the defendant no.1, M/s.Nutsco (Nigeria) Ltd. has settled the matter with the plaintiff, i.e. M/s.Federal Chemical Works Ltd., however, as the suit was filed against both the defendants and the liability under the suit still remains that of the appellant, the appellant's challenge to the impugned order is to be adjudicated.2. Mr.Wadhwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that learned single Judge framed the following preliminary issue :-'Whether the suit is instituted within time.'3. Mr.Wadhwani, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the learned single Judge's fi...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Joginder Pal Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)ACC60; 115(2004)DLT488

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.7.1994 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi in Suit No. 138/1988 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- together with 12% interest on account of death of Sh.Gurbachan Singh aged 50, a three wheeler scooter driver involved with the accident on 24.4.1988 with vehicle no. DLP 6462 driven by Prakash Chand, the first respondent.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-'.......on 21.4.1988 at about 4/4.30 p.m. deceased Gurbachan Singh was sitting in his three wheeler scooter No. DLR 3349 waiting for the passengers near the gate of Gymkhana Club at Kamal Ata Turk Marg when a taxi bearing No. DLP 6462 being driven recklessly, rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 came from the side of Ashoka Hotel and hit the stationary scooter of which Sh.Gurbachan Singh suffered multiple injuries which ultimately proved fatal. Deceased Gurbachan Singh was removed to Safdarjang Hospital immediately afte...

Indian Towers and Developers Ltd. Vs. Savitri India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4CompLJ84(Del); 116(2005)DLT116; 2005(79)DRJ540; [2006]68SCL467(Delhi)

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition is filed for winding up of the respondent company under Sections 433(e) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the respondent company is indebted and is unable to pay the debts. On 9th March, 2000, facts were noted leading to indebtedness of the respondent and prima facie it was found that the respondent was unable to pay the debts. This petition was accordingly admitted for hearing and it was also directed that citations be published in Statesman (English) and Jansatta (Hindi) as well as Delhi Gazette. These citations were duly published. Thereafter the matter came up for hearing on 1st March, 2001 and after taking note of the aforesaid facts it was also noted that on 8th September, 2000, Counsel for the respondent had submitted that parties were negotiating for settlement. The case was accordingly adjourned to 29th September, 2000 subject to the condition that the respondent pays a sum of Rs. 6,03,240/- on or before 29th September, 2...

Sial Bioenergie Vs. Sbec Systems

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi95; 2004(3)ARBLR429(Delhi); 115(2004)DLT294; 2005(79)DRJ156

Mukul Mudgal , J 1. A submission has been made on behalf of the Judgment Debtor in support of these applications which seek to lead oral evidence in support of the objections (EA.No. 733/03) to the enforcement of the Award dated 19th May, 2003 under Sections 48 and 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the `1996 Act'), the phrase `furnish proof to the Court' in Section 48(1) would include oral evidence. 2. Section 48 of the 1996 Act reads as follows:- '48.Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards.- (1) Enforcement of a foreign award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the court proof that- (a) the parties to the agreement referred to in Section 44 were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or. (b) the ...

Hotel Mazdoor Union Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT140; [2005(106)FLR166]; (2005)IILLJ435Del

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners prayed for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ petition directing the Conciliation Officer to conclude and close the proceedings of conciliation pending between the petitioners and the respondents and in the meanwhile a further direction to the said respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioners.2. The petitioners claim that they are employees of respondent No. 2 and who run this establishment through contractor. The petitioners claim regularization under the respondent and they lodged a complaint with the concerned authorities on 14th March, 2002. Various representations thereafter failed to yield any results requiring the petitioners to file the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also averred that on 21st April, 2002 the Inspecting Officer from the office of the appropriate Government made a surprise in...

Pioneer Fabricators (P) Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT673

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Sections 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the appointment of Arbitrator.2. It is not in dispute that clause 18 of the agreement entered between the parties provides for appointment of the named Arbitrator and the appointment was to be made by the respondent. As per the arbitration clause, the petitioner made a requisition to the respondent on 16th January, 2002 which was not responded to by the respondent compelling the petitioner to move this Court by the present arbitration petition. Notice of the petition was issued on 31st May, 2004. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Kalra states that the Arbitrator has since been appointed after the filing of the petition. As per position of law laid down in Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. & Another reported as JT2000 (2) 226, the right of the respondent to appoint Arbitrator got extinguished and hence the appointment of Arbitrator by the respondent afte...

Sudershana Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT119; 2006(1)SLJ327(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for quashing of the office order dated 5.11.2002 passed by the respondents. The husband of the petitioner was employed with the respondents and he died on 7.7.1987. The petitioner was appointed as an Aya by the respondents under order dated 29.8.1987 in a pay scale of Rs. 400-10-550. It is, thereforee, indicated from the said order that the petitioner was appointed with a regular pay scale. She was also given an accommodation by the respondents in which she is living with her two daughters, who are now of marriageable age. Some time in the month of November, 2002, a letter was received by the petitioner issued by the respondents, which is dated 5.11.2002, which was issued by the Deputy Commandant from the office of the Commandant, 25 BN BSF, Chhawla Camp, New Delhi removing the petitioner from service.2. It is clear and apparent from the aforesaid action of the respondents that the respondents have removed the pet...

M.T.N.L. Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Puri

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Short question arising for determination in this appeal filed against the impugned order dated 7.7.2000 passed by District Forum-IV, Nand Nagri, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 62/1999, is whether the telephone connection of one subscriber can be disconnected for non-payment of bills of a telephone connection in the name of another subscriber either on account of their close or blood relationship and both the connections being in the same premises. 2. Vide impugned order dated 7.7.2000 the appellant MTNL has been directed to restore the telephone of the respondent without any additional charges and also pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation for disconnecting the telephone of daughter-in-law for failure of payment of bill of a connection in the name of her father-in-law. 3. The Counsel for the appellant contends that there is nexus not only between the respondent and her father-in-law but also with another daughter-in-law wh...

Shreyans Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT351TriDel

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-original vide which the demand of Rs. 10,83,138/under Section IID and Rs. 6,18,163/- under Rules 57-1 and 57-AD read with Section HA(1) of the Act with interest and penalty of equal amount had been confirmed against the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that no demand under Section 11D could be confirmed against the appellants as the appellants did not charge/collect the duty from their buyers. They were working under the exemption Notification Nos. 6/2000 and 3/2001 at that time and the price charged by the appellants, accordingly to the Counsel, was a composite price and there is no evidence on record to prove the collection of duty by them from the buyers. In support of this contention, Counsel has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in Pitambar Coated Paper Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2003 (152) E.L.T. 392].Regarding the confirmation of duty under Rule 57-AH(1), the Counsel has contended that the appel...