Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Jasbir Kaur and anr. Vs. Yoginder and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)ACC741; 117(2005)DLT678

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th January, 2004, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ''the Tribunal'') in Suit No. 137/1997, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,55,068/- together with interest @9% per annum on account of an accident that took place on 13th August, 1986, in which Amarjeet Singh lost his life.2. The facts of the case, as has been noted by the Tribunal, are as under : 'It is alleged that on 13.8.96, Amarjeet was driving his motorcycle number UP-21A-1033 while one Constable Mahavir Singh was sitting on the pillion seat of the same. They were going from Gajraula to Dhanora at a normal speed on the left side of the road. At the same time one truck bearing registration number UP-21-1602 was going ahead of his motorcycle. The said truck was being driven without its back lights, even though, it was night time and was raining heavily. It is further alleged that the driver of the truck suddenly sto...

Smt. Chitra Chary and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)ACC866; 2006ACJ864; 114(2004)DLT693

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. This is an unfortunate case in which a young and sole bread earner of the family was lost on account of a tragic mishap occasioned due to negligence of the contractor engaged by DDA that left the petitioner No.1, a young widow and 2 minor children to defend for themselves. Even in the hour of sorrow and grief, petitioner No.1 showed courage and a social commitment; seen rather as an exception in this country; her late husband was pronounced brain dead. She took a courageous decision and donated his organs, giving a chance for a better life to the recipients. It was a sterling example of the gift of life.2. A sensitive and responsive state apparatus was expected to respond with compassion towards the petitioners. The deceased was no millionaire. He was aged 38 years when he died. Employed with M/s. Jindal Photo Films Limited as a Marketing Executive, he was earning a basic pay of Rs. 4,075/- p.m.3. Undisputed and disputed facts be noted. DDA had awarded the work ...

Venkatesh Coke and Power Ltd. Vs. Simplex Concrete Pils (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT594; [2005]58SCL387(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13th August, 2004 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No. 255/2003 whereby the learned Company Judge has arrived at a finding that the defense of the appellant herein to the winding up action was incredulous, raised belatedly and an after thought, taken up for the first time in reply to the statutory notice issued by the present respondent as a sham ground of defense to the winding up action.2. There is no dispute to the factual matrix except to the conclusions arrived thereupon. It is an admitted case of the parties that the appellant company invited tenders for execution and setting up of civil piles foundation work at Chennai, Tamil Nadu and the present respondent made its offer on 13th March, 1997 for the job which was described as 675.000 T.P.A. Plant with 60 M.W. Power Plant. The appellant company had accepted the offer of the respondent and had issued a Letter of Intent dated 17th Jun...

Devinder Kumar Vs. Sant Lal thru L.R's

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT497; 2005(79)DRJ26

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition challenges the judgment dated 19.9.2003 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 117/2000 whereby the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that he has no locus standi to maintain the appeal against the order dated 14.1.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Controller allowing the petition of the landlord under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and giving benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act to the petitioner. It also allowed the petition under Section 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(h) of the Act. 2. Facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi are as follows:-'......the premises was let out to respondent No. 1 about 30 years back at the rate of Rs. 70/- p.m. excluding electricity charges for residential use. However, it is alleged that the respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises to respondent No. 2 about two years back without written consent of the peti...

Raman Kumar Sawhney Vs. Dtc

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)ACC48; 115(2004)DLT438

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 22.12.1986 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No. 223/1980 whereby the learned Tribunal has held that there is no evidence on record to show that Bus No. DHP 2289 was driven rashly and negligently or was involved in the accident dated 25.2.1980 as claimed by the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are as follows:- '.... on 25.2.1980 at about 9.50 a.m., he was going on Ashoka Road near Jantar Mantar round about on his two wheeler scooter at slow pace and on his correct side of road. A D.T.C. Bus No. DHP-2289 driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash, reckless and negligent manner came from behind and while taking a turn towards its left hit the petitioner's scooter with the front of the bus, as a result of which the petitioner fell down and was injured. The petitioner was unable to walk. The driver of the bus took the petitioner to one pehalwan in Rehgarpura who diagnosed th...

Mohd. Dawood Vs. Shabeer Ahmed

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT229

ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining violation of the order passed by this Court on 18th October, 2000 in C.R. No. 142/94. The order reads as under:'Petitioner No. 3 is stated to have since died, his name be struck off from the memo of parties.The respondent has given an undertaking in Court stating, inter alia, that he will vacate the suit premises on or before 30th April, 2003. This is acceptable to learned Counsel for the petitioner.The undertaking is accepted. The respondent will be bound by this undertaking and the other terms recorded in Court today.In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.'2. The undertaking given by the respondent is reproduced as under:'Statement of Mr. Sabeer Ahmed son of Shri Abdul Hamid resident of 1770, Gali Meer Jumla, Lal Kuan, Delhi on S.A.I am the respondent in this case. I undertake to vacate and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the petitioner on or before 30...

Manjit Singh and ors. Vs. Alex C. Joseph

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(80)DRJ386

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `the CPC') seeks an ad-interim order in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the premises.2. The crux of the averments in the application are that in view of the parking of 8 to 9 cars inside the driveway of the premises bearing No. 7, Jor Bagh, New Delhi and locking the main gate by the defendant herein, who is the tenant in respect of the ground floor of the aforesaid premises, the plaintiff landlord is unable to enjoy or let out the rest of the property. The access to the first floor and the occupation thereof has become difficult, if not impossible and as per the Lease Deed dated 30th May, 2002(in short `the lease'), there was no provision for the parking of vehicles in the driveway. Accordingly a prayer was made to clear the driveway of cars parked by the ...

Daya Tekwani Vs. Delhi Jal Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT438

ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.Rule.With the consent of the parties, I proposed to dispose of the present petition.Heard.1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to provide water connection to the premises of the petitioner.2. The petitioner applied for a water connect on in June 2004. The application was rejected. The petitioner contends that the action of the respondent in denying water connection to the petitioner is vocative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.3. The respondent opposed the petition stating that the flats and apartments were constructed without approval of sanctioned plans. In view of scarcity of water in Delhi, if water connections are given to these unplanned apartments, the supply of water would become more acute.4. The petitioner resides on the ground floor of the premises. The building is four-storeyed. The respondent has provided two water connections in the same building. These facts are not denied by learned Counsel for the respondent. Lear...

Sunita Sachar Vs. Nanika International

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2004 passed by the District Forum whereby the respondent company was ordered to take back the defective piece known as hob used in the Hood Type Chimney of a modular kitchen and refund the money charged from the appellant, the appellant has preferred this appeal as according to him, hob can be removed only dismantling the entire kitchen. 2. Grievance of the appellant is that the hob purchased from the respondent was so defective that the entire working of the chimney created lot of problems inasmuch as the burners are making continuous noise after ignition and the whistling sound of the burners creates effect sufficient to ignite headache. The burners are not heating the pan evenly and further the heating effect of the burners is much slow as compared to the other burners of ordinary gas stove. 3. It is contended by the Counsel for the appellant that though the impugned order has been passed in his favour by allowing ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Tuftween Petrochemical Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT409TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether product manufactured by M/s. Tuftween Petrochemical Ltd., is classifiable under Heading 27.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by it or under Heading 38.14 as claimed by the respondents.2. We heard Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR for Revenue and Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate for the respondents.3. The impugned product is known as organic composite solvent, which is obtained by mixing of raw materials in various ratios under room temperature and pressure in the tankers of the consignee itself through pumping from the raw material storage tanks. The Deputy Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 36/02, dated 20-9-2002 classified the product under subheading 2710.19 of the Tariff and confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that the impugned product is a combination of inputs of Chapter 27 or Benzene under Chapter 29 in variable ratio.However, on appeal, filed by the respondents, t...