Delhi Court September 2004 Judgments

Sudhir JaIn Vs. Prema Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi1; 114(2004)DLT289; 2004(77)DRJ133; (2004)138PLR59

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. FAO 424 of 2000 is directed against the judgment dated 25.9.2000 of the Additional District Judge in HMA No. 41/2000 disposing of a petition under Section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') moved by Ms. Prema Jain for enhancement of permanent alimony granted. The learned Judge held that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance from 01.10.2000 is appropriate. 2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional District Judge are as under ''- ''The respondent (appellant before this court) was the husband of the petitioner (respondent before this court). The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce by the court then presided over by Shri S.R. Goel, ADJ, Delhi. On 3.3.2, Ms. Usha Mehra, the then ADJ, Delhi, fixed permanent alimony @ Rs. 400/- per month for the petitioner and two minor children. An appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble High Court. Mr. Justice N.N. Goswami was pleased to enhance the mainten...

Shri Hans Raj Vs. Shri Lakhi Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi87; 114(2004)DLT264; 2004(77)DRJ192; (2005)139PLR20

ORDER xxxvII SUMMARY PROCEDURE 4. POWER TO SET ASIDE DECREE- After decree the Court may, under special circumstances, set aside the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant to appear to the summons and to defend the suit, if it seem reasonable to the Court so to do, and on such terms as the Court thinks fit. 6. It is obvious that the non-service of summons under provisions of O. 37 CPC would by itself be a special circumstance entitling the defendant/ petitioner to ask for setting aside the decree. On the summons sent through ordinary process the Process Server had reported that defendant was reported to be out of station and this information was given by the wife. But the Process Server's report nowhere indicates that the summons were ever tendered to the wife. Summons sent by registered post came with the remarks that addressee is not available despite repeated approach. In a suit brought under O. 37 CPC, it is all the more important f...

Chander Singh Vs. Krishna Hari Gupta (Deceased) Thr. Lrs.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT424; 2004(77)DRJ202

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. SAO 225/1984 is directed against the judgment dated 22nd May, 1984 of the Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 106/1983, whereby the learned Tribunal while adjudicating on an appeal against the order dated 29th January, 1983 of the Additional Rent Controller has allowed the appeal holding that the Additional Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in relation to the premises in question since its jurisdiction did not extend to the territories where the premises were situated. 2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Rent Control Tribunal, are as under : ''Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 Chander Singh filed a petition for eviction against the appellant and Kishan Hari Gupta with respect to the property In dispute detailed in the petition for eviction. The grounds of eviction taken up were under clause (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section 1 to Section 14 of the Act. It was contende...

Munshi Shaukat Vs. Jamiluddin

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT294; 2004(77)DRJ167

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. C.R.P. 1369 of 2001 is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2001 of the Additional Rent Controller (for short 'Controller') in E-152/92 whereby the learned Controller has decreed the suit on a petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') by the respondent herein holding that the respondent herein has been able to satisfy the court that his requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is made out in respect of ground floor of the premises in possession of the petitioner herein. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Controller, are as under : ''an eviction petition filed on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act in respect of one room, latrine, kothri, open courtyard, verandah and also one temporary room allegedly constructed illegally at the first floor by the respondent in premises No. 16358, Ward No. 14, Gali Babu Bashat, Quresh Nagar, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Accord...

Shyam Telecom Ltd. Vs. Arm Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR146(Delhi); 2004(77)DRJ91

R.C. Jain, J.1. A short but important question--'whether the mandate of an Arbitrator terminates on the expiry of the stipulated period for making the Award within the meaning of Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ?' has arisen for determination in this case.2. M/s. Shyam Telecom Ltd./petitioner has filed this petition under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (to be called as the Act) for declaring that the mandate of the sole Arbitrator has terminated on 14.11.2000 on the expiry of six months period for making the Award mentioned in Clause 3 of Article IV of Divestment agreement and consequently the Arbitration proceedings and the mandate of the Arbitrator had come to an end.3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the parties had entered into a Divestment agreement in 1997. Clause 3 of Article IV of the Divestment agreement inter alias contains an Arbitration agreement for reference of the disputes between the parties through Arbitratio...

Sh. Subhash Chander Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT630

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner prays that demand in the sum of Rs.22,27,664/- raised vide letter dated 21.8.1998 (Annexure 13) be quashed. The demand has been raised as under:-' To deposit Rs.22,27,664/- on account of misuse charges and furnish third copy of challan immediately so that further action in the matter could be taken.'2. Case of the petitioner is that he acquired perpetual leasehold rights in a plot of land measuring 200 sq.yd bearing no. A-3/51, Paschim Puri, now known as Paschim Vihar, vide perpetual lease deed dated 8.1.1974. He obtained sanction to erect a building thereon. On completion of the building he obtained an occupancy certificate on 26.8.1977.3. In the year 1985, intending to raise further constructions, petitioner moved an application dated 22.8.1985. After obtaining sanction, he effected further construction which was completed by 11.2.1987.4. According to the petitioner, as pleaded in para 6 of the writ petition, he received a letter from the DDA on 7.1...

Major (Dr.) Ardhendu Pal (Ms 13401 N) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT569; 2005(81)DRJ771

Gita Mittal, J.1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16th January, 2004 whereby the respondents directed the release of the petitioner from short service commission and denied him an extension of five years as a short service commissioned officer. The petitioner has sought further directions to the respondents to reconsider his extension and posting in the light of the policy of the respondents contained in Army Instructions 75/78.2. The factual matrix is largely not disputed. The parties are differing only on their interpretation of the rule position. The admitted facts, as emerging on record, are that the petitioner is a qualified doctor and possessed of an M.B.B.S. degree. The petitioner initially joined the Indian Army as a permanent commissioned officer on 22nd June, 1992. On account of certain problems in his family, the petitioner sought premature release from the Indian Army in ...

R.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT556; [2005(104)FLR554]; 2005(3)SLJ105(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner is admittedly governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In the year 1998-99 he was posted as Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Jammu. Sh.S.P.S. Dutta was functioning under the petitioner as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Jammu. Both, petitioner as well as Sh.S.P.S. Dutta were charge-sheeted. Charge memo dated 15.1.2002 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was served upon Sh.S.P.S. Dutta. Charge-sheet dated 15.1.2002 under the aforesaid rule was served upon the petitioner.2. Charge-sheet served upon the petitioner reads as under:-'ARTICLES OF CHARGE AGAINST SH.R.K. SHARMA, THE THEN S.P. CBI ACB, JAMMU. NOW POSTED AS SP HEADQUARTER, NEW DELHI.ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.1That the said Sh.R.K. Sharma while functioning as Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Jammu during the year 1998-99 committed gross misconduct in as much as he made unwarranted discriminatio...

EdwIn Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT621; 2005(81)DRJ49; 2006(1)SLJ477(Delhi)

Gita Mittal, J .1. The petitioner seeks computation of his formal service rendered with the G.R.E.F. of the Border Roads Organisation as Vehicle Mechanic with effect from 6th September, 1962 on contract basis till his discharge with effect from 6th September, 1965 to the service rendered by him upon his regular appointment with the organisation with effect from 23rd March, 1966 till superannuation on 30th November, 1993 for the purposes of award of his pensionary benefits. The respondents have rejected the request made by the petitioner for such computation, placing reliance on extent rules.2. The petitioner was admittedly appointed in the Boarder Roads Organisation initially on contract basis for a period of three years with effect from 6th September, 1962. On completion of the contracted period, he was discharged from the service pursuant to the Discharge Certificate issued on 4th September, 1965 with effect from 6th September, 1965.3. Having regard to the experience gained by the pe...

Dharam Singh and Another Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Through this complaint filed under Section 12 read with Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant has sought direction to the respondent Insurance Company to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% towards the sum assured under the policy in respect of a truck which was allegedly hijacked along with its driver besides compensation of Rs. 2,41,167/- on account of loss of income at Rs. 5,000/- per month and the cost of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. Put briefly the facts leading to this complaint are as under: Complainant No. 1 purchased a truck No. DIL 2223 in August, 1986 with the financial assistance of complainant No. 2. Complainant No. 2 obtained commercial vehicle motor policy in respect of aforesaid truck for the period from 29.8.1990 to 28.8.1991 and sum assured under the policy was Rs. 2,50,000/-. The policy was subject to hire purchase endorsement in favour of complainant No. 2. On 17.5.1991 the truck was given to Sh. Jasbir Singh as its ...