Delhi Court September 2004 Judgments

Ex. Capt. Rameshwar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT765; 2004(76)DRJ448

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. As the facts and the legal issues arising for consideration in both the aforesaid writ petitions are similar, we had taken up both the writ petitions for hearing and by this common judgment and order we are disposing of both the writ petitions. 2. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for a direction to the respondents to grant pension to the petitioners at a higher rate than what is fixed by the respondents.3. The prayer of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2052/94 is that there should be a direction to the respondents to the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner of the rank of the captain w.e.f 1st April, 1969. In W.P.(C) 1482/94, the prayer of the petitioner is to issue a direction to the respondents to pay pension and arrears to the petitioner in the revised rate of pension as applicable to the last rank, which is Honorary Captain, held by the petitioner4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 2052/1994 was enrolled in the Air Force as comb...

Sai Electrical Power Supply Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Electricity Regulatory ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT78; 2004(77)DRJ30

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Common questions of law arise for consideration in these two writ petitions which shall stand disposed of by this common order. 2.In W.P.(C) No. 11700/2004, the petitioner company calls in question a communication issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi informing the Government of India that the former has decided not to notify any area in Delhi as a rural area for purposes of Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. A mandamus directing respondent Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission to issue a license for retail distribution of electricity and to allow the petitioner to distribute electricity in Madanpur Khadar Extn. of adarpur constituency, New Delhi has also been prayed for. 3. W.P.(C) No. 10383/2004 has, on the other hand, been filed by a partnership concern for a somewhat similar relief. The petitioner in that petition has prayed for a direction against the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission to issue a license in its favor for retail distribution of ele...

Paul Mohinder Gahun Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT823; 2004(76)DRJ688

T.S. Thakur, J.1. That a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable even in cases where the parents are fighting for the custody of their off-spring is no longer rest integra. In Gohar Begum v. Suggi @ Nazma Begum and Ors. : 1960CriLJ164 , the Apex Court traced the history of habeas corpus as prevalent in England and held that the principles applicable to such writs in England were also applicable to directions issued under Section 491 of the Cr.P.C. in this country. The court further observed that the power under Section 491 of the Cr.P.C. had been exercised in this country even in relation to the custody of the children, and approved the ratio of the decisions in Rama Iyer v. Nataraja Iyer AIR 1948 Mad 294, Zara Bibi v. Abdul Razzak 12 Bom LR 89 and Subbaswami Goundan v. Kamakshi Ammal AIR 1929 Mad 834 where the courts had exercised such power. More importantly the court held that the remedy available under Section 491 of the Cr.P.C. would become infructuous if it was not a...

Anshuman Sharma Vs. Manika Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT47; 2004(77)DRJ70

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Custody of children often becomes the proverbial bone of contention between spouses when temperamental incompatibility or irreconcilable differences, have irretrievably wrecked, domestic peace and harmony forcing them to part company. The present is in that sense no different from other cases where the couple has gone through considerable stress and trauma before they realised that the marriage had broken down for good and all that they had to crave and fight over was peace for themselves and custody o their only child. A decree of divorce by mutual consent and a document that ostensibly settled the issue regarding the custody of the minor daughter born out of the wedlock did not, unfortunately for the parties, bring either peace to them or give qui tus to the proceedings in the court. The present contempt petition filed close on the heels of an earlier one is in that backdrop only an upshot of the proceedings that concluded with an order of this Court passed on 1st N...

Baljeet Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT694

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the Court of Shri Digvinay Singh, MM, New Delhi in case FIR No. 835/2002 dated 24.9.2002 under Sections 409/420/468/471/477A/120B, IPC, PS Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, ordering further investigation under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. and directing the police to file the charge-sheet in appropriate Court after obtaining sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Relevant portion of the order reads as under:'In my considered view, this matter be sent back for further investigation under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. to DCP, Crime Branch. DCP, Crime Branch is directed to conduct further investigation as per above direction passed and file a charge-sheet in the appropriate Court after sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act.'2. Learned Counsel for petitioner argues that while directing further investigation, the learned Trial Court could not have directed Investigating Agency to file fresh charge-shee...

Binani Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC246; 114(2004)DLT637

Gita Mittal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Binani Metals Works Ltd., defendant in Suit No. 77/1979 filed by the Union of India against it for the recovery of Rs. 49,500/-. The appellant and respondent are hereinafter described as defendant & plaintiff respectively for the purposes of convenience. The suit was filed by the Union of India, respondent herein against M/s. Binani Metals Ltd., appellant herein. It was contended that the Government had required zinc based alloy ingots for die casting conforming to 'BSS/1004/ Alloy 'A' or I.S. 713/1966/Alloy-I sizes as per drawing attached' and it issued a notice inviting tender by advertisement. The plaintiff had contended that the defendant M/s. Binani Metal Works Ltd. had submitted its tender dated 17th January, 1969 followed by letter dated 6th February, 1969. The defendant's tender being lowest was accepted by advance acceptance of letter dated 17th February, 1969 followed by formal acceptance letter dated 29th February, 1969. T...

Riti Aggarwal Vs. National Board of Exam

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(82)DRJ415

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. Heard.2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to recheck and re-evaluate the answer-sheet of the petitioner in the Diplomate of National Board conducted by the respondent in June, 2004.3. The Supreme Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors., : AIR2004SC4116 observed as under:-'...In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.'4. Counsel for the petitioner concedes that there is provision for re-evaluation/re-checking of the answer sheets.5. In light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, I do not find any merit in the present petition.Dismissed in limini....

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.S.R. Khemchand

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.12.2002 passed by District Forum-II whereby it was directed to shell out a sum of Rs. 2,46,470/- with 10% interest w.e.f. 1.7.1997 on the strength of mediclaim policy which was according to the respondent taken on 8.11.1996 by way of only issue of receipt of the premium. On 9.11.1996 i.e., the next day itself the respondent got admitted in the hospital for the ailment of diabetes and remained there till 2.2.1997. 2. Admittedly, the respondent was holding a Mediclaim policy in Rs. 85,000/- that subsisted till 8.11.1996. According to the respondent this amount was enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- w.e.f. 8.11.1996 covering all the diseases including diabetes which was not included in the earlier policy and enhanced premium of Rs. 4,867/- was paid on 9.11.1996 and on the same day respondent was admitted in the hospital for treatment of diabetes and remained there almost for two months. On the enhanced premium ...

V.P. Sharma Vs. Sikander Lal and Co. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant is a retired Government officer; he was about 70 years in the year 1993 when the instant complaint was filed. The O.Ps. are the share brokers in Delhi Stock Exchange. However, at the time of filing of this complaint O.P. No. 1 which was a partnership firm was dissolved and its partners started their business independently. The complainant had been availing services of O.P. No. 1 for purchase and sale of shares. He handed over as many as 700 shares of different companies on different dates as per following details:S. No.DateParticularsAmounts1.31.8.1990200 shares of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. Bearing distinctive No. 133766506 to 133766555, 138152582 to 138152681 and 96289331 to 96289380Rs. 60,0002.19.9.1990200 shares of M/s. Escorts Ltd. bearing distinctive No. 21397373-422; 8574648-697; 5524561-610; 1532154-163; 3172841-860; 1906974-988 and 1302673-682Rs. 30,0003.31.8.1990300 shares of M/s. Modi Olivetti Ltd. bearing distinctive Nos. 693601-700...

Hindustan Adhesives Ltd., Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC615

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 28.5.2003 vide which duty of Rs. 3,04,800 with equal amount of penalty against the company appellant No. 1 and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 against its finance controller appellant No. 2 and of Rs. 50,000 against its excise officer appellant No. 3, have been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. On merits, the validity of the impugned order has not been challenged. The company-appellant No. 1 has reversed the credit of entire duty amount and paid even interest thereon. The learned counsel has only prayed for setting aside of penalty on all the appellants on the ground that the company was under the The other appellants are : 2. Praveen Kumar Agarwal; 3. Suresh Kumar Sharma.bona fide belief that credit was available to them on the imported inputs, even if the duty was paid by them from their DEPB and that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has only recently taken the view that in such a situation t...