Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Mohd. Khan Nasir Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(85)DRJ618

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These are three testamentary cases bearing No. TEST Case No. 29/1980, TEST Case No. 48/1995 and TEST Case No. 94/1985. These petitions were filed for grant of letters of Administration to the petitioner in respect of the Estate of Late Shri N. Ramakrishnan, S/O Late Shri Narayan. Late Shri N. Ramakrishnan died intestate on 21.11.1978 at H-39, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. He died leaving behind the properties specified in the Annexures to the petitions. The petitioner has also moved an affidavit by way of evidence in the petitions. In these cases, the petitioner is the same as well as the respondents. Respondent No. 2 is the sister of the petitioner and she has not objected to the grant of letters of Administration in favor of the petitioner. One Mrs. Shymala Jayaraman (Respondent No. 3) had initially objected to the grant of letters of Administration to the petitioner. However, it is indicated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Prem Khanna

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT249; 2005(85)DRJ379

R.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short 'FERA') read with Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short 'FEMA') is directed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange dated 19.5.2003 thereby dismissing a revision petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of Special Director of Enforcement (Adjudicating Authority) dated 27.3.2001 by which the Adjudicating Authority exonerated the respondent/noticee Prem Khanna of the charges under Section 8(1) of FERA and dropped the charges/proceedings against him.2. Briefly, the relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that a show-cause notice No.T-4/60-B/SDE/PKA/99 dated 17th June, 1999 was issued to the respondent-Prem Khanna with the allegations that during the period 1993-1995 he had unlawfully acquired Sterling Ponds 4,22,515.00 in India in violation of Section 8(1) of FERA read with Rule 4 of Non-resident (External...

State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Ashok Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT296; 2006(86)DRJ442

Manju Goel, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 7th August, 1982. The present appeal was preferred in the year 1983 but has remained pending so far have been taken up for disposal as part of a concerted effort to take up old matters.2. The respondent-Ashok Kumar was accused of the offence of murder of one Neeraj. As per the prosecution case, Neeraj who had lent money to the respondent had demanded his money back which caused a quarrel and during this quarrel respondent took out a knife from right side pocket of his pant and gave a blow on the left thigh/abdomen of Neeraj. The spot was Mata Wali Gali near Katra Khushal Rai in Chandni Chowk. The time was about 8.00 pm. The prosecution named two other persons, namely Chhotey and Ravinder who were attributed roles of securing victim when the knife blow was given by the respondent. All the three accused were acquitted by the impugned judgment. On the appeal being preferred b...

J.L. Gugnani Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT683; 2006(86)DRJ546

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 20th September, 2005.2. We have perused the said judgment and heard learned counsel.3. The appellant who is a tenant challenges the revision of house tax.4. In our opinion a tenant has no locus standi in challenging the fixation or revision of house tax. It is only the owner of the property who has locus standi in the matter.5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the house tax is increased then the tenant may go outside the statutory limit laid down under the Delhi Rent Control Act. That may be so but in our opinion that is no ground to confer any locus standi on a tenant to challenge fixation or revision of house tax.6. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Section 73 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 which states:Preparation of new assessment list-It shall be in the discretion of the Chairperson to prepare for the whole or any part of New Delhi, ...

Shri H.P.S. Chawla Vs. Mcd

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ787

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Late Raj Chawla Sahni was the sister of the petitioner Shri H.P.S. Chawla. Second respondent Dr. N.P.S. Chawla is the other brother of Late Raj Chawla Sahni. The two brothers are in dispute arising out of a will dated 13.5.1984, admittedly the last testament executed by Raj Chawla Sahni who died on 5.6.1984.2. As would be unfolded hereinafter a small typographical error, but at a place where it found itself, has rendered it a little difficult to understand as to who was intended to be the beneficiary under the will.3. Admittedly, between the petitioner and the second respondent petitioner is neither a doctor nor has a Ph.D. doctorate in his favor. Admittedly, N.P.S. Chawla is a doctor. Unfortunately, while transcribing the will following was transcribed:-Dr. H.P.S. Chawla residing at C-2/47 Safdarjung Development Area, (Hauzkhas Side), New Delhi, Mr. N.P.S. Chawla at present residing at 1365, York Avenue, New York, USA.4. As is evident, 'Dr.' was prefixed before...

infosys Technologies Limited Vs. Akhil Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT145

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This suit has come up for ex-parte hearing today. Defendants were served and on 22.10.2003, defendant No. 1 appeared in-person and stated that defendant No. 2 is his wife and he is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 3. He further stated that a settlement was arrived at between the parties and they would be filling application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. This application was filed by the parties. But after the filing of the application, defendants did not appear. On 17.12.2003, defendants were proceeded ex-parte and plaintiff was directed to file evidence by way of affidavit. The plaintiff has filed the same and I have heard counsel for the plaintiff.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction, infringement of trade mark, passing off, delivery up, damages etc. The averments made in the plaint are stated in the affidavit of Mr. Nithyanandan Radhakrishnan, which is filed by way of evidence and, thereforee, the averments in this affidavit can ...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Zed-com Engineers and Contractors

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. One Maruti Van bearing Registration No. DL-1C-B-4563 was purchased by the respondent in the month of February, 1996 and it was insured with the appellant for the period 5.2.1998 to 4.2.1999 for the amount of Rs. 1,70,000 on payment of requisite premium. On account of total loss of the said vehicle, the appellant company has been directed to pay Rs. 1,70,000 with 12% interest and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation vide impugned order dated 27.4.2002 passed by the District Forum. 2. The appellant company has directed this appeal mainly on the premise that the manner in which the occurrence of theft was reported with the police was such that it was not possible to investigate other than by way of detailed examination of the witnesses and other relevant material. This plea has been raised in spite of the fact that Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 1,10,000 for whicht the respoondent had sent its consent under protest. The fact remains that right of investigation...

Romi Sharma and ors. Vs. Eih Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)SLJ245(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This LPA has been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 5.7.2004 by which he has disposed of three writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos. WP(C) Nos. 4361/1997, 2736/1998 and 3115/1998 by a common judgment.2. The respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It runs a hotel known as 'The Oberoi' at Dr.Zakir Hussain Marg, New Delhi. The workmen concerned, D.S.Teja, L.K.Shandilya, Ram Charan and Rohit Sharma had been employed in the said hotel.3. The appellants were members of the Hotel Oberoi Inter Continental Employees Union. The management was recognizing the 'Hotel Oberoi New Delhi Employees Union' as the union of its workmen and had entered into a settlement with the said union. Hotel Oberoi Inter Continental Employees Union was not recognizing the said settlement as it claimed that Hotel Oberoi New Delhi Employees Union was a stooge union of the management. This resulted in unrest and the management obtained...

S.D. Siddiqui Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ504

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.10.2005 by which WP(C)17670/2005 has been dismissed. However, while dismissing the writ petition the learned single Judge has held that a writ petition is maintainable against the Delhi University Teachers Association (for short 'DUTA')2. The writ petitioner, Mr. S.D.Siddiqui was one of the three unsuccessful candidates for the post of President of the DUTA in the elections held on 31.8.2005. He prayed for a writ of certiorari for calling for the records of the DUTA elections and for quashing of the election result in respect of the post of President.3. In our opinion, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the short ground that no writ petition lies against the DUTA as it is a private body and not 'State' under and is not performing any public functions.4. As stated in para 3 of the writ petition the DUTA is an association of teachers working ...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Cce [Alongwith Appeal No.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT301TriDel

1. This group of appeals is required to be heard afresh by this Tribunal in view of the remand order made by the constitution bench of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court the following terms : "In all these matters the various Benches of the Tribunal have followed the order dated 12th February, 1999 passed by the New Delhi Bench in the case of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh and Ors. (107) ELT 337), which we have just set aside. There has been no determination of the facts involved. It, therefore, becomes necessary to set aside all these orders of the Tribunal and remand the civil appeal to the Tribunal for being heard and decided afresh. They shall be decided afresh having due regard to what we have stated in our orders in civil appeal N. 5373 of 999 and connected matters. All contentions may be raised before the Tribunal by either party including that the goods are not structurals. Liberty is given to both sides to produce additional evidenc...