Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Shri Sureshwar Dayal Seth Vs. L and Do and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi128

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By way of the present petition, petitioner prays that the order dated 14.9.1982 (Annexure P-7), order dated 3.1.1983 (Annexure P-9) and order dated 24.9.1983 (Annexure P-11) be quashed and as a consequence respondents be restrained from re-entering property bearing No. 13, Block 48, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi.2. Backdrop of the facts leading to the filing of the petition are that vide agreement for lease (Annexure P-1) dated 22.7.1963, acting on behalf of the President of India, L&DO; executed a lease in favor of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, under which a plot of land admeasuring 306.67 square yards numbered as plot No. 13, Block 48, Shopping Centre, Diplomatic Enclave was leased in favor of the lessee. Relevant part of the lease, relating to the use of the building to be constructed on the plot reads as under :-XIV. During the period of this Agreement the said land shall be used only for the purpose expressly stated in Clause II hereof ...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. B.G. Vergheese and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT428; 2005(85)DRJ552

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal was filed by Union of India aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has restricted the height of the National Police Memorial at Chankayapuri to 30 meters instead of 45 meters. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India now submits that the appellant without prejudice to its rights and contentions and in order to seek an early resolution of the matter has decided to lower the height of the National Police Memorial as per suggestion of the Delhi Urban Art Commission contained in its affidavit dated 27th October 2005 filed before us pursuant to its meeting held on 17th October, 2005. The submission has been made on the basis of an affidavit of Mr. Devinder Gupta, Executive Engineer, Development Project Circle, CPWD.2. At the outset, we are surprised at the keen interest shown by the CPWD in this Memorial. In order to decide the matter certain facts which are discernible from the record are to ...

Sardar Prem Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR644(Delhi); 125(2005)DLT380

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner which is a proprietorship concern carrying on business of manufacture and sale of furniture and furnishings has moved this application under Section 14(2) read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for directions to respondents No.3 & 4 to file the award dated 30.10.2002 and for making the award a Rule of the Court. 2. The award has, however, been filed and now the question is of making the award a rule of the Court. The respondents no.1 & 2 have filed their objections under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in respect of the award in the form of is No.6312/2003.3. The respondent No.2 had advertised for pre-qualifications of contractors for manufacturing, supplying of furniture and other interior decorations works. The petitioner submitted its tender for the above works. His tender was accepted by respondents No.1 & 2. The petitioner also submitted three bank guarantees for an amount of Rs.9.73 lakhs. However, subsequently certa...

Vinod Kumar Dugar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT160TriDel

2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable on the ground that the appeal is filed against the order of attachment of property of defaulters for recovery of Government dues Rules 1995. The adjudication order issued in pursuance to the adjudication order was not before the Commissioner (Appeals).3. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed....

Central Secretariat Service and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ235CAT

1. Validity of Regulation 4 of the Central Secretariat Service Section Officers' Grade/Stenographers Grade 'B' (Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations) Regulations, 1964 is questioned in the present O.A., besides seeking a declaration that Grade 'C Stenographers of Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service (hereinafter referred as CSSS) are not eligible for appearing in the Central Secretariat Service Section Officers Grade (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) with all consequential benefits.2. Applicant No. 1 is an Association of directly recruited Assistant in the Central Secretariat Service, while applicant Nos. 2 to 5, members of Applicant No. 1 Association, were recruited as Assistants during the years 1990-1994. The basic grievance is that the Regulation 4 of 1964 Regulations travels beyond the 1962 Rules and the said regulation being a subordinate Regulation under the 1962 Rules, could not travel beyond the parent Rules of 1962. The Central Secretariat Service...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Associated Builders

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT411

Vijender Jain, J.1. This is an application for condensation of delay in filing the appeal of 538 days. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the case was decided on 19.7.2002. Thereafter, certified copy was prepared on 16.12.2003 and the same was delivered to the appellant on 16.12.2003. The reasons which have been stated for delay in filing the appeal are that the counsel vide his letter dated 15.12.2003 received in the office of the appellant on 18.12.2003 stated as under:-The above case was marked to me on March 22, 2002 and the file was delivered at my office on or about May 1,2002. On the cover of the file the suit number was marked in such a manner that one could normally read it as 951-A/2000'2. Thereafter the file was sent to the Legal Department of the appellant for its opinion in filing the appeal. The Legal Department decided to file the appeal and sent the file to the concerned department on 30.12.2003. It is contended that the stakes in the appeal ...

Garden View Meadows P. Ltd. Vs. Land and Development Officer and a

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT710; 2005(85)DRJ428

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner had purchased property bearing No.48, Hanuman Road, New Delhi. He had applied for the conversion of the said property into 'freehold' in consonance with the prevailing Policy of the Respondent. In that connection a sum of Rs.97,02,000/- has already been paid to the L & DO as the demanded Conversion Charges.2. It appears that the erstwhile Tenant had been misusing the property. Misuse Charges were computed by the L & DO for a sum of Rs.38,92,994/-. That Demand had been challenged in CWP No.796/1995 and the assault had been accepted in terms of the Judgment dated 30.9.1996. It had been held that the Respondents were entitled only to recovery of one per cent as a token penalty under Clause 8 of the Office Order No.23/76 dated 31.3.1976. The Respondents have filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the aforementioned Judgment dated 30.9.1996. Admittedly, a stay of the impugned Judgment has not been granted.3. Mr. Mridul, learn...

Krishna Wanti Vs. B.D. Bansal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)ACC578; 2006ACJ2866

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 28.3.2003 praying for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.2. The appellant herein is the mother of Vijay Kumar. Vijay Kumar was hit by an Ambassador car bearing registration No. DBB 4029 on 29.8.1990 at about 9.45 p.m., while riding a bicycle. He ultimately expired on 2.9.1990.3. On the question of compensation the learned Tribunal found that there is nothing on record to prove and show that the deceased was earning between Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 4,000 per month as claimed. Vijay Kumar was running a kirana shop on rent and the Claims Tribunal held that it can be assumed that the deceased was earning about Rs. 1,500 per month. The learned Tribunal thereafter taking into account the age of the claimant who was 57 years old, applied multiplier of 8 and has awarded an amount of Rs. 96,000 as compensation. In addition a sum of Rs. 4,000 was al...

Ajay JaIn Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complaint of the appellant seeking compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-Bank with whom he was having Savings Bank Account inasmuch as that the concerned official of the Bank did not care to compare the signatures on the cheque presented to him nor did he care to give weight age to the cuttings and overwriting made in the cheque at different places was dismissed vide impugned order dated 3.12.1993 on the ground that cheque in question was not produced by the complainant in spite of the fact that the cheque was lying with the police authority as a case of fraud and conspiracy was registered against the Bank officials. 2. In our view this is hardly a ground to dismiss the complaint. It was the duty of the District Forum to call for the cheque in question for its satisfaction whether the cheque was rightly declined to be encashed or not. On the face of it the cheque in question has...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. United Building Store

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 30.6.2005 whereby the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to indemnify the loss of Rs. 1,50,000 by way of theft of the articles/materials placed inside the store/shop of the respondent against insurance policy along with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs. 5,000 towards compensation for the undue harassment and mental agony suffered by the respondent and Rs. 1,000 towards cost of litigation, the appellant has directed this appeal. 2. Relevant facts, in brief, for our purpose are that the respondent obtained an insurance policy from the appellant against theft of articles/materials placed inside the store against payment of premium for the period from 23.2.2001 to 20.2.2002. On July 24, 2002 a burglary/theft was committed at the shop of the respondent in respect of which an FIR was lodged and a case under Section 380, IPC was registered. The respondent submitted claim of Rs. 1,50,000 but it was refused simply on t...