Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Sh. Rajesh Chaudhary Vs. Nirmala Chaudhary

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT311; II(2005)DMC814; 2006(86)DRJ61

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition challenges the order dated 9th September, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of CPC for seeking permission to ascertain the paternity of the female child of the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife. Very important questions affecting matrimony and the limits of the rights of a spouse (husband) to demand the DNA testing of a child allegedly not fathered by him arise in this petition. Dignity of a woman and its parameters and whether or not DNA testing should be ordered merely upon the questioning of the paternity of the child also arise in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Equally important is the issue whether an estranged wife claiming maintenance for herself and the child can be denied any interim maintenance while the complex issue of DNA testing on an allegation of illegitimacy of the child awaits dete...

Mrs. Madhu Garg and anr. Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT688

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The question to be determined in these Petitions is whether the Respondents are empowered to insist upon the clearance of arrears on account of electricity supplied to premises which have come to be occupied and/or owned by a different consumer.2. The conundrum before the Supreme Court Bench presided over by P.B. Sawant, S. Mohan and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ. in Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board : [1995]1SCR847 , was whether an auction-purchaser under Section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporation Act 1951 can be fastened with the liability of the erstwhile consumer of electricity to the said premises. The petitioners, apart from one, were found by the Court to be bona fide purchasers under a statutory sale. The interconnection between Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 (Electricity Act for short) and Section 26 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 (Supply Act for short) had been considered in detail. Reference to the definitions of 'consumer' ...

WIn Medicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Pharmaceuticals Works

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT651

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This suit was instituted for the infringement of copyright, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up etc. The defendant initially appeared and stated that he will file a written statement. However, subsequently by an order dated 4.5.2005 the defendant was directed to be proceeded with exparte and thereafter he has not entered appearance in this case. The plaintiff was directed to lead ex parte evidence which he has led in the form of an affidavit and has also filed documents which are exhibited as Ex P1 to P11. The suit was filed and instituted on behalf of the plaintiff by Mr. Rajiv Behl who is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff. His power of attorney being exhibited as Ex. P1.2. In September, 1990 the plaintiff started manufacture and marketing of medicinal preparations one of them being BETADINE Microbicidal Solution, consisting of a Providence-Iodine combination, and the same is currently being marketed by the plaintiff in pack siz...

Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited Vs. K.K. Nareda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC477

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs. 28,87,490.57. It is pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff had appointed the defendant as their clearing and forwarding agent vide appointment letter dated 23.12.1997, for a period of one year starting from 1.1.1998. Subsequently, vide agreement dated 4.2.1998, the rates for the service rendered by the defendants were revised. The defendant's were required to deposit a bank guarantee for Rs.5 lakhs. The plaintiff has two manufacturing units both located in Assam. The papers manufactured were sent to different sale depots throughout India through Railways. The plaintiff appoints its Clearing and Forwarding Agents at said stations for clearing, unloading, handling and transporting the stocks. Under the terms of the agreement, it was the obligation of the defendant to unload the goods from the rakes at the railway station immediately after the arrival of the rakes without any delay. In case of any damage or shortage noticed...

Hindustan Construction Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ191

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Hindustan Construction Corporation, was awarded the work of development of land within G-8 vide Agreement No. 63/EE/HDVII/81-82 by the respondent-DDA. On disputes having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred for arbitration and Shri V.R. Vaish, Retired Director General of Works, CPWD was appointed as Sole Arbitrator.2. After receiving the claims/counter-claims raised by the parties, learned Arbitrator made an Award dated 29th August, 1992 for Rs. 1,29,276 along with interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the claimant-M/s. Hindustan Construction Corporation. On award being filed, the suit was registered as CS(OS)4587/1992 whereupon DDA-respondent has filed objections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which was registered as IA No. 4168/1993 to which reply has been filed by the petitioner.3. Vide order dated 6th December, 1994 this Court had framed the following issues:1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside in view of the ob...

Steel Auto Industries Vs. National Building Construction Corporation L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR194(Delhi); II(2006)BC296; 128(2006)DLT128; 2006(87)DRJ196

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Respondent-National Building Construction Corporation (in short 'NBCC'), a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking was awarded the work of construction of bridge over river Yamuna, opposite ISBT, Delhi in the year 1985 by Public Works Department, Government of India. The stipulated date of completion of 'he bridge was 28th June, 1987. Respondent-NBCC invited tenders for supply of cast steel roller/rocker bearing (mechanical component for construction of the bridge). As per the terms and conditions of the supply order, time was the essence of the contract. Supplier was required to supply three sets of roller on or before 4th September 1986 and ten sets of roller in each succeeding month i.e., starting from September, 1986 to March, 1987. The entire supply was to be completed within seven months expiring in March, 1987. As per Clauses 5 and 7 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) which forms part of the supply order, NBCC has the authority to cancel the order for un...

State Bank of India Vs. Devender Partap Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of failure of the appellant in not maintaining proper functioning of ATM whereby the respondent was deprived of withdrawal of cash of Rs. 800 in spite of there being balance of Rs. 25,565.63p. in the Saving Bank of the respondent which was opened on 6.11.2003, the District Forum, vide impugned order dated 26.7.2005 has directed the appellant to pay Rs.4,000 as compensation and Rs.l,000 as cost of litigation. 2. The relevant facts lie in narrow compass and are as under: That the respondent was maintaining SB account No.01190055787 which war opened on 6.11.2003. As on 2.2.2005, the balance of the respondent was Rs.25,565.53p. The respondent was enjoying ATM facility on this account. The respondent went to his native place i.e. Bulandshahar. He used the ATM card thrice to withdraw Rs.800 but the respondent could not withdraw money as the machine refused to make payment on account of insufficient, fund. Later on, the ATM informed the respondent that he...

Parmod Kumar Dang Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Delhi)511

1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A)-XIII, New Delhi, dt. 18th March, 2004.2. The main issue raised by the assessee is against the action of the CIT (A) in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs. 79,07,500 treating the same as deemed dividend, within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had made substantial borrowings from M/s Dang & Co Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') in which the assessee had substantial interest within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.The assessee was asked to show cause as to why the following advances/loans received from the company, should not be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act: The assessee, vide his replies dt. 2nd and 9th Feb., 1999 raised two objections. The first objection raised by the assessee was with regard to the expre...

Airport Authority of India Vs. Protective Consultancy and Security Ser ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT157

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA 7972/1998 (Under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940)1. The objections have been filed by the petitioner to the award of Sole Arbitrator Sh. Rajendra Pal, dated 21st, August, 1997. The parties have entered into an agreement dated 01st, October, 1990 whereby the respondent was required to provide security services at the Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport managed by the petitioner. It maybe noticed that the arbitrator was Additional Chief Engineer (C) at the time when he was appointed as the arbitrator and is a technical person.2. A perusal of the award shows that there are three claims which were adjudicated by the arbitrator.3. The first claim is towards the management charges claimed by the respondent. This claim was rejected and thus there are naturally objections to the same.4. Claim No. 2 is towards the unilateral and unjustified penal deductions. The relevant clause in this behalf is clause No. 27 which is as under:The Agency shall be penalized for th...

Prem Chand Sharma and Co. Vs. Dda and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR472(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT696; 2005(85)DRJ305

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA 8388/1989 ( Under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The petitioner was awarded the contract by the respondent-DDA for construction of 168 houses of MIG category, pocket A-13, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi in pursuance to agreement no. I/HD/XXI/A/81-82. Disputes arose between the parties and in view of clause 25 of the terms and conditions of the agreement, providing for settlement of disputes by arbitration. Sh. A P Paracer was appointed sole arbitrator by the appointing authority being the engineer-member DDA vide a letter dated 22.04.1987. The counter claims were also referred for adjudication vide a letter dated 10.10.1988. The arbitrator made and published the award dated 24.06.1989. The respondent-DDA aggrieved by the same has filed the present objections. 2. It has to be kept in mind that while scrutinising the objections u/s 30 & 33 of the Act, it is not the function of this court to sit as a court of appeal against an original decree. This ...