Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ugc Class-i Officers Association and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ783

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 15-10-1999 by which he has allowed the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge has issued a writ of mandamus to the University Grants Commission(UGC) to implement its decision dated 12-12-1995. The learned single Judge has further observed that the approval of the Union of India is not necessary for this purpose, and the Union of India shall render all assistance to the UGC for implementation of the decision taken by the UGC on 12.-12-1995. 4. The respondent (petitioner) is an association of class I officers of the UGC. The UGC was constituted under UGC Act 1956 with a view to provide for coordination and determination of standards in the universities in India. 5. Section 20 of the UGC Act states: (1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Commission shall be gu...

Ms Susanne Lenatz and anr. Vs. International Hotels Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT498; 2005(85)DRJ521

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.IA. No. 9131/2003 in CS(OS) 2593/19991. This is an application filed by defendants 4 and 5 seeking the dismissal of the suit insofar as plaintiff No. 1 is concerned. The reason for seeking such dismissal is that the plaint was apparently signed and verified on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 by one Mr Sampath Kumar who, according to defendants 4 and 5, was not authorised to institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1.2. The application is filed under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which requires that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader, if any. The proviso to the said Rule indicates that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. The learned counsel for the defendants 4 and 5 submitted that it is an admitted position that the plaintiff No. 1 h...

Sanjeev Verma Vs. Distt. and Session Judge and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ221

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.9.2005 by which he dismissed the writ petition.2. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records. The appellant was working as a LDC (Ahlmad) in the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Parliament Street, New Delhi. On 15.3.2004 a raid was conducted in the Court by the Registrar (Vigilance) & Joint Registrar (Vigilance) of the Delhi High Court, and it was found that one outsider Sunil Verma was found there impersonating himself as Ahlmad of the Court. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged, copy of which is annexed as 'P1' in the writ petition.3. After registration of the FIR the District and Session Judge, Delhi initiated a departmental inquiry and issued a memorandum dated 22.3.2005 to the appellant and appointed Respondent No. 2 as inquiry officer.4. The allegation against the appellant was that while he was Ahlmad in the Court of Special Metro...

Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. Shree Assuramji Scooters

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT504; 2006(86)DRJ113; 2006(32)PTC117(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction for infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages, etc. against the defendant. The plaintiff is a limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a Joint Venture incorporated on 19.01.1984 whereby 26% of the equity is held by the Indian Group being the Hero Group and 26% by the Honda Motors Company of Japan, while the remaining equity is stated to be widely spread. The plaintiff is involved in the business of manufacture and sale of motorcycles under the trademark HERO HONDA since 09.04.1985. It is stated that apart from the said business, the plaintiff is also engaged in the manufacture of sale of readymade garments, hosiery, gloves, etc.2. The Joint Venture Group is stated to be mainly dealing with the manufacture of cycle and cycle parts and the Japanese Joint Venture partner, Honda Motor Co. Ltd. is an internationally ren...

Union of India (Uoi), Thru. Deputy Chief Engineer (Ts), Northern Railw ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR83(Delhi); 2006(86)DRJ486

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the award of the arbitrator who was the Executive Director, Civil Engineering (General) Railway Board. The Arbitrator in terms of the agreement between the parties was appointed by the appellant and was its employee.2. Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has restricted her argument only on the plea of grant of interest by the Arbitrator. The learned counsel has contended that in view of the Standard Conditions of Contract, particularly, conditions No. 2401 and 2403, the arbitrator did not have the jurisdiction to award any interest. As the basic dispute involves interpretation of Clauses 2401 and 2403 of the Standard Conditions of the Contract, the same are reproduced below:2401. 'Whenever any claim or claims for payment of a sum of money arises out of or under the contract against the contractor, the purchaser shall be entitled to withhold and a...

Sanyukt Nirmata Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR509(Delhi); 125(2005)DLT550; 2006(86)DRJ120

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was awarded the contract by the respondent for construction of MIG Houses in various sectors in Rohini in pursuance to Agreement No. 2/RPD-VI/A/84-85/DDA. Disputes arose between the parties and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause No. 25 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. The Engineer-Member, DDA in terms of the letter dated 04.01.1990 appointed Shri A. Shankaran, Additional Director General (Works), CPWD (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator, who entered upon reference and made and published the Award dated 28.11.1990. The petitioner filed the present suit under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') for directions to respondent No. 2 Arbitrator to file the Award in Court and for making the said Award Rule of the Court. The respondent/DDA filed objections vide IAs No. 9003/1991 under Sections 30 and 33 of the said Act.2. Learned counsel for the respondent/DDA fairly...

Alkarma Vs. Commissioiner of Central Excise and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT629; 2008(222)ELT493(Del)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Issue Rule.2. Ms. Jyoti Singh appears for the respondents and agrees to the final disposal of this writ petition at this stage itself.3. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminum doors and window frames, curtain walls, claddings, structural glazing and composite claddings, which, according to the respondents, falls under Chapter 76 and Chapter 70 of the 1st Schedule of the Central Excise Tarrif Act, 1985. On receipt of a certain report alleging clandestine manufacture and removal of the aforesaid excisable good from the office-cum-factory premises of the petitioner, the Anti-Evasion Branch of the Central Excise Commissioner, Delhi appears to have conducted a search. A scrutiny of the records recovered from the said premises pertaining to various contracts undertaken by the petitioner, reveals that the petitioner was manufacturing and clearing the goods in excess of the value on which central excise duty was paid from the year 1997-98 onwards. Statement ...

Shri Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ550

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 21.4.2004 in a bunch of writ petitions involving common question of law and fact. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions and hence this appeal. 4. The prayer in the writ petition was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the MCD) to absorb the petitioners in the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the office of the respondent and for a direction that the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale of LDC from the date they were posted as Toll Tax Collector (TTC) in the Toll Tax Department (TTD) by the MCD on diverted capacity basis on the principle of equal pay for equal work and for arrears of pay. 5. The writ petitioners were employees of the MCD holding Class IV posts in different depar...

Bses Yamuna Power Limited Vs. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On inspection of the premises in respect of electricity connection K-No. 2028050 the appellant-Board found that there was a fraudulent abstraction of energy and raised a bill amounting to Rs. 97,429 and when the respondent contacted the appellant as the appellant made the inspection in his absence he was asked to deposit half of the demand raised by the appellant failing which the electricity connection was liable to be disconnected. 2. While allowing the complaint of the respondent by holding the appellant guilty for deficiency in service and wrongful disconnection of the electricity connection the District Forum vide impugned order dated 10th March, 2004 has given the following directions: (i) The O.P. will withdraw the FAE bill and will instead issue a fresh bill from the date of burning of the meter on an average of three previous bills and will adjust excess amount paid, if any, by the complainant in the future bills of the complainant or refund the same...

K.E. Moses (Dr.) vs. M.T.N.L.

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 having been supplied the defective telephone instrument which every time it was used it went out of order causing immense inconvenience and hardship was rejected vide impugned order dated 6th November, 2001 on the ground that whenever complaints were made these were attended to and the defects were rectified by the respondent and as such allegation of deficiency in service by the respondent is not justified. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has directed this appeal. 3. The case of the appellant before the District Forum, in brief, was that his telephone instrument became faulty in December 1997 for which he lodged complaint with O.P. on 6.12.1997 and it was replaced on 9.12.1997. On 7.2.1998 his telephone became dead for which he reminded O.P. daily and on 3.3.1998 another Complaint No. 522 was lodged and his telephone was replaced on 7.3.1998, after one ...