Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Jaipur Golden Transport Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT393; 2005(84)DRJ337

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Prayer made is to quash office order dated 24.1.1983/19.2.1983 and to issue a declaration that the respondents has no power to impose license fee on storage of goods in transit by the petitioner. Prohibition is sought to restrain the respondents from prosecutingthe petitioner before the Municipal Magistrate for storing goods in transit without obtaining a municipal license.2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of transportation of goods on inter-state routes. It maintains a godown at Kishan Garh. Inspector of the MCD filed a challan against the petitioner for storing goods at Kishan Garh without having a municipal trade license.3. According to the petitioner, the office order dated 24.1.1983/19.2.1983 was preceded with an office order dated 3.10.1977. The same was quashed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.5.1980 in CW No. 1100/1979. Petitioner states that the circular dated 24.1.1983/19.2.1983 revised the license fee in modification of the earlie...

Sh. Daya Arora and ors. Vs. Sh. Kapur Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006ACJ2820; 2005(84)DRJ425

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. On 21.12.1985 at about 7.40 P.M., deceased Dinesh Arora was traveling in his car No. DBT-70. He was accompanied by his mother Daya Arora, appellant No. 1 and his wife Renu Arora, appellant No. 2. When the car reached the flyover at Lawrence Road, bus No. DLP-6277, driven rashly and negligently first hit a scooter No. DEH 4461 and thereafter the car. Dinesh died at the spot. His wife and mother were injured.2. In the present appeal I am only concerned with the claim for compensation made by the appellants who are the parents and wife of the deceased for enhancement and thereforee would be taking note of such facts as are relevant for determining the compensation to be paid to them.3. Needless to state, claim petition filed by the appellants for compensation consequent to the death of Dinesh Kumar before the learned MACT resulted in findings in their favor that the offending bus was driven rashly and negligently and also that appellants were entitled to a reasona...

Hewa Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi34; 123(2005)DLT479; 2005(84)DRJ444

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 19.7.2002, following order was passed determining the perpetual lease deed executed by DDA in favor of the petitioner :'15(24 MCIE) 73/LandB(1)/1283 Dated : 19.7.02From :Dy.Director (Indl)M/s Hewa Private Limited,14-A/18, WEA,Pusa Road, New Delhi.Sub: Cancellation of sub lease deed in r/o PlotNo.A-36, Mohan Co-op. Indl. Estate.Sir,WHEREAS by virtue of sub-lease deed dared 10.1.1973 executed between you and the President of India, you were the sub-lessee of the above mentioned plot.AND WHEREAS by virtue of Clause 6(a) and (b) the sub lease was not to sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with possession of the whole or part of the industrial plot in any form or manner, benami or otherwise to a person who is not a member of thelessee.AND WHEREAS by virtue of Clause 11(13) sub-lessee shall not without the sanction or permission in writing of the proper municipal or other authority erect any building or make any alteration or addition to such building on the i...

Sh. Sudershan Kumar Seth Vs. Sh. Pawan Kumar Seth and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT305

Anil Kumar, J. 1. The defendant No. 1/applicant in a suit for partition filed by his brother against him and his sisters, without filing the written statement, filed the application under 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint.2. The defendant/applicant has sought rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has paid a fixed court fees of Rs. 20.00 only though the case of the plaintiff is that he is not in possession of the properties to be partitioned and he is claiming possession as a co-owner and thus in view of settled proposition of law, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad-valorum court fees on his alleged 1/6th share in the properties. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdictionat Rupees Four crores. It is prayed by the defendant No. 1 that if the plaintiff fails to pay court fees on his 1/6th share the plaint be rejected.3. The opposition to the application of the defendant by the p...

Poonam Rani Singh Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Order of Learned CIT(A) in Appeal No. 16/2001-02 dated 17.05.2001 for the assessment year 1994-95. The assessee has taken the following grounds in this appeal: 1. Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in upholding addition worth Rs. 126000/- on account of loan from Digvijay Singh. 2. Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in upholding addition worth Rs. 467600/- on account of loan from Late Sh. I.B. Singh. 3. Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in estimating drawing at Rs. 50000/- on adhoc basis.2. During the course of hearing, vide application-dated 17.01.2005, the assessee made a prayer for admission of the following additional grounds: "That the initiation of proceedings Under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was wholly without justification, as there was no material for the reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment." 3. After hating the parties, the bench admitted this ground vide order-dated 24.05.2005.4. The argumen...

Poonam Rani Singh Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)97ITD390(Delhi)

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT (A) in Appeal No. 16/2001-02 dated 17-5-2001 for the assessment year 1994-95. The assessee has taken the following grounds in this appeal: 1. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding addition worth Rs. 1,26,000 on account of loan from Digvijay Singh.2. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding addition worth Rs. 4,67,600 on account of loan from Late Sh. I.B. Singh.3. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in estimating drawing at Rs. 50,000 on ad hoc basis.During the course of hearing, vide application dated 17-1-2005, the assessee made a prayer for admission of the following additional grounds: "That the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act was wholly without justification, as there was no material for the reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment." After hearing the parties, the bench admitted this ground vide order dated 24-5-2005.The arguments of ...

Shri Rajiv Seth Vs. Shri Daya Kishan Mehra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ75

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and partition in respect of estate of late Seth Muni Lal Mehra. The declaration is sought in respect of the Will dated 23.3.1993 which, according to the plaintiff, is a forged one. The plaintiff claims share to the extent of 1/24 in the estate. The plaintiff has also claimed the relief of rendition of accounts against defendants No.1 to 5.2. It is necessary to set out the relationship of the parties. The plaintiff is the son of Shri Raj Kishore Seth. Shri Raj Kishore Seth was married to Late Smt. Saroj Seth who is the daughter of late Seth Muni Lal Mehra. Defendants No.1 to 4 are the sons of late Seth Muni Lal Mehra. One of the sons of late Seth Muni Lal Mehra pre-deceased him and thus the second line has been imp leaded as defendants. The brothers and sisters of the plaintiff have also been arrayed as defendants.3. In the plaint, it is stated that the properties mentioned in para 2 of the plaint are the self-acqui...

Usha International Limited Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)ACC27; 2007ACJ2714; AIR2005Delhi424; 123(2005)DLT466; 2005(84)DRJ6

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The short question of ubiquitous importance which arises in this Writ Petition is whether a theft committed consequent to damage to a godown occasioned by a cyclone is covered by the Fire `C' Policy and/or the Burglary and House Breaking Insurance Policy. The Insurance Company has refused to make payment on the grounds that the theft was a sequel to the cyclone that had caused catastrophe in Orissa and its environs. The Insurance Company has refused to acknowledge its liability on the specious reason that the theft was not preceded by a forcible and violent entry to the godown/warehouse.Uncontroversial PLEADINGS2. Repeated opportunities have been granted to the Respondents for filing their Counter Affidavit but have not been availed of. Counsel for the Respondents now states that a Counter Affidavit is not to be filed. Opportunity for this purpose is closed. The effect is that asseverations made in the writ petition must be assumed to have been admitted and theref...

Ms. Archana Mathur Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT500

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 24.2.2005 inspection was carried out at the premises of the petitioner bearing Flat No. 12-C, Pocket A-12, MIG Flats, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. As per the report of inspection, as against the sanctioned load of 3.32 KW, connected load of 12.641 KW was found. It was further found that the meter was tampered with. On 24.2.2005 itself, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner requiring her to show cause as to why bill as per tariff applicable pertaining to DAE be not raised. Petitioner responded to the show cause notice on 3.3.2005. She was heard. defense was rejected. Pursuant thereto, a bill was raised upon the petitioner on 28.3.2005.2. Order dated 7.3.2005, which has been impugned by the petitioner, reads as under :'During inspection conducted on 24.2.2005 connected load of 12.641 KW, against the sanctioned load of 3.32 KW, under domestic category, was detected. Poly-carbonate single phase meter body found re-fixed with adhesive and scratches w...

Ansar Ahmed Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT563

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These ten bail applications were heard together as they raise common question. I shall deal with the common issues first and then with the individual bail applications. To consider the common issues I have taken a hypothetical case, which, it will become clear from what is stated below, bears a striking resemblance with the facts of each case: A1. An alleged recovery of a suspected narcotic drug is made from the person of an accused. It is a brown coloured powder in a polythene bag. The field kit reveals that it is heroin (diacetylmorphine). It is weighed on an electronic scale and found to be 500 gms in weight. Two samples of 5 gms each are taken and placed in separate envelopes marked A and B. These samples are sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for Chemical analysis1. Gas chromatography tests2 conducted at the laboratory reveal that the brown coloured powder tests positive for diacetylmorphine. But, it comprises only of 0.2 percent diacetylmorphine. The...