Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Man Singh S/O Sh. Dunser Singh and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. 20 applicants working as skilled employees, under Respondent No. 2 in this OA seek extending benefit of judgments in series of cases by directing respondents to grant revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 from the dates of their appointment with all consequential benefits including arrears of difference of pay & allowances. It is contended that they made representations through proper channel in the month of October, 2004, seeking extension of judgments of this Tribunal, which remained undecided. When they approached Respondents orally, they were informed that only applicants in those cases were entitled to benefit of the pay scale and since they were not impleaded therein, they will not be entitled to any benefit of the judgments.2. Respondents contested the claim laid stating that in compliance of orders passed by this Tribunal, they had already issued various orders, viz. PTO No. 03 dated 16.1.2006, PTO No. 28 dated 10.7.2006, PTO No. 22 dated 22.5.2006 and PTO No. 8 dated 20.2....

Kirti JaIn @ Shalu JaIn and anr. Vs. Sh. J.P. Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)DMC197

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 married one Pankaj Jain, son of the respondent herein, on 18.4.1999. This marriage could not succeed. As per the allegations of the petitioner No. 1, there were demands of dowry by her husband Pankaj Jain and his family who committed several acts of cruelty and harassment to her and she was ultimately turned out of the matrimonial home by Pankaj Jain and the respondent herein. She lodged complaint with Crime Against Women Cell (CAW Cell) against Pankaj Jain and his family members including the respondent. Due to intervention of relatives and friends, settlement was arrived at and was also reduced in writing. Pursuant to the said settlement, various proceedings between the parties were withdrawn. However, it seems that the peace and truce between them is still alluding. After withdrawal of the various cases, the respondent has instituted fresh proceedings. He has filed a suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 3,05,000/- against the petitio...

Krishan Bahadur Girl S/O Shri Budhi Ram Girl Vs. the State of Nct of D ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ800

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 14th November, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.66/2001. The Appellant was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) read with Section 34 thereof for having committed the murder of Thumb Bahadur. The Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine.2. This case highlights the need to reiterate the cardinal principle of our criminal jurisprudence, which is that a person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty by a competent and impartial tribunal - a person accused of an offence does not have to prove his innocence. This principle is internationally recognized as well. In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which India is a signatory) it is stated in Article 14(2) that:Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until pr...

Shri Ashwani Kumar Julka Vs. Lt. Col. Parthojit Choudhary (Retd.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1129; 136(2007)DLT241; 2009(93)DRJ185

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The respondent herein is the complainant, who has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the 'NI Act') against M/s. Niket Enterprises (accused No. 1), a sole proprietorship concern of Sh. Ashwini Kumar Julka, who has also been imp leaded as accused No. 2. This complaint is filed through Lt. Col. K.B. Sharma (Retd.) as the legally constituted special attorney (hereinafter referred to as the 'Attorney'). It is alleged in the complaint that the attorney and the complainant are friends for over 20 years. The attorney is a freelance export/import consultant and came into contact with the accused person in the course of business. The accused was badly in need of money to honour his personal business orders and requested the attorney for loan. On the recommendation of the attorney the complainant advanced Rs. 3,00,000/- as loan to the accused by means of two bank drafts of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- dated 4.5.1996 and 3.6.1996 re...

Satnam Kaur and ors. (Smt.) Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)DMC241

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This is a joint petition filed by the complainant as well as accused persons for quashing of proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 281/2004 under Sections 498A/323/354/328/376/34, IPC registered at Police Station Kanjhawala, New Delhi. The petitioner No. 1 is the complainant, petitioner No. 2 is her husband, petitioner No. 3 is father in law, petitioner No. 4 is mother in law and petitioner No. 5 is brother in law of the petitioner No. 1. The marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 was solemnized on 1.11.2004 as per Hindu (Sikh) rights and customs at Delhi.2. The FIR is lodged on 3.11.2004 (two days after the marriage) and is based on alleged occurrence which took place on 2.11.2004. It is clear that as per the allegations in the FIR, on the very next date after the marriage, the alleged occurrence took place which forced the petitioner No. 1 to lodge the complaint. It would, thereforee, be appropriate to reproduce here the relevant portion of the s...

Ajay S/O Shri Hazara Mandal Vs. the State Through Standing Counsel (Cr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ938; 2009(93)DRJ704

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. These are two appeals both of which are directed against the judgment and order dated 29th June, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 59/1999. Both the Appellants were convicted of an offence of kidnapping a girl for ransom under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) read with Section 34 thereof and Section 365, that is, kidnapping or abducting a minor with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine such minor read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. On the evening of 21st February, 1999, Richa, a girl who was then aged about 5 years, was playing along with some children in a vacant plot behind her father's house. Later in the evening, some children told Richa's father Santosh Aggarwal, PW-1 that his daughter had been taken away by someone. Santosh Aggarwal went to search for Richa and met a groundnut seller living in the neighborhood by the name of Manish, PW-2 and he confirmed that two boys had taken Richa away.3. On...

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]300ITR92(Delhi)

1. These three Appeals by the assessed KRIBHCO are directed against the common Order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the ITAT whereby for the Assessment Year (AY) 1993-94, the assessed's appeal (ITA 6130/1997) was dismissed and the Revenue's appeal (ITA 154/1998) was allowed in part and for the Assessment Year 1994-95, the Revenue's appeal (ITA 5354/1998) was allowed in part. Although the impugned order also allowed in part the Revenue's appeal (ITA 756/2000) for Assessment Year 1996-97, there is no appeal against that part of the impugned order.2. Briefly stated, the assessed, which is a multi state cooperative society, is the manufacturer of Urea and Ammonia at its plant at Hazira. It supplies Ammonia gas through two pipe connections from its plant at Hazira directly to the Heavy Water Plant of the Heavy Water Board (Department of Atomic Energy) which is located next to the assessed's plant. An Agreement had been executed by these two parties on 14.9.1994, a copy whereof has been filed as ...

Gita Lama Tamang Vs. State of (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ813

J.M. Malik, J.1. This order shall decide the above said two appeals. Both the appellants are Nationals of Nepal. They were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 14 years each under Sections 29 and 21 respectively of NDPS Act and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each for each of the offences separately, failing which they were to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under each Section i.e. 29 and 21 of NDPS Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that both the sentences would run concurrently and the appellants were given the benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C.2. The facts of the prosecution case are these. On the night falling between 28/29.01.2000, eleven Nepali Nationals were traveling to Bangkok by different flights at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi. They were arrested. They admitted having swallowed capsules filled with Heroin. Few capsules were recovered from them at the spot and few were recovered as a result of evacuation in R.M.L. Hospital. O...

K.C.C. Software Ltd. and ors. Vs. Director of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)560

Writ Petri. (C) 6313 to 15 of 2006 and CM 5184 of 20061. The contention of the Revenue is that as against the amounts, which are presently frozen, approximately Rs. 86 lakhs, there is an estimated tax liability of approximately Rs. 10 crores. We have also been shown the satisfaction note dt. 13th Sept. 2005 of the Addl. Director of IT (Inv.) Unit 1(1), the noting of the Addl. Director of IT (Inv.) Unit 1 dt. 3rd Oct., 2005 and that of the Director (Investigation) dt. 4th Oct., 2005. We find no ground to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Dismissed....

Ramesh Chander Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Respondent obtained a Med Safe (Health Care) policy from the appellant. During the subsistence of the policy he was admitted in Kukreja Hospital, Heart Centre (respondent No. 2) who raised a bill of Rs. 21,225. On the basis of Section 1 of the Insurance Policy, his claim was cleared to the extent of Rs. 5,250. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum. 2. While allowing the complaint the District Forum vide its order dated 1st August, 2006 directed the appellant to reimburse the amount of Rs. 15,000 out of the bill of Rs. 21,225 less Rs. 5,250 already received by the respondent and also pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and cost. 3. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation and wrong application of relevant section by the District Forum while assessing the liability of the respondent-Insurance Company, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. Relevant portion of section regarding maximum liability under this sche...