Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Sh. Raghu Nath Pandey and anr. Vs. Sh. Bobby Bedi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ40

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Mangal Pandey, though the first martyr of freedom struggle of India of 1857, but lesser known earlier, is a household name today. It was a name known to the students of history earlier. Even history students, except those who studied freedom struggle of India in depth, may not have known in detail about his deeds except that there was a character Mangal Pandey who was in British Army and revolted against the Britishers in 1857 Mutiny. Today heroic deeds of Mangal Pandey are known to every person-be it a student of history or not; be it a highly educated person or illiterate; be it an old or a young; be it a college going student or a child studying in primary school. It is because of the movie titled 'Mangal Pandey-The Rising' produced and released in India and abroad in the month of August 2005. The impact of Bollywood films-even when they are commercial films-is well known among Indian public. The impact becomes greater and deeper when the movie cast is the icon. Gla...

Roshni Mallik Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT22; 2006(87)DRJ675

R.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ or direction on the respondents to register FIR and to take up investigation in the matter.2. The petition has been filed with the averments and allegations that on 27.3.2005 the petitioner reached the Norwegian Embassy on the afternoon of Easter where she met one Mr. Ulrich Ritter, employed as Chief Underground excavation specialist for M/s Lakmeyer International and presently posted at Wazir House No.62, Chanderkote-182144 and has developed friendly relationship with him and thereafter they remained in regular touch with each other. Mr. Ulrich Ritter even participated in her domestic functions at times. Thereafter Mr. Ulrich Ritter left for Germany and then moved to Turkey. On 19.6.2005 the petitioner went to Turkey and stayed with him where he proposed to marry her. Believing the said promise, the pe...

P.C. Sharma and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR403(Delhi); 129(2006)DLT290; 2006(88)DRJ171

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 10247/1997(under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The petitioner was awarded the Contract for construction of category 3 SFS Houses at Sarita Vihar, Sector-1 in pursuance to Agreement No. 10/EE/CPD V/84-85 by the respondents. The work was completed but there was a delay of 43 months in the completion of the work. The petitioner raised certain claims and since the same were disputed by the respondent the petitioner filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) before this Court. In the said proceedings Shri S.P. Kapil was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes in view of the existence of Clause 25 of the general terms & conditions of the Contract being the Arbitration Clause. The Arbitrator made and published his award on 20.2.1997. The respondent aggrieved by the same has filed the present objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the said Act...

Const. Manvir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ710

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner's services were terminated by the order of dismissal dated 19th August, 1996 which was the subject matter of a decision of this Court rendered in WP(C) No.3663 of 1998 which was decided on 25th September, 2002. The operative portion of the said judgment dated 25th September, 2002 reads as follows:-20. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The respondents herein are directed to re-instate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. This order, however, shall not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action in accordance with law.This writ petition is allowed with cost quantified at Rs.5,000/-.3. Since the impugned order dated 19th August, 1996 was set aside and reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits was directed, the respondents were ...

Mehtab Singh Gill Vs. Punjab State Coop. Fruit Dev. Corp.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT47

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 288/2004 is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No.1/2001 whereby the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 28.02.2004 has reversed on appeal the order dated 30.10.1999 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh.2. Nobody appears for the respondent. Brief facts of the case as have been set down by the Tribunal are as follows:-2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent preferred a petition for eviction against the appellant under Section 18 of the Rent Restriction Act (as extension to Urban areas of Chandigarh) for ejectment of the respondent from IIIrd floor of S.C.O.No.15, Sector 17E, Chandigarh on the ground that (a) non payment of rent, (b) misuse of the premises and bonafide requirement. During the pendency of the proceedings ground of non-payment of rent and bonafide requirement was not pressed. The relevant cause of action for purposes of present appeal...

Vikas Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT191; 2006(87)DRJ677; 2007(2)SLJ256(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. Pursuant to an advertisement published in June, 2004, the petitioners filled up their forms for recruitment of 1435 vacancies to the post of Constables in BSF from the States of Delhi, UP & Uttaranchal. The petitioners cleared the written test, interview, physical test and the medical examination and were given reporting letters on the basis of their selection. It appears that thereafter the petitioners were told not to continue their stay in the BSF unit where they had reported because of the apparent view taken by the respondents that the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions as stipulated in the reporting letters. The only cause why the petitioners are said to be not qualified according to the respondents is that they do not have certificate of hill area which was given in the letters selecting the petitioners, which certificate was a sine qua ...

indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT292; [2006(110)FLR1176]

Markandey Katju, C. J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated June 1, 2001 by which he has dismissed the writ petition.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The petitioner/appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act which runs a Hospital called Indraprastha Apollo Hospital at Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. The respondent No. 2, a Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Orders Act (sic)) issued a letter to the petitioner dated October 7, 1999 stating that as per a complaint filed by the employees Union of the Hospital there are more than 100 workers working in the establishment and hence the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act is applicable to it. Hence, the ...

Manglam Educational Society Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ29

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Record has been produced.2. It has been perused.3. Grievance of the petitioner is to the order dated 23.7.2004 whichreads as under:To,The Gen. Secretary,Manglam Educational Society,MIG Flat i/A, Pocket-APhase-III, Ashok ViharDelhi-110052Sub: Allotment of land for C/o Nursery SchoolSir,Kindly refer to your application No. 5738 dtd. 8.5.2002, on the subject cited above. In this connection I am directed to inform you that your case has been examined by this office but the same has been rejected by the Competent Authority.4. According to the petitioner, it fails to understand as to how it suffered a rejection for the reason, on 3.3.2003 only information sought by DDA was latest bank balance certificate showing that that the society was solvent and had money to finance for the plot, it DDA allotted one. Petitioner claim that in response, on 8.4.2004, it furnished the requisite certificate from HDFC Bank certifying that the petitioner had a sum of Rs. 19.8 lacs in its...

Patiala Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The dispute is about eligibility of the appellant for deemed modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97. Credit has been denied on the ground that the invoices of the supplier did not contain the declaration 'that appropriate duty of excise has been paid on such inputs under the provisions of Section 3A of the said Act," 3. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the purchase of inputs was fully from M/s. Paradise Steel Rolling Mills, a unit which was working under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The invoices in question also contained declarations to this effect. The learned Counsel has also submitted that there is no dispute in the case that the appellant's supplier was working under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, inasmuch as the show cause notice itself gives the ground for the demand as "but not fully discharged". Thus, according to the learned Counsel, payment of duty under Section 3A remains noted in the show cause notice itself. He has also r...

Universal Detergent Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the stay application came up for hearing I have heard both sides and perused the record.2. It is the admitted position that duty amount in question that is Rs. 1,73,650.05, was collected by the appellant from the buyers; but not deposited to the revenue. The appellant, of course, has a defence that he was entitled to small scale exemption. But that does not seem to be of assistance in the facts of the case. The appellant had taken Modvat credit on the inputs and had collected duty from the buyers. In such a case, the amount collected should go to the revenue, be it under Section 11A or 11D of the Central Excise Act. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal. The appeal fails and is rejected....