Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Shyam Singh, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT346; 2006(88)DRJ483

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. These are a group of writ petitions involving similar question of law and facts and, thereforee, being disposed of by this common judgment. At the time of arguments W.P.(C) 17343/2004 titled Shyam Singh v. Union of India and Ors. was treated as a lead case and we will be referring to the facts of this case. However, we were informed that the facts of the other cases are not different. 2. The petitioner was/is an employee of Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as respondent-BSF, for short) and was sent on deputation to Intelligence Bureau for a period of five years. Even after the expiry of the said period, the petitioner continued to be on deputation with the Intelligence Bureau and he was not repatriated to his parent organisation. It is the contention of the petitioner that he should be deemed to have been absorbed in Intelligence Bureau, immediately on completion of five years of deputation service. In this regard reliance has been placed upon judgment...

Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs. Jai Prakash Hyundai Corsortium

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi239; 2006(1)ARBLR587(Delhi); IV(2006)BC21; 2006(1)CTLJ87(Del); 129(2006)DLT453; 2006(88)DRJ332

Vijender Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by Satluj Jal Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SJVN') impugning the order of the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge restrained the appellant from invoking the existing Bank Guarantee given by the respondent towards performance security and retention money for the purpose of recovery of outstanding ad hoc amount from the respondent at this stage. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has further directed that the interest of the appellant could be safeguarded to the extent of the outstanding amount of the ad hoc payment by asking the respondent to furnish a new Bank Guarantee of the equivalent amount in favor of the appellant till the settlement of all the disputes between the parties in relation to the contract through the Departmental Review Board/ADRB. This part of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge directing the respondent to furnish Bank Guarantee of the equivalent amount in f...

Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Cor Vs. Overseas Water Proofing Corpn.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi211; 130(2006)DLT182

R.S. Sodhi, J.CM.APPL.4066/2006:1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.CM(M)547/2006 & CM.APPL. 4065/2006:2. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 21.2.2006 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Judge has declined to waive costs imposed vide order dated 19.01.2006 and further has also closed plaintiff's evidence.3. It appears that vide order dated 19.01.2006 costs were imposed while granting the adjournment. Instead of complying with the order of deposit of costs on the next date an application was moved for waiver of the costs. The Explanationn in the application did not find favor with the Additional District Judge who dismissed the same. 4. On 21.2.2006 when the case was called out a proxy counsel appeared and sought pass-over. Subsequently, during the course of the day when the matter was again called an application for adjournment was moved stating that counsel is sick. The trial court was not impressed with the excuse and r...

Maninder Pal Singh Kohli Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT185; 2006(87)DRJ796

R.C. Jain, J.1. This petition initially filed as a criminal revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. was treated as a writ petition, seeks to challenge the order dated 14.9.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on an application made by the petitioner herein, who is facing extradition proceedings at the behest of U.K. authorities for his extradition to U.K. in order to face trial for the commission of the offence of kidnapping, rape and murder of a certain Ms.Hannah Foster in U.K. It would appear that the extradition proceedings are at a sufficiently advance stage in as much as the evidence on behalf of the State has already been led and even two witnesses; one Mr.Ishpreet Singh, brother of the petitioner and second other witness have been examined from the side of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an affidavit of his wife Smt.Shalinder Kaur in support of his plea against extradition. At the same time, the petitioner prayed to the inquiry Court fo...

Gaurav Dhawan Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT231

J.M. Malik, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Sections 397, 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the respective judgments of Additional Sessions Judge dated 10.01.2003 and Metropolitan Magistrate dated 25.07.2002 and 09.08.2002 and also seeks acquittal. In terms of the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 5000/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months under Section 304A IPC, to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 500/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 337 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 279 IPC. The accused/appellant preferred an appeal against this judgment. However, the learned Additional Session Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The petitioner being aggrieved filed the present revision petit...

Vikas Sharma Vs. Sanatan Dharam Co-edu. Hr. Sec. Schl. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT259; 2006(89)DRJ204

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. Mr. L.C. Goel, Advocate and Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Advocates waive notice of Rule.2. The grievance of the writ petitioner in these proceedings is that in spite of being selected to the post of Assistant Teacher, the respondent No.1, an aided school, did not issue the appointment letter.3. The petitioner has averred that when his representations were pending, the Directorate issued an order on 29th October, 1996 requiring the management to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner. That direction reads as follows:WHEREAS, the relevant record and other correspondence relating to the affairs of S.D. Sr. Sec. School, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi has been placed before the undersigned and after the careful consideration of the matter, the undersigned is convinced that the managing committee of the school has failed to act upon in accordance with the relevant provisions of Delhi School Education Act & rules, 1973. It is observed that the Selection B...

Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. the State Trading Corporation of In ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi276; III(2006)BC405; 2006(2)CTLJ34(Del); 128(2006)DLT319; 2006(89)DRJ207

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CS (OS) No. 561/19801. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of the amounts spent on unutilised craft paper bags along with interest and legal expenses thereon amounting to Rs. 29,87,092/-. The plaintiff has also claimed future interest and costs.2. The plaintiff is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement of various qualities and specifications. At the relevant period of time in 1976-77 the export of cement from India was made exclusively by the defendant which was the canalising agency appointed by the Government of India under the Export Control Order. The defendant Corporation used to enter into Contract with foreign purchasers for sale and export of the Indian cement and to meet its commitment used to enter into Contracts for purchase of cement from entities like the plaintiff. The cement which used to be exported was required to be packed in six ply craft paper bags, whi...

indrani Sarma Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT556

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1 is taken on record.2. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner had applied for admission to the M.A.(Prev.) Course in Hindustani Music in the Delhi University. At the time when she had filed her application, she had stated that the Results of B.A.(Hons.) in Hindustani Music were awaited. This was for the reason that she had re-appeared in her Final Year Papers after surrendering her previous marks. In these Examinations, she came to obtain 46.1% marks. It is the Petitioner's case that the Respondents were duly informed of her percentage in July, 2005, although this stand is vehemently opposed by the Respondents.3. On 7/8th July, 2005, the Petitioner had appeared and passed the Entrance Examination. As per the Counter Affidavit, a List was put up on 17.11.2005 requiring the Petitioner and thirty other persons (from a total class of about forty students) to meet the Office for verification of their Certificates. The sa...

Ch. Ranjit Singh Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]7SOT151(NULL)

ORDERA.D. Jain, Judicial Member This is assessed's appeal for assessment year 1991-92 against the order dated 25-2-2002 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak. The following grounds have been taken :-'1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 by the assessing officer and issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act to the appellant inasmuch as there has been no escapement of assessment of income chargeable to tax and as such, resort to action under section 147 is illegal and without jurisdiction.2. That no reason appears to have been recorded before issuance of a notice under section 148 to determine the legality of the action under section 148 of the Act and as such, the action is unwarranted.3. That in any case, the notice under section 148 having been issued without there being any mention of the status of the assessed-appellant is erroneous, and opposed to legal pr...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Bhargava

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Claim of the respondent against medi-claim policy for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 could not be settled by the appellant for want of documents required to be furnished by the respondent as the appellant doubted the correctness of the statement given by the respondent at the time of taking the policy as to the pre-existing disease. 2. However, vide impugned order dated 31.10.2001, the District Forum has directed the appellant to pay the insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000 along with interest @ 9% and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. 3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. The case of the respondent before the District Forum was that he had a medi-claim policy obtained from the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and the same was valid w.e.f. 27.8.2000 to 26.8.2001. On 15.10.2000 when he was travelling in a train from Madras to Bangalore he felt pain in the chest although he had no previous history of such type of ailment. He got himself examined i...