Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Afroz Ahmed and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ478; 2007(1)SLJ455(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Union of India, Northern Railway, New Delhi has challenged by way of present Writ Petition two orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 3rd February, 2005 and 7th April, 2005. By the first Order dated 3rd February, 2005 learned Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 1990/2004 filed by the respondent and by the second Order dated 7th April, 2005 the review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. By the impugned Order dated 3rd February, 2005 learned Tribunal has held that the respondents were wrongly denied benefit of the Assured Career Programme Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ACP Scheme, for short) and their seniority was to be reckoned from the date when they were appointed as Apprentice and not from the date they were appointed after completing 24 months of training. It was held that training was part of the process after appointment and the training period should be counted for the purpose of seniority as well as ACP Scheme. Le...

Lokesh Dhawan Vs. Dalbir S. Gulati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR586(Delhi); 128(2006)DLT383

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M) 338/2005 is directed against the order dated 7.06.2004 in Suit No.332/2003 whereby the learned Judge while adjudicating upon an application under Order 47 read with Section 114 and 151 CPC for review of order dated 29.04.2004 has held that there are no grounds to review the same.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the written statement the defendant had taken a plea that the suit was not maintainable since the arbitration agreement subsisted. The plaintiff in that suit continued to pursue his remedies and filed a replication denying such a clause. As a result, ultimately a preliminary decree was passed vide order dated 29.04.2004, where the defendant agreed that the suit which was for dissolution of partnership may be decreed.3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the trial court and who had specifically taken up the plea that the matter could not be referred to arbitration that since the...

Pyare Lal Jaipuria Vs. Ashok Kumar Bhalla and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT636; 2006(88)DRJ427

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. RC. S.A. 206 of 1988 is directed against order dated 17.9.1988 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in R.C.A. No. 422, whereby the learned Tribunal, while adjudicating upon an order dated 17.9.1988 passed by the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the objections filed by the appellant, has concurred with the same thereby dismissing the appeal.2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the Tribunal, are -That late Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhalla, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of non-payment and unauthorised constructions etc.That in the said petition the ld. Trial court had declined to pass an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent control Act, but in appeal the learned Rent Control Tribunal passed the order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, directing the appellant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st September, 1972. The said order ...

Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. Vs. Daljeet Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT309; 2006(33)PTC350(Del)

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M)1732/2004 is directed against the order dated 16.11.2004 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Judge has disposed of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment to enhance the valuation of the Suit to Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakhs) for the purposes of jurisdiction.2. Nobody appears for the respondent in spite of service. The facts as stated in the application are as follows:-.that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts against the Defendant. An injunction order was passed against the Defendants restraining them from dealing in re-conditioned compressors and components under the trademark Kirloskar. After the injunction order another Local Commissioner was appointed who recovered huge infringing material from the premises of the Defendants and it appears that the Defendants had been violating the said interim order. The P...

Bishwajit Bhattacharya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT456

Markandeya Katju, C.J. 1. Heard the petitioner in person.2. The prayer in the writ petition is that a period of 10 years should be added to the service of the Judges of the High Court for the purpose of pension as has been done for Judges of the Supreme Court appointed under Article 124(3)(b). We are afraid, we cannot make any such direction. There is a broad separation of powers under the Constitution and it is ordinarily impermissible for Judges to encroach into the legislative or executive domain. Judges must exercise restraint in this connection, and not do legislation, vide Union of India v. D.N. Aggarwal AIR 1992 SC 96 in which the Supreme Court observed (vide para 14):-It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legisl...

In Re: Ashim Investment Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]138CompCas89(Delhi); [2007]76SCL358(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present petition under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been filed for approval and sanction of the scheme of reconstruction, arrangement and demerger between J.K. Laxmi Cement Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferor company') and Ashim Investment Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the 'transferee company').2. The registered office of the transferor company is located at Basantgarh, District Sirohi, Rajasthan, and an appropriate petition has been filed in the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur.3. The registered office of the transferee company is located at Link House, 3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, and is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.4. The transferee company has placed on record a scheme of amalgamation, the salient features of the said scheme and the circumstances necessitating the scheme have been explained in the petition.5. The transferee company wa...

Dharni Dhar Vs. Air Mauritius and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1.Complainant who is a retired Commissioner of Income Tax was about 62 years when he filed this complaint. He is now 75 years old. The procrastinated proceedings are result of highly inadequate infrastructure, inadequate administrative component and other deficiencies on the part of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Complainant invited by the General Secretary of the National Organising Committee, Mauritius to participate as a delegate in the 6th Internal Ramayana Conference to be held in Mauritius from 5th to 9th August, 1990. During his onward and return journey he experienced lot of harassment and inconvenience at the hands of the OPs and through this complaint has sought following claims :(a)For the insult etc. on outward journeyRs.50,000(b)For insult etc. at Mauritius airport on 9th August, 1990; physical and financial losses owing to forced halt in Mauritius; injury to his religious feelings etc.Rs.5,00,0002. Allegations emanating from the complaint lie in a mode...

British Airways Vs. Nand Gopal Gandham

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of delayed delivery of the baggage to the respondent, the appellant-airline vide impugned order dated 21.3.2005, has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 less the amount already paid. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal. 2. Facts giving rise to the impugned order in brief are as that the respondent boarded Flight No. BA-296 on 15.9.2002 from Chicago to London. At Chicago the respondent had got checked in two bags vide DOC No. BA-520057 and 520058 for direct delivery at New Delhi. The flight arrived at New Delhi at 10.40 p.m. on 16.9.2002. However, his baggage had not arrived on this flight. After inquires by the respondent the officials of the appellant at the airport told him that his baggage had not been loaded on flight No. BA-143 at London. Ultimately the baggage was delivered to the respondent on the next day i.e., in the late hours. The baggage contained several important business documents and tender quotation...

Lt. Col. L.S. Bedi Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant applied for allotment of a flat in the year 1995 and was declared successful in the draw of lot and was issued demand-cum-allotment letter in May, 1995. Inspite of having made payment of Rs. 5,82,155 he was handed over the possession in the District Forum where the original complaint was filed but due to pecuniary jurisdiction the complaint was filed before this Commision. Through this complaint the complainant is seeking interest on the deposit made by him for the period of the possession was delayed. 2. It is settled law that unless and until there is term of contract between the parties as to the liability of payment of interest, interest is not awardable. However, the interest can be awarded if there are strong equitable grounds. Otherwise in terms of Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the consumer is entitled to an amount of compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him due to negligence on the part of the O.P. 3. Whil...

Mazagon Dock Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC610

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 29.11.1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise to the extent that it confirms the demand of the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,44,53,945/- (Rupees one crore forty four lakhs fifty three thousand nine hundred and ninety five only) as the duty short paid on the jack-up rig cleared to ONGC, Bombay on 13.4.1988 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellant had cleared one jack-up rig under gate pass dated 13.4.1988 declaring its price as Rs. 45,88,55,418/- and the price list in respect of this item was also got approved at that price. The Superintendent (Preventive) found that the appellant was entitled to a 30% subsidy (20% from the Government of India and 10% from the said customer ONGC) on the sale price agreed under the contract and that the amount was not included in the assessable value declared by the appellant. By including th...