Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

B.R. Anand Vs. Dda and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT354; 2006(88)DRJ205

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.9.2005. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. It is stated in para 2 of the writ petition that petitioner is a blind person and has been residing in the premises i.e. House No. 6, Shiv Mandir Marg, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi for the last about 33 years. That property has now been demolished by the respondent.3. It is alleged in para 7 of the writ petition that as per the Government Policy unauthorised colonies which came up after a particular year have been ordered to be regularized. It is alleged that the petitioner's case is better than those unauthorised colonies. 4. It is stated in para 10 of the writ petition that the staff of respondent No. 1 DDA demolished the property of the petitioner where he was residing with his family. It is alleged that petitioner is the President of the Popular Institute Society for the Blind. The petitione...

Mohd. Shahid Vs. Mohd. Saleem and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ299; (2006)144PLR41a

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M.(M) 1260 of 2004 seeks to challenge the order of the Civil Judge dated 3.6.2004 in Suit No. 10/2002 whereby the learned Judge, while disposing of an application under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for review of judgment dated 1.2.2003 on Issues No. 1 and 2 and order dated 18.3.2004, has held that review does not lie and that the order under challenge before him is an appealable order.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC as also to Order 43 CPC. Counsel has also relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. : AIR2003SC3044 and Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. : [2003]3SCR762 . A reading of Order 43 CPC shows that the petitioner herein had a dual remedy. He could have availed of either filing of an appeal or a review. Having chosen to file a review, the same had to be disposed of on merits.3. From the order under challe...

Kamla Alias Tahira Begum Vs. Budho Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT8

R.S.Sodhi, J1. This petition is directed against the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No. 74/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal arising out of the judgment dated 29.5.2004 and order dated 10.9.2005, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on account of petitioner herein having not paid the arrears of rent despite service of demand notice within two months.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi are as under :The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property bearing NO.758/02, Jheel Kuranja, Delhi by virtue of will executed in her favor The husband of the respondent was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs 180/- per month excluding electricity and water charges. The husband of the respondent died, and the respondent was treated as tenant in the property in ques...

J.K. Enterprises Vs. WIn Medicare Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR583(Delhi); 129(2006)DLT87

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 514/2000 (under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The respondent was appointed as a clearing and forwarding agent by the petitioner in terms of the agreement dated 24.02.1986. The agreement contained an arbitration clause No. 17. Disputes arose between the parties and in fact the agreement was also terminated. There were claims and counter claims of the parties which were referred to the arbitral tribunal of Mr. Ramji Srinivasan and Mr. G. S. Chatterjee, both advocates.2. The award was made and published on 30.06.1998. The petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed objections under section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act').3. None has appeared for the petitioner even though the matter is effectively item No. 3 on the regular board. In view thereof, I have heard learned counsel for the respondent perused the pleadings and the written synopsis which has already been filed by the parties.4. A perusal...

M.L. Aggarwal Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT407; 2006(88)DRJ214

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order of the Delhi Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 6.1.2004 and the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 3.4.2003 (Annexure P-1) to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to implead the petitioner as one of the respondents in the appeal.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. It appears that an OA was filed by the respondent No. 1/Oriental Bank of Commerce before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, against M/s. Ultra Pharma & Surgical Co., its proprietor Anil Kumar Bhatia and his wife Smt. Seema Bhatia for recovery of Rs. 12,65,738/- including interest up to 18.5.2002 and thereafter interest at 17% per annum. True copy of the that application is (Annexure P-3) to the writ petition.4. The Bank had granted a cash credit facility to the defendant No. 1 in March, 2000, which was duly availed a...

U.C. Aggarwal and anr. Vs. Container Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi199; (2006)144PLR41

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the ADJ dated 23.8.2005. Heard learned Counsel for WP(C) 1777-78/2006 1777-78/2006 page 1 of 3 the petitioner and perused the record.2. The facts have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same.3. It has been stated in para 12 of the impugned order that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and hence the matter cannot be referred to the arbitrator. It was also stated that the claim was time barred. 4. We asked learned Counsel for the petitioner to tell us whether the petitioner has produced any arbitration agreement he stated that he has not. He contended that the respondent should be directed to produce the arbitration agreement. The respondent denied that there is any arbitration agreement. A party cannot be compelled to prove the negative. When the respondent is denying that there was any arbitration agreement how can we dir...

BhasIn Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The impugned order dated 22.10.2001 is an ex parte order qua the appellant whereby the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 have been directed to pay Rs. 18,894 with 12% interest from 12.3.2000 and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation. 2. Relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent had purchased a Maruti Car in taxi quota from the appellant on 12.1.1999 and price paid included Rs. 18,894 towards refundable excise duty as per law. After purchase of the taxi, respondent applied for refund which was not given to him. It is contended by the Counsel for the appellant that judgment is based on wrong facts. The contention of the appellant is that the vehicle was sold on 12.12.1999 whereas the Maruti Udyog Ltd. had delivered the vehicle to the appellant on 29.9.1999 and respondent No. 1 was required to take the delivery within 90 days but he did not and, thus, the liability of the appellant ceased to exist. Further that even otherwise it was not its liability as the ...

Satyam Cineplexes Vs. Mark Paul

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. In spite of having warned the providers of service like the appellants who have charged Rs. 40 for a water bottle of Rs. 12 that for charging the price more than the MRP they will be visited with heavy punitive damages, the appellant has still not stopped this practice. Vide impugned order dated 28.7.2005 District Forum has directed it to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the respondent and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation and to pay Rs. 50,000 to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund (Legal Aid) with SBI, New Delhi for the welfare and benefit of the consumers who are not in a position to engage the service of lawyers and are pitted against rich and mighty traders. 2. Through this appeal the impugned order has been assailed firstly on the ground that the respondent-consumer was a literate person and thus he knew that the article being sold at the Satyam Cineplexes, where he had gone to see the movie with his family would be of much higher price than the MRP...

Manoj Electronics Vs. Macline Massy

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is a dealer of TV manufactured by Philips India Ltd. and respondent No. 2 is the authorized service centre of Philips India Ltd. On account of having sold a defective TV for the value of Rs. 3,200, the District Forum, vide impugned order dated 24.5.2001 directed the appellant to refund the price of the TV along with 15% interest till the date of payment and Rs. 5,000 as compensation for harassment undergone by the respondent and Rs. 2,000 towards cost of litigation. 2. Through this appeal, the appellant tried to absolve its liability to pay the price of the defective TV and interest as he was only the agent/dealer, receiving commission from the manufacturer. 3. It is not a case where the amount was directly received by the manufacturer. The manufacturer was selling TVs through its dealers and not directly. The explanation of the respondent in not making Philips India Ltd. as a party is that he tried to obtain the address of Philips India Ltd. fr...

Partap Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant imported iron and steel waste and scrap and filed 15 bills of entry for clearance between February, 1991 to November, 1991.The total quantity covered by those bills of entry and on which duty was paid was 7250 MTs. Subsequently, appellant filed refund application claiming a refund of over Rs. 11 lakhs. The ground taken was that the appellant was delivered only a lower quantity than the quantity on which duty was paid. It was also submitted that the quantity was delivered under customs supervision.2. The refund claim remains rejected on the ground that the claim with regard to 13 bills of entry were filed beyond the period of limitation and in respect of the goods, the appellant has not shown to Customs satisfaction that the imported goods have been lost or destroyed, so as to get the benefit of remission under Section 23 of the Customs Act.3. We have perused and heard both sides. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since duty liability was ...