Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Medical Council of India Vs. K.K. Arora and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ539

T.S. Thakur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court whereby an order of suspension issued by the Appellant pending a departmental inquiry against the respondent has been quashed. The facts leading to the issue of the suspension order and the filing of this petition may be summarised as under :2. The respondent Dr. K.K. Arora is working in the appellant Medical Council of India as a Deputy Secretary. He was on leave from 31st March, 2004 to 30th April, 2004 The allegation against the respondent is that he visited the office of the Council on 3rd April, 2004 at about 11:00 AM and tried to take away a large number of files and papers including certain original documents of the Council. He is alleged to have asked the Security Officer to keep the files in his car who obeyed those instructions but at the same time informed Dr. Devender Kumar, another Deputy Secretary about the incident. Dr. Devender Kumar is, in turn, said to ha...

Nisheet Bhalla and ors. Vs. Malind Raj Bhalla and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi60

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. In this suit filed by the plaintiffs, relied of partition and permanent injunction is claimed. Plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 are sons of late Cdr. Manu Raj Bhalla and plaintiff No. 3 is his widow. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are the brothers of Cdr. Manu Raj Bhalla and defendant No. 3 is his sister. Thus, father of plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 (husband of plaintiff No. 3) and the defendants were/are brothers and sister. They are all children of Shri Bal Raj Bhalla. Shri Bal Raj Bhalla was allotted a plot of land bearing No. 48, Block-G measuring 233.33 sq. yards in Naraina Industrial Residential Scheme, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') on perpetual lease. He constructed a 2A 1/2 storeyed building on the said plot of land. During his lifetime, he executed a will dated 26-5-1990 whereby he bequeathed the suit property in favor of his wife Smt. Swadesh Kumari Bhalla. Shri Bal Raj Bhalla died on 6-6-1990 and on his death the suit property devolved upon Smt. Swadesh ...

Amanullah Khan Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT345; 2006(90)DRJ28

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order on charge dated 5.6.2004 and the charge itself framed on 5.6.2004 The charge that is being made out against the petitioner is as under :-That on 19.9.98 at about 2.30 P.M at main hole sewer in front of Sagar Market Gurudwara, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, your compelled the deceased persons Vijay and Lalan to lay MTNL cable without providing safety measures to both the said persons and due to carelessness caused their death on duty and thus thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and within my cognizance. 2. As per the charge sheet, the case for the prosecution is that on 19.9.1998 ASI D.K. Singh of Police Station Seema Puri received DD No. 65-B dated 19.9.1998 and thereupon he reached the spot and found two MTNL workers / labourers had fallen into the manhole / sewer. The fire brigade was called at the spot and both the persons were taken out and sent to hospital where the doctors declared t...

Bharat Battery Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT575; 2006(89)DRJ30

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator by the petitioner.2. The petitioner contended that in response to an invitation to tender inquiry No. AM-5/RC-14100105/072003/WT/BTYS/defense/2003-04/75 for supply of battery secondary lead acid, an offer dated 7.10.2002 was submitted which was revised by letter dated 8.4.2003. On the basis of revised offer dated 8.4.2003 a rate contract No. AM-5/RC-14100105/072003/WT BTYS/DEF/2003-04/75/BHARAT/COAC/185 dated 5.5.2003 for the period 5.5.2003 to 16.3.2004 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent.3. The rate contract entered with the petitioner contained a price variation clause (Clause No. 12) but the variation factor of the batteries, on account of fluctuation of lead price had not been incorporated. Petitioner asserted that the requests were made to the respondent to incorporate the same. Request was also made to is...

Sh. Santosh Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ626

T.S. Thakur, J.1. These writ petitions call in question the validity of a preliminary notification, dated 25th November, 1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and a declaration under Section 6 thereof, dated 18th June, 1985. A mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the possession of the land to the petitioners has also been prayed for. The facts giving rise to the petitions may be briefly summarised as under:2. A large extent of land situate in 13 South Delhi villages including that situate in Villages Shayoorpur, Maidan Garhi, Saidul-Ajaib, Rajpur Khurd, Satbari and Chattarpur, Delhi was notified for acquisition in terms of a preliminary notification dated 25th November, 1980. A declaration under Section 6 followed on 18th June, 1985. Different awards were, on the basis of the said notifications, made from time to time, including the awards impugned in these petitions. Much after the completion of the proceedings in terms of the n...

Vishal Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dda and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT667; 2006(90)DRJ470

Manju Goel, J.1. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is as under:The plaintiff is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction of buildings. On 28.11.1972 lot No. 95, District Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was put to auction by defendant No. 1 (DDA) and the plaintiff offered a premium of Rs. 16,06,000/- for the suit property measuring 743.22 sq. mts. The plaintiff was declared the successful bidder. The bid was accepted by defendant No. 1 and the possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff on 5.3.1973. A building thereon was constructed. The plaintiff is in continuous peaceful possession of the suit property. The plaintiff is not in possession of the conditions of auction. The plaintiff believes that the conditions were the same as was for a property in respect of which another suit being Suit No. 409/1973; Vishal Builders (P) Ltd. v. DDA was filed. In the suit one of the questions for determin...

Pt. Munshi Ram and Associates (Private) Limited Vs. Delhi Development ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT503; 2006(90)DRJ463

Manju Goel, J.1. On 30.3.1995 Mr. M. Kuppuswamy, the Arbitrator, filed his original award along with arbitration proceedings and his appointment letter, in the dispute between the parties, viz, M/s R.P. Builders and the DDA- on which the suit was registered and notice of filing of the award under the provisions of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was issued to the parties. Objection to the award was presented by Pandit Munshi Ram and Associates Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner). The Delhi Development Authority, the respondent did not file any objection. It, however, contests the objections under Section 30 & 33 of the Act. The facts disclosed in the objection petition which led to the dispute and arbitration are as follow:2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the development and construction activities in and around Delhi. The respondent awarded work of construction of 448 DU's (224 Cat II and 224 Cat III) flats and 336 scooter garage in Pocket B and C op...

Standard Niwar Mills Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC496

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of fabrics, it processes grey cotton fabric. That product was exempt from basic excise duty; but not from additional duty of excise levied under Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The appellant used the processed fabrics for captive consumption, without payment either duty.Therefore, proceedings were initiated for the recovery of the additional excise duty payable on processed fabrics. Under the impugned order the duty demand so made remains confirmed.2. The contention of the learned Counsel is that, the processed fabric in question remained exempt from additional duty of excise also, in view of the exemption granted from basic excise duty. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirlon Synthetic [1997 (96) ELT 251 (Mum.] in support of the contention that exemption from basic excise duty, granted under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, automatically extended to levy of add...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

M.V. Ravindran Member, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 16.03.2004,wherein the duty demand is confirmed and equivalent penalty is imposed.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Petroleum products and filed declaration for one of their product i.e. 'Liquefied Petroleum Gases- also known as PPFS' as falling under chapter heading No. 2711.19 claiming the benefit of notification No. 3/2001,thereby paying concessional rate of duty of 8%. The appellant also in the said declaration indicated that the LPG-PPFS supplied to IPCL will be used by IPCL for manufacture of 'Propylene' and then the LPG will be returned back to refinery.Investigations were carried out against the appellant on the ground there was mis-declaration of the product as LPG due to which there was wrong availment of concessional rate of duty. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on these grounds. The adjudicating authority came ...

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and anr. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT260

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these writ proceedings the validity and legality of a communication issued by the Government of NCT (hereafter referred to as 'NCT') in exercise of powers under Section 60 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 (hereafter 'DERA') and Rule 12 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme Rules, 2001 (hereafter called the 'Scheme') has been challenged.2. The DERA was enacted, as its long title indicates, for the constitution of an Electricity Commission, restructuring of the electricity industry by rationalization of generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity, increasing avenues for participation for private sector in the electricity industry and for taking measures conducive to development and management of the electricity industry in an efficient, commercial, economic and competitive manner in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. To achieve this end, the Act and the Scheme adopted a three step procedure whereby the Government o...