Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

R. Prasad and ors. Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT455

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The prayer in these Writ Petitions is for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction quashing the impugned order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, who had declined to make a Reference for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the applications were time barred. The second prayer is for issuance of writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Collector to refer the dispute with respect to enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act to the court of the Additional District Judge. 2. The Award in this case was pronounced on 30.6.2004 in the presence of the Association, namely, Indraprakash Apartment Occupants Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association') of which the present petitioners were parties. After the passing of the Award the Association addressed the letter dated 14.7.2004 to the Land Acquisit...

Anil Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1725; 137(2007)DLT289

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 175, 242, 305/2003 and 400/2004 seek to challenge the judgment dated 16.01.2003 and order dated 20.01.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in S.C.No.48/2000, whereby the learned Judge has held Rishi Ram, Guddu, Anil and Sarvesh guilty of the offence punishable under Section 364A/307/34 IPC while acquitting Rajpal giving him benefit of doubt. Further, by a separate order the learned Judge has awarded each of the convicts a sentence under Section 364A/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-(rupees twenty thousand) each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. The convicts were further sentenced under Section 307/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each. Both the senten...

Smt. Renu Malhotra and ors. Vs. Shri Shishpal Singh Shingaria

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ1826

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the correct income of the deceased including his future prospects. The appellant is also aggrieved that wrong age of the deceased has been taken into consideration, which as per the immigration papers exhibited as Ex.-PW2/Z and proved on record was 32 years on the relevant date of accident but the Tribunal giving undue weightage to the post mortem report has determined the age of the deceased at 35 years. The brief summary of the facts for deciding the present appeal are as under:On 5.5.95, Sh. Harvinder Kumar Malhotra, the deceased was traveling in taxi bearing registration No. MH-15B-1684 from Shirdi to Manmad and met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. DIG-788 at Yeola, Manmad. He received fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries received in the accident and died on the spot.2. Mr. Pramod Ahuja, counsel appearing for appellants conte...

Avichal Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC302

1. The appellant filed the appeals against the rejection of refund claim. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claims but the same were debited to the Consumer Welfare Account. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that in this case the appellant submitted certificate of profit and loss account from which it will be established that the duty amount has not been recovered from any other persons. He drew the attention of the Bench of CA's certificate and relevant portion of the balance sheet. He submits that Commissioner (Appeals) rejected these evidences. The ld. Advocate submits that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal in a series of judgment consistently viewed that certificate of CA and balance sheet showing amount of refund claim as excise duty cannot be hit by unjust enrichment. In this connection, he relied upon the following decisions:Mangal Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India 2002 (49) RLT 265 (Guj.)Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo ...

Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. Vs. Debashis Patnaik and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(1)323; 2007(34)PTC201(Del)

Gita Mittal, J.1. The plaintiff before this Court is a company limited by guarantee and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is also registered as a Copyright Society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. On allegations that the defendants have committed flagrant violation of the rights of the plaintiff in the works assigned to him by numerous members, the plaintiff has sought the following relief in the present suit:a) An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its agents, employees and all others acting on its behalf from playing of music by live or any other means, or by way of mechanical devices at the hotel operated by the Defendants and /or channeling musical and or literary works of the plaintiff or those of its sister copyright societies, by way of mechanical devices such as Radio, Cable TV and /or RA. systems within the Defendants' premises without obtaining a license from the plaintiff Society and without paying the requisite royalties, there...

Oriental Bank of Commerc and Assistant General Manager, Oriental Bank ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT1; 2007(95)DRJ65; (2007)146PLR56

J.M. Malik, J.1. Application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 04.06.2005. Aggrieved by this order, the present first appeal has been preferred. The genesis and sequence of this case is as follows. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for ejectment of the appellants from the ground floor of premises No. IX/6094, Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi measuring about 1450 square feet and for recovery of damages for use and occupation of the suit property in the sum of Rs. 5,33,800/- for the period w.e.f. 17.01.2001 till filing of the said suit on 07.08.2002. The plaintiff/respondent had moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The appellants had contested that application. The Trial Court vide its order dated 29.01.2003 passed decree for ejectment of the defendants/appellants from the suit premises and also held that a separate enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. was t...

Ashish Malhotra Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ137

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an Assessment Order dated 5.10.2006 (purportedly signed according to the petitioner on 3.10.2006) by the Assessing Authority, New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) fixing the rateable value for the premises in question for the year 2006-07 at Rs. 12,83,900/-. This Order was passed under Section 70(6) of the NDMC Act, 1994 ('Act').2. In reply to a question by the Court whether against the said impugned Assessment Order the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that although an appeal has been provided for under Section 115 of the Act, read with Section 116 thereof, that remedy is not efficacious but burdensome and thereforee the petitioner is not precluded from assailing the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance first on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himmatlal ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]292ITR600(Delhi)

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated March 15, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in I.T.A. No. 3120/ Del/99 and I.T.A. No. 5039/Del/99 relevant for the assessment year 1994-95 and CO No. 101/Del/02 (in I.T.A. No. 5039/Del/99).2. Learned Counsel for the Revenue raised four issues before us. In our opinion, none of these raise a substantial question of law and, thereforee, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.3.The assessed carried on the business of mining and production of aluminum. The assessed used aluminium smelters which ware operation for 24 hours. It has as part of its assets, 408 cells in circuit out of which almost 400 cells ware operation and the balance 8 cells are usually under repair avoid disruption in production at one time, it was ensured that the cells ware take for repairs at regular intervals. Each year a number of cells ware taken out for repairs at regular intervals depending upon the behavior of the cells, requirement of met...

Talkatora Garden Morning Walkers’ Association and Others Vs. Ndmc

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide order dated 4th January, 2007 passed in the aforesaid complaint this Commission had restrained NDMC from holding any marriage parties or any other even in the premises of Talkatora Garden, New Delhi. 2. It is shocking that NDMC has not only carved another portion of the park for the purpose of holding marriages apart from originally earmarked portion which was used for decades at the cost of the play-ground being used by the hundreds of young players, aspirants and sportsmen but also have used clandestinely, mischievously and unethically in spite of the directions of the Supreme Court not to put into use more than (sic.) days in a month by making two portions of the same park and thereby allowing large number of marriages. These have caused immense miseries, hardships and harassment to the users of the park and nearby residents. 3. It is pertinent to mention that recently Delhi High Court has permitted those Farmhouses to have marriage that have m...

Medical Superintendent, Esi Hospital Vs. Ram Avadh Pal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of failure of the operation of sterilisation conducted by the appellant, upon the wife of the respondent, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 11.8.2006 found the appellant guilty for medical negligence and directed it to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000 as compensation and cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Admittedly the sterilisation operation was done on 15.5.2001 by the doctor of the appellant. This operation was done in order to prevent pregnancy of the wife of the respondent. There is also no dispute that on 26.9.2005, the woman was medically examined by the appellant and found in advanced stage of pregnancy. Later on she gave birth to a female child on 6.10.2005 at Ashirwad Nursing Home, Ghaziabad. The woman belongs to poor section of the society, she was already having children and as such could not bear the burden of more children and availed the services of the appellant for sterilisat...