Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Vidya Bhushan JaIn Vs. Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science and Resear ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. This complaint arises from the allegations of medical negligence against the O.Ps. inasmuch as while treating the complainant for acute pancreatitis, the O.P. damaged the jugular vein of the complainant which resulted in his lungs collapse and had to undergo a surgery, i.e., thoractomy. The complainant has sought compensation of Rs. 19,60,507 by way of different components. 2. Allegations of the complainant in brief are that on 27.9.1996 the complainant approached O.P. 1 with severe abdominal pain and was admitted in the hospital and treated by O.P. 2 who diagnosed the ailment as a case of pancreatitis on the basis of clinical, biochemical reports and ultrasound, CT Scan reports, etc. and treated the complainant with antibiotics which were administered intravenously. Ciprofloxacin, Metrogyl, Ranitidine, Fortwin and Phenargan were given to him I/V at regular intervals. The complainant was allowed to drink only small sips of water to keep throat wet. By ...

Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant submitted that the demand has not been quantified in pursuance to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, this application is dismissed as infructuous....

Sunil Ojha Vs. the State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3068

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition raises the question of whether a juvenile in conflict with law would be entitled to set-off of the period of detention undergone by him during inquiry against the period of confinement consequent upon an order passed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') ?2. On 20.12.2006, inter alia, the following order was passed by this Court:I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By an order dated 12.12.2006 the petitioner's sentence was directed to be suspended. It was found that the petitioner even though, he was a juvenile, was in custody in Tihar Jail. Pursuant to this order the petitioner had been released on a personal bond in the sum of Rs 5,000/-. Having heard the arguments at length, I am of the view that the impugned order requires to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. The arguments advanced were entirely on the que...

NitIn JaIn Vs. Anuj JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi219; 2007(96)DRJ335

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The appellant herein, Mr. Nitin Jain along with five others, who are the respondents 1-5 in the present Appeal had filed a suit No.946/2000 for partition and rendition of accounts against the respondents 6-14. It was stated in the Suit that the appellant and the respondents herein belong to one family and are members of S.P. Jain (HUF). The members of the said HUF had also constituted smaller HUFs. Details of the properties owned by the said HUFs are mentioned in the annexure to the suit.2.The appellant and the respondents herein filed is No. 2592/2001 under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) for compromise. Paragraphs 2, 3 and the prayer clause in the application are relevant and are reproduced below:2. That the parties are in relation to each other. The plaintiffs are children of the defendants no.2 to 5 and Nos.7 to 10, and the defendants No.2 to 5 are the sons of the defendants No.1 and 6. Th...

National Projects Construction Corporation and anr. Vs. Sadhu Singh an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR377(Delhi); 2007(96)DRJ26

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. By the present Order, we will be deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction.2. On 30th October, 1996 an Award was passed by Mr. K.D. Thite, Retd. Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission. On 21st February, 1997, the appellants-M/s. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd, who are questioning the jurisdiction of this Court, filed objections to the said Award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). After about 9 years when the matter was finally being heard by the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein raised objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Single Judge noticed that the objection did not form part of the pleadings and held that it was too late for the appellants to raise the same. It was further held that this Court did not lack inherent jurisdiction and thereforee the parties by consent or by act of omission and commission had waived their right to ob...

Yugal Kishore Vs. Delhi Jal Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT375

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alias for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to refund an amount of Rs. 20,237.70/- , alleged to have been illegally recovered from the petitioner along with an interest @18% p.a., from his retiral benefits on account of damages assessed towards use and occupation of government accommodation.2. Facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as follows. The petitioner joined the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking, predecessor in interest of the respondent Delhi Jal Board, in the year 1956. The petitioner was allotted Quarter No. 111, Water Works No. 2, Chandrawal, Delhi for residence. The petitioner was due to retire on 30.4.1997, however, having failed to make any alternate arrangement, he made a representation to the respondent to permit him to stay in the aforesaid quarter after his retirement. The respondent vide Office O...

Jagdish Lal Chawla Vs. Des Raj Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ48(Del)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The respondent No. 1 herein, as plaintiff, filed a suit seeking for a decree of specific performance of contract dated 3rd February, 1975. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, counsel for defendant No. 1 (appellant herein), against whom a decree of specific performance of contract was sought to be passed, directing him to perform his part of the agreement, made a statement on 25th September, 2001 that there is no dispute with regard to the agreement to sell and the GPA and, as a matter of fact, he has no objection if the agreement to sell is acted upon between the parties. Delhi Development Authority was also represented on the said date by their counsel, who contended that in view of revocation of GPA by the defendant No. 1 on 26th June, 1989 and also by letter dated 11th December, 1990, information of which was sent to DDA, the DDA could not convert the policy laid down by Union of India with regard to the scheme of conversion. The court further record...

Golden Peacock Overseas Ltd. Vs. Ranjit Industries and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ339

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present Appeal has been filed by Golden Peacock Overseas Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant, for short) against the Order dated 29th September, 2005 allowing is No. 7437/2005 filed by M/s.Ranjit Industries and others, (hereinafter referred to as the respondents, for short) holding that no cause of action or part thereof had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The plaint was accordingly directed to be returned to be filed before a Court of competent jurisdiction under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short).2. The appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.20,80,568.53 and for injunction against the respondent. It was stated in the plaint that the appellant had been dealing with the respondent for over 15 years and had trained and taught it's engineers to manufacture internationally acceptable products. It was further stated that the responde...

Malik Bros. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)469

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) challenging the order dated 23rd September, 2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), New Delhi in ITA No. 981/Del/2001 for the assessment year 1991-92 vide which the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed.2. The facts of this case are that the assessed filed return of income on 30th December, 1991 at 'nil income'. Later on, information was received that the assessed had purchased property No. 4B/16, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi for Rs. 6 lacs plus registration charges on 5th October, 1990. A search was conducted in the business and residential premises of sister concern M/s B.K.Jewellery House and its partners. After that a survey was also conducted at the business premises of Sh. Gajender Seth, husband of Smt. Pushpa Seth who had sold the above stated property...

Kuldeep Kumar Vs. G.K. Mishra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ679

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This petition under Section 482 seeks intervention by exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the court. The petitioner had filed a complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 147/148/149/323/452/506/120-B IPC.2. The allegations, in the complaint were that the accused persons on 30.1.2003, in the late evening entered his house started abusing him and started mercilessly beating his mother, brother and son. These along with the complainants, allegedly received serious injuries. It was alleged that the incident was witnessed by one Baleshwar Prasad, a local respondent. The complainant/petitioner alleged that the police were called and the injured were taken to the Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital and they were admitted. It was further alleged that subsequently due to some pressure a compromise was recorded. Later on coming to know about the lodging of an FIR, by the accused, the petitioners' filed the complaint.3. In the course of the proceedings before the l...