Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Dr. K.K. Shrivastava Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT26

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to a demand notice dated 28.2.2005 issued by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (`DDA') calling upon the Petitioner deposit a sum of Rs. 22,87,580 on account of '50 per cent of unearned increase' as demanded earlier by the DDA on 13.8.1996 together with 18 per cent interest from the date of issuance of the letter, as a pre-condition to mutate residential plot No. E-7, East of Kailash, New Delhi in favor of the Petitioner. 2. This case has a long history of litigation. The Petitioner was the family doctor of Shri Jaswant Singh who on 19.6.1983 executed a composite Will bequeathing all but one of his properties to his family members. The residential property at E-7, East of Kailash, New Delhi was bequeathed in favor of the Petitioner. On the basis of this Will, the Petitioner approached to the Court of District Judge in 1984 for grant of Letters of Administration. The heirs of Late Shri Jaswant Singh informed the Court th...

National Projects Constructions Corporaton Limited Vs. Bundela Bandhu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi202; 2007(2)ARBLR239(Delhi); II(2007)BC610; 139(2007)DLT676

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge passed on 9.12.2004 dismissing the Appellant's Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'A and C Act') on the grounds that they had been filed beyond the period stipulated by the statute. The Application for condoning the delay in filing these Objections has been dismissed holding that the Court did not possess any power to condone the delay. The learned Single Judge has applied the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. : AIR2001SC4010 , and in particular paragraph 12 thereof. Having dismissed the Objections the learned Single Judge had also directed that the Bank Guarantees retained by the Respondent/Judgment Debtor should also be returned on or before 15.1.2005.2. The assailed Award purports to have been signed on 20.1.1997. Execution Proceedings have inexplicably been initiated by the Respondent after the passage of seven ye...

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Anil Kumar Khanna

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT173

S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This writ petition filed by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) challenges an order dated 7.12.2004 passed by Additional District Judge (ADJ) Delhi in House Tax Appeal No. 375 of 2004. By the impugned judgment the learned ADJ allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein against an assessment order dated 5.8.2004 passed by the Assessing Officer re-fixing the rateable value in respect of the property at 9, Jor Bagh, Delhi retrospectively from 1.6.1995 at Rs. 5,15,000 and from 1.9.2002 at Rs. 26,55,500.2. The Respondent is the sole owner of the property in question. Beginning 1.6.1995 the Respondent permitted Bharti Cellular Ltd. to install a cellular antenna on the terrace of the Annexe to the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 36,000. The petitioner claims that the respondent failed to disclose this information in response to a notices issued to him under Section 77 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act 1994 ('NDMC Act') for the assessment years 1998-99 and ...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajwati Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC751; 2008ACJ802; (2008)149PLR1

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 24.10.1996, deceased Rajinder Prasad, aged 28 years died when the TSR bearing registration No. DL-IL-8661 which was being driven by him met with an accident. He was survived by wife, 2 children and mother.2. It was pleaded by the dependents of the deceased that deceased was employed as a driver with respondent No. 5, Ashok Kumar Dureja (owner of the vehicle) and that he died during the course of his employment. Thus, they filed a claim petition under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming a compensation from the owner and insurer of the vehicle.3. As it was proved that accident in question was caused due to the overturning of the vehicle driven by the deceased and no other vehicle was involved in the accident, learned Tribunal treated claim petition filed by the dependents as one filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.4. Wife of the deceased, Rajwati Devi stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and deposed that deceas...

Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Export Inspection Agency

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ524

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This petition, seeks quashing of the order of charge dated 14.10.2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate ('the trial court') in Complaint Case No. 3170/1993.2. The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that the 1st petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') is a large exporter of rice in the country. The 2nd petitioner was employed as General manager, Corporate Affairs with the company. The company exports Basmati Rice to USA and other countries. The respondent, complainant, (referred to as 'the complainant' or 'the respondent') is a statutory body constituted under the Export (Quality Control & Inspection) Act, 1963, (hereafter called 'the 1963 Act').3. On 31.8.1991, Director (Inspection and Quality Control) communicated to the company that the Monthly Import Detention List forwarded by the Dept. of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, USA, had detained Basmati Rice exported in the January-February 1991 o...

Shri J.B. Saxena S/O Late Shri R.B. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the order of respondent No. 2 dated 29.03.2006 along with a direction to the respondents to count the service of the applicant from 23.01.1958 to 23.11.1961 as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits. He has also sought in situ promotion to the next higher grade with consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially recruited on 23.01.1958 as Drawing Instructor by the Directorate of Training and Employment, Government of U.P. In 1961, the applicant applied, through proper channel, to Delhi Administration for appointment as Drawing Instructor in G.B. Pant Polytechnic. Upon being selected, the applicant submitted a technical resignation to his former employer, which was accepted. Accordingly, the applicant joined the services of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on 25.11.1961. The applicant was due to retire on 30.09.1992 upon attaining the age of superannuation. When ...

Jai Singh S/O Shri Moji Ram Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: i) To direct the respondents to de-novo fix the pay of the applicant as was required under letter No. F 21-3/96 YS IV dated 04.08.1988 of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Youth Affairs & Sports, with Endorsement No. DE 4 (3)(4)/E-IV/90/3889-4890 dated 02.03.95 from the respondents and vide order No. DE-4(3)/E-IV/9/27241-28441 dated 09.12.1997 of the respondents read with Order No. DE 4(3)(4)/E IV/90/3028-4227 dated 16.05.2000 w.e.f. 01.11.1972 taking into account the services of the applicant w.e.f. 01.11.1972 to 30.02.1973 as was done in the case of his junior Shri Sultan Singh and to bring the pay of the applicant at least at par with that of his junior Shri Sultan Singh and; ii) to direct the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits as arises as the result of such fixation of applicant's pay and; iii) to direct the respondents to revise the pension of...

J.T. Sulaxan Rao and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ1CAT

1. Cadre restructuring in different Departments under Law Ministry and consequent determination of seniority has created a chaotic situation with claims and counter claims of incumbents of the cadres is the gravamen of issue to be adjudicated by us. A discontentment among the incumbents of various cadres merged in a unified Indian Legal Service (ILS) cadre led to this litigation.2. As a brief factual matrix, Law Ministry has two main departments of which one is Legislative Department having its own Indian Law Service cadre with their officers having separate seniority in the department.Another wing is the Department Legal Affairs having Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Government Advocates. Another offshoot is Law Commission where there exists Groups 'A' and 'B' posts of Assistant Law Officers and Deputy Law Officers. Legal Advisors possess professional degree of LL.B. while the Law Officers generally have academic degree of law, i.e., LL.M. and the teaching experience without any pro...

Subhash Chander S/O Shri N.D. Vs. Employees State Insurance

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As the issues involved in both the OAs are more or less identical, the same are disposed of by this common order.2. The first OA No. 1833/2006 is filed against the impugned charge-sheet dated 31.5.2006 and order dated 28.7.2006 by which respondents, without giving an opportunity to make representation against the charge-sheet, decided to conduct an enquiry and appointed Inquiry Officer as well as Presiding Officer on 28.7.2006. In second OA No. 2065/2006 also the impugned charge-sheet dated 3.7.2006 and orders dated 7.9.2006 were served by respondents in the same manner.Thereafter, enquiry against the applicant began and Inquiry Officer as well as Presiding Officer were appointed on 28.7.2006. This action is held by applicant as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and set aside by the Tribunal. (a) to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 31.5.2006 with all consequential benefits; (b) though the ...

Pfizer Inc. Vs. Pifer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)139; 2007(34)PTC660(Del)

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking amendment to the plaint.2. The plaintiff has filed this suit for injunction against the defendant seeking a restraint from manufacturing, selling, advertising, marketing or in any other manner whatsoever using PIFER, PIFOL or PIFSER or any other mark or name which is deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's trade mark and name PFIZER, either as a trademark or as the corporate or trade name or trading style, or part of a trademark, corporate name, trade name or trading style, as the case may be, or in any other manner whatsoever infringing the registered trademark PFIZER of the plaintiff or passing off its goods or business as and for the goods and business of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought a decree for mandatory injunction seeking the direction that the defendant should recall all the products and marketing, promo...