Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Mukesh JaIn and Others Vs. K.L. Anand (Dr.)

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of death of the wife of the complainant No.1 during MRI scan the complainants have sought compensation of Rs. 10 lacs alleging medical negligence on the part of OP-doctor and hospital. 2. Case of the complainants, in brief, is that on 3.5.2001 at 9.00 a.m. Smt. Sudha Jain accompanied with her husband, reached the diagnostic centre of the opposite party (OP) and the OP charged Rs. 5,000 vide receipt No. 313 dated 3.5.2001 for conducting MRI and thereafter the complainant No. 1 was told that MRI will be conducted after 11.00 a.m. since the OP was attending to some other patient. Thereafter the complainant accompanied with his wife left for home to come again at 11.00 a.m. 3. At about 10.45 a.m. Smt. Sheela Jain was told by complainant who is also the brother-in-law of the complainant that since he had some work, she should take the deceased for MRI test at Dr. Anands Research Centre, Preet Vihar who had told to come at 11.00 a..m. Accordingly she acc...

Shri Dilip Kumar and Mohd. Asim Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC168

1. Both the appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore both are taken up together for disposal.2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that on 15/12/04 the Customs Officers of Bahraich intercepted a truck No. UP-71/A-6821 at Risra crossing on Nanpara Bahraich Road. The truck was loaded with fresh Ginger 60 quintals in 95 bags. The driver and the person accompanying the goods produced the documents of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mihinpurwa and bilty No. 11 dated 15/12/2004. The driver of the truck Shri Nanhoo stated in his statement dated 15/12/2004 that he dropped his vehicle to Kanda jungle, where Ginger was brought from the North side on bullock-carts and loaded his vehicle. The driver also stated that the bullock-cart man told him that they had brought the same Ginger from across the border i.e. Nepal. A show cause notice dated 08/06/2005 was issued proposing to confiscate the fresh Ginger 60 quintals valued at Rs. 1,80,000/- under Section 111 of Customs Act 19...

Ajay Mehra S/O Sh. Lakshmi Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Denial of appointment to the post of Inspector (Preventive Officer) in the Central Board of Excise and Customs is the gravamen of the grievance of the applicant.2. Twofold submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant. It is contended that the applicant admittedly acquired graduation degree in Bachelor of Arts, 2004 on 11.10.2004 and had even earlier possessed degree in Masters of Art in English awarded by Annamalai University in 2002, which makes him eligible as per the Notification for the post of Preventive Officer.3. Learned Counsel would contend that vide letter issued on 25.11.1988 as well as in 1991, Ministry of Human Resources Development has recognized the various Courses conducted by the Annamalai University recognized for the purpose of employment under the Central Government and while referring to the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC, for short), it is stated that University means a University incorporated by or under the Central Act and Section 22 co...

Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)419

1. These two appeals of the assessee raise a similar ground to the effect that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 30,000, levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The appeals were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative. Therefore, a common order is passed.2. In this case, the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings under Section 142(1) on 13th Nov., 2000, 17th Nov., 2000 and 7th Feb., 2001. It was held by him that there was a clear default, which was also deliberate.Therefore, penalty of , Rs. 30,000 was levied @ Rs. 10,000 per default.It was argued before the learned CIT(A) that the order of penalty was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which provides that no order imposing a penalty under this chapter shall be passed in any other case, after expiry of the financial year in which the proceedi...

Additional Commissioner of Vs. National thermal Power

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)1

1. Vide miscellaneous application filed as above the Department has claimed that there are certain mistakes crept in the order of the Tribunal which require rectification.2. The concerned appeal was decided by the order of this Tribunal dt.26th May, 2004 in ITA Nos. 1377 and 2188/Del/2002 in respect of asst.yrs. 1998-99 and 1999-2000.3. The issue in respect of which rectification has been sought is regarding part disallowance of deduction under Section 80-I/80-IA. The assessee is engaged in the business of generation of electricity at various places by using coal and gas. The dispute is in respect of units generating electricity by using gas. During the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed that some of the units had shown fuel cost while other units were showing no cost of fuel. It was explained that in gas turbines which uses gases for generation of electricity the natural gas after mixing with air is burnt in the gas combustion to produce gases at a very high temperature and ...

Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Mr. Lalit Wadhwa and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)192; 2007(35)PTC377(Del)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I propose to deal with I.A. No. 9649/2006 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and I.A. No. 9648/2006, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the defendants.2. By the aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is contended that the plaint is liable to be rejected since it does not disclose a cause of action; that the suit has not been filed by a duly authorised person, and; that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.3. I.A. No. 9648/2006 has been filed to say that defendant No. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit and that he has been imp leaded as defendant No. 1 merely to avoid the proceedings being noticed by the defendants in the cause list and with a view to obtain an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction behind the back of the defendant No. 2 and 3.4. Taking up the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC first, I proceed to deal with the objections that the plaint and the documents filed with ...

State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Desh Raj

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4595

J.M. Malik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd March, 1985, of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent/accused of charges under Sections 279/304A IPC. The indictment against the accused/respondent is as follows. On 3rd October, 1979, at about 10.45 a.m. at Laxmi Nagar bus stop the deceased G.J.Singh, who was waiting for his bus, was knocked down by a bus bearing No. DLP 5085, Route No. 304, allegedly driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The said incident was witnessed by three prosecution witnesses. Constable Bal Kishan, PW-3, was on duty from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. at Laxmi Nagar Bus Stand. Hansal Rose, PW-2, nephew of the deceased, took the injured to the hospital. Ashok Kumar, PW-1, neighbour of the deceased, went to inform the inmates of house of the deceased. Constable Bal Kishan, PW-3, went to the Police Post Shakar Pur and got recorded the DD No. 14, Ex.PW7/A, wherein it was s...

T. Azzezur Rehman and Co. and ors. Vs. Super Supplies and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ311; 2007(97)DRJ373

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. At the outset I may note that learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn out the memorandum of parties in a most unsatisfactory manner. The memo of parties states that 6 petitioners have joined in a common action to challenge the summoning order dated 18.5.2002. But, in the preamble to the petition and the prayer made it is stated that only petitioners No. 1, 4 and 5 are approaching the Court praying that the summoning order be quashed vis-a-vis said petitioners.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners who is a senior member of the Bar is expected to be more vigilant while drafting petitions.3. Respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 impleading 6 respondents as accused. The same are as under:1. M/s. T. Azeezur Rehman and Co., 12, Karpura Mudoli Street, Periamet, Madrass.2. Shri A. Niaz Ahmed.3. Shri T. Abdul Jabbar.4. Shri T. Azeezur Rehman.5. Shri T. Habeebur Rehman.6. Shri A. Faiyaz Ahmed.All...

Siemens Public Communication Networks Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ700

Hima Kohli, J.1. Petitioners by this petition seek, inter alia issuance of directions to the respondents to award the contract in respect of Tender No. DRTS/AREN/Jan-2005 floated by respondent No. 2, Bharat Electronics Limited on behalf of respondent No. 1AJOI to it. Petitioners further seek directions to restrain respondents No. 1 and 2 from negotiating with any other bidder except it on the ground that it is the lowest bidder of the said tender.2. The facts in brief are: Respondent No. 2, Bharat Electronics Ltd. was nominated by respondent No. 1, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, as the prime contractor for Indian Army's modernization plan for Technical Communication System (TCS). Respondent No. 2 floated a Request for Proposal (RFP) for procurement of Digital Radio Trunking System (DRTS), also popularly known as Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) which is a major component in the TCS Programme of the Indian Army, vide Tender No. DRTS/AREN/Jan-2005. In the RFP floated by respo...

Praveen Suri Vs. Ashish Wadhera

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Respondent purchased a currency counting machine for cost of Rs. 8,900 from the appellant. The machine did not work properly. It was sent for repair a number of times but to no effect. There was a warranty for 12 months from the date of instalment. In spite of the manufacturer M/s. A.G. Japan Ltd. having instructed the appellant to refund the cost of the machine to the respondent, appellant did not refund the same. Consequently, respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum. 2. The appellant was proceeded ex parte as it did not put appearance inspite of service of notice. While allowing the complaint, the District Forum vide its order dated 15.9.2000 directed the appellant to refund the full amount of Rs. 8,900 along with the interest @ 15% w.e.f. 15.9.1998 and Rs. 500 as cost of proceedings. 3. Through this appeal the impugned order has been challenged firstly, that no opportunity was given to the appellant to put up his version and...