Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mr. Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. Northern Railway
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR363(Delhi)
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner was allotted by the respondent 5 cycle/scooter parking sites measuring 375 sq. mtrs., 625 sq. mtrs., 2419 sq. mtrs., 1625 sq. mtrs. and 600 sq. mtrs. respectively at Ghaziabad city side Railway Station on a total license fee of Rs. 17,51,000/- for a period of two years i.e. from 1st April, 1999 to 30th September, 2000. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 2,91,840/- as advance license fee for four months besides security amount of Rs. 1,75,100/-. The balance license fee of Rs. 14,59,160/- was payable in 20 equal installments of Rs. 72,958/- each. Though the petitioner deposited the requisite amounts and completed all the formalities as required, he was given possession of only three sites measuring 375 sq. mtrs, 1625 sq. mtrs. and 600 sq. mtrs. inspire of repeated requests, the respondent failed to hand over possession of the other two sites measuring 2419 sq. mtrs. and 625 sq. mtrs. It was only on 13th September, 2000 that the possession of 4t...
Outdoors Communication Vs. Pwd and Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ179(Del)
Gita Mittal, J.1. The present case is a unique case where one governmental authority is complaining of an illegality by a statutory authority. Grievance has been made by the Public Works Department (hereinafter PWD) that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter MCD) has entered into a contract which is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments and now by a Division Bench of this Court as well.Interesting questions of law have arisen for consideration in the present case. It is not only the law laid down by the Apex Court but also statutory provisions which would require to be considered and also the public policy which is involved.2. It is said that a great city is defined by its history and its people. Delhi is one such city. Known as a city of great resilience, it has been witness to a number of upheavals, battles and natural calamities in its long history, but has always emerged victorious. traveling through Delhi in the 1930s, Robert Byron, a t...
Baljeet Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ356
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner, who is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Haryana State Police, aspires to get inducted to Indian Police Service (for short, 'IPS') and wants appointment to the said cadre under the promotion channel. Undoubtedly, as he was eligible for consideration to IPS, the Selection Committee constituted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for this purpose duly considered his case along with certain other eligible candidates in its meeting held on 20.12.2005. However, the Selection Committee recommended the names of two officers junior to the petitioner and on the basis of the said recommendation, the said two officers have been appointed superseding the petitioner. The petitioner filed OA No. 556/2006 challenging this act, but without any success as the OA filed by him has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 3.8.2006. Impugning this judgment, the present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner.2. To appreciate the exac...
Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR84(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent herein was awarded certain contracts by the petitioner. These works were executed by the respondent but there was delay in the execution of the contract. Clause 4.4.0.0. of the General Conditions of Contract provided for liquidated damages in case of delay in execution. Invoking this clause the petitioner recovered the maximum liquidated damages as provided, i.e. 10% of the contract value, from the respondent's last running account bill. The respondent agitated as according to it no such liquidated damages were payable. The contract provided arbitration clause, which was invoked by the respondent. The learned arbitrator went into this question and has rendered his impugned award dated 28.4.2003 holding that the imposition of liquidated damages by the petitioner was not justified. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging this award. The question, as is clear from the above, is about the competence of the petitioner to recover the liquid...
Poona Radiology Services Private Ltd. Vs. Philips Electronics India Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC382
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The challenge in the present appeal is against order dated 6.10.2006 of the Additional District Judge allowing the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and partially decreeing the suit. Trial Court record had been called for and received. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashish Wad and Mr. Rajeev Virmani, counsel for respondent were heard on 20.8.2007. The case was adjourned to 21st August, 2007 for further hearing. On 21st August, 2007 , Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate, appeared for the appellant. Both parties were heard at length and judgment reserved.2. The appellant impugns the partial decree passed under under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for a sum of Rs. 12,63,000/- in favor of the respondent and against the appellant. The surviving claim of the respondent in the suit is with regard to the interest @ 18% on the decreed amount from 23.11.1998 to 27.1.2000 and pendente lite interest at the same rate. 3. Before we notice the grounds of challenge and submissions of ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Chaffeurs (Class-iii) Association
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ272(Delhi)
S.L. Bhayana, J.1. The petitioner, by this Writ Petition, has assailed the order, dated 27th February, 2001, passed in MA No. 204/2000 of OA No. 76/1999 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'). The appellant, through this writ petition, has challenged the findings of the Tribunal, wherein the O.A. of the respondents was allowed on the ground that the Chauffeurs in Group 'C' category were discriminated against the similarly situated persons. Incidence of financial liability cannot be made the rationale for treating the Chauffeurs at par with Group 'D' when as per the rules applicable categorization is to be in Group 'C'.2. Petitioners have assailed the impugned order on the grounds that grant of some benefits to Chauffeurs of Group 'C' at par with Group 'D' category is not downgrading and is not discriminatory but a policy decision taken after taking due account of exigencies involved.3. The facts culminating in the filing of present...
Mahender Singh Vs. D.T.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ48; [2007(115)FLR545]; 2008(2)SLJ497(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.08.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant herein which was filed against the order of Industrial Tribunal dated 4.11.2000 granting approval to the Delhi Transport Corporation to the decision taken for removal of the appellant from service. 2. Briefly the facts are that a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant who was employed as a Driver with the respondent. In the said charge-sheet it was alleged that appellant remained absent from duty during the period from 01.01.1992 to 15.08.1992. It was also alleged in the charge-sheet that the appellant was irregular in performing his duty and was not interested in the task assigned to him by the Corporation. Against the aforesaid charge-sheet a reply was filed by the appellant wherein he had alleged that he was unwell during the months of September and October, 1991. After his recovery he was sent to the D.T.C Medical...
Sh. Surinder Pal Singh and anr. Vs. Sh. Daljit Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ267
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This is a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and permanent and perpetual injunction. Initially, it was filed by the two plaintiffs-plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2, who are the son and wife respectively of late Shri Prem Singh Bedi. However, afterwards the married daughters of late Shri Prem Singh Bedi were included as the plaintiff Nos.3 to 5. The defendants are also sons and daughter of Shri Prem Singh Bedi. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 being the sons and defendant No.6 being the unmarried daughter of late Shri Prem Singh Bedi.2. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the defendants are co-owners of the following properties:i. Shop No.30, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi.ii. Double Storey House at A-49, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi.iii. Flat No. 23, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi (above Shop No. 30, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi).iv. Plot measuring 500 sq. yards in Faridabad.v. 1000 sq. yards in Noida.vi. 100 sq...
Vivek Sharma Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ377
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.FIR No. 375/05 Dated : 5.7.2005Under Section 302/307/34 IPCP.S. Model Town1. Petitioner, Vivek Sharma is an accused in the afore-noted FIR. He seeks bail.2. FIR has been registered on information provided by Ajit Kumar who has been examined ass PW-5. As per the FIR, the complainant Ajit Kumar along with his friends Dhananjay Tiwari, Shiv Kumar Sharma and Siddharth Motwani had left house No. B-88, Gujranwala Town, New Delhi at about 1.10 A.M. in a car (Indica Make) bearing No. DL-3C-AF-3348. When they reached gate No. 1 in the colony, two persons in another Indica car bearing No. DL-8C-J-5562 were seen by them at the gate. They were having an altercation with Rohit Kumar, the guard at the gate. As per the complainant, when the complainant and his friends intervened to pacify, the said two persons snatched the lathi from the guard and attacked them. One of the two inflicted a lathi blow on Dhananjay Tiwari and the another inflicted a knife blow on Dhananjay. Thereaft...
Poorva Sainik Bhau Udeshya Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)9STR28
1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicants are providing security service. The contention is that the applicant is Welfare Cooperative Society for the welfare of ex-serviceman and provides employment to the ex-serviceman, therefore, the applicant is not a commercial concern. The applicant relied upon the stay order dt. 3-2-06 in the case of Ajmer Zila Ex-Serviceman Welfare Co-op. Society Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R.328 whereby the pre-deposit of service tax is waived.2. In view of the earlier stay order, pre-deposit the amount of service tax is waived. Registry is directed to list this appeal along with Appeal No. ST/220/05....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »