Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Kanchan Gulati and anr. Vs. the State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC644; 2007(97)DRJ664

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made for quashing of FIR No. 277/2003 under Section 498A/406 IPC registered at Police Station New Friends Colony, Delhi. Petitioners are mother and brother of the former husband of the complainant (ex mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant).2. In the FIR, complainant stated that she was married to Anuranjan Gultai R/0 3245, N. Oakland Avenue Milwaukee, WI 43211, USA on 13.08.1993 at New Delhi. In marriage, her parents spent Rs. 2.5 lac for expenses towards reception of guests, gave various articles and gifts worth Rs. 1,46,000/- and an amount of Rs. 4500/- was paid to Anuranjan Gulati by cheque. Anuranjan Gulati was a computer engineer working in USA. Marriage took place in Jai Krishna temple at Pitampura. Her parents paid for her ticket to USA at the time when she left for USA to join her husband. Her precious and heavy jewellery were kept in...

Madan Mohan Sethi and anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ457

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 292/2002 PS Hauz Khas under Section 406/498A/34 IPC. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Mrs. Annie Sethi wherein she had alleged that she was married to Dr. Rajesh Sethi on 17th May, 1996. There was entrustment of dowry and istridhan including gold and diamond ornaments etc. to the petitioners. She accompanied Dr. Rajesh Sethi to Brooklyn USA. She gave a description of alleged cruelty meted out to her at USA at the hands of her husband. Her mother stayed with her at USA for some time during birth of child. A male child was born to her on 20th February, 1997. Her mother came back in May 1997 to India. The couple returned to India in November, 1997. While Dr. Rajesh Sethi left for USA on 1st December, 1997 she stayed back at her in-laws house. She submitted that her husband promised of returning to India in July, 1998, after completing his Reside...

Govind Prasad Tyagi and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT532

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions it has been prayed -(a) that the demolition of structures belonging to the Petitioners carried out by the DDA is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice; (b) that a mandamus be issued restraining the Respondents from interfering with the possession of the Petitioners; (c) that a mandamus be issued declaring the acquisition proceedings of land forming part of Khasra Nos.733 and 734 measuring 35 bighas 5 bids was situated in Village Basai Darapur as having lapsed pursuant to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act' for short); and (d) that the Respondents be directed to release the land of the Petitioners under Section 48 of the LA Act. Prior to the filing of these Petitions a person interested in this very parcel of land had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4362/2001 which was decided on 20.12.2001. In those proceedings it had been asseverated by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) th...

Anil Kumar Ahuja Vs. K.C. Sethi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR523(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP No. 88/2001 whereby objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to an arbitral award dated 20th December, 2000 have been dismissed.2. It is in our view unnecessary to set out in detail the backdrop in which the disputes arose and culminated in the making of the arbitral award as also the dismissal of the objections of the appellant to the same by the learned Single Judge. All that we need mention is that the genesis of the dispute lay in a collaboration agreement executed between the appellant and respondent no. 1 in relation to development of a property bearing No. D/016-A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Respondent No. 1 who happened to be the owner of a single storeyed house constructed on the said plot of land appears to have entered into a collaboration agreement with the appellant where under the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to respondent No. 1 an...

J.C. Khandelwal Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ375

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner seek quashing of the Complaint No. 421/1 dated 8.1.2004 as also the summoning order dated 7.8.2002.2. I may note that the complaint was filed in the year 2000 but a new number has been assigned probably when the complaint was transferred from one Court to another.3. Complaint has been filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioners have been summoned to face trial.4. In the complaint only one person has been stated as the accused viz. the company.5. In the memo of parties, accused has been described as under:Euro Cotspin Limited,Through its Chairman & ManagingDirector Directors, Secretary and Principal OfficersAmbala-Chandigarh Highway,Village : Lalru Tehsil: DerabassiDistrict: Patiala (Punjab).Also at:SCO 208-209Sector 34-A,Chandigarh-160017...Respondent/Accused6. There is no mention in the complaint recording involvement of petitioner No. 1. Against petitioner No. 2 only averment to be found is in para 6 which reads as under:6...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. O.P. Kachru and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The Counsel for the respondent has appeared on his own and has argued the matter and as such the appeal is being decided on merits. 2. Admittedly respondent is a life time member of medical scheme facilities for retired employees launched by the appellant. Respondent suffered heart disease and was admitted in the Hindu Rao Hospital. However, Hindu Rao Hospital referred it to another recognized hospital namely Escorts Heart Institute for treatment. There he incurred expenses of Rs. 2,25,465. However, he was reimbursed only Rs. 1,55,000 as per the terms of the scheme. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking payment of the balance amount. 3. Vide impugned order dated 6.3.2007 the District Forum has directed the appellant to reimburse the entire amount of the medical claim incurred by the respondent i.e., Rs. 2,25,465 excluding the amount of Rs. 1,55,000 which had already been paid to the respondent by...

Shri Ram Asrey S/O Shri Ram NaraIn Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Throug ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present OA is filed against orders dated 18.8.2006 and 24.4.2007 whereby applicant was imposed a penalty for recovery of Rs. 40,000/- @ Rs. 1000 in 40 instalments.2. Facts in brief are that on 29.3.2004 applicant, Postal Assistant, Indraprastha Head Post Office, New Delhi, while functioning as Enquiry Counter, P.A. accepted a cheque No. 230897 dated 5.11.2003 for Rs. 4 Lacs along with two Kisan Vikas Patras (KVP) purchase applications of Rs. 2 lacs each in the name of Smt. Sushila Dua through Shri Anurag Aggarwal, Standardised Agency System (SAS) Agent RD-2031 without making the mandatory check endorsement on the back of the cheque. This cheque got lost, a fact admitted by applicant. As a consequence, disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and other officials under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging violation of Rule 5 (b) of Appendix-I of P.O. S.B. Manual Vol.I, Rule 11 (3) of P.O. S.B. Man Vol. II and Rule 3 (I) (ii) and (iiii) of CCS...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vins Overseas India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)554; [2008]305ITR320(Delhi)

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 23rd Dec., 2005 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 3764/DeI/2001 for the asst. yr. 1997-98.2. Admit.3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed for consideration:Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment framed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction as no notice under Section 143(2) was served on the assessed within the prescribed time.4. Filing of paper book is dispensed with.5. The Tribunal, in the order under appeal dt. 23rd Dec., 2005, came to the conclusion that the notice dt. 9th Oct., 1998 issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act was not served upon the assessed. The Tribunal relied upon an affidavit filed for the first time by the assessed before it in which the assessed denied receipt of the notice dt. 9th Oct., 1998. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessed had, by filing the affidavi...

Mr. Ram Sethi S/O Late Shri Radhey Shyam Sethi Vs. M.S Bcc Properties ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ483

V.B. Gupta, J.1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of Magistrate. 2. The respondent/complainant had executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the present petitioner for purchase of certain land at Mohali and at the time of execution of the Memorandum of Understanding, the respondent/ complainant made advance payment of Rs.50 lacs to the petitioner. Since the deal could not materialse, the petitioner issued cheque dated 15th November, 2005, amounting to Rs.50 lacs for re-payment of the advance payment to the respondent/complainant. Later on the cheque was dishonoured and was returned back with the remarks 'insufficient funds'. 3. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/complainant had entered into an agreement with one Gurinder Singh Cheema for purchase of the land and this deal was brokered through the petitioner and...

Jaggi and Co. Vs. Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellat ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ326; [2008(116)FLR326]; (2008)ILLJ759Del

Hima Kohli, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The present writ petition is directed against an order dated 21st September, 2005 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal') upholding the orders dated 28th January, 2000 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), Delhi under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short `the Act') whereby the Act was made applicable to the petitioner establishment with effect from 1st June, 1989 on the ground that as on 5th June, 1989, strength of the employees of the petitioner establishment was 20, and rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner establishment.3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner establishment is engaged in the sale of fruits in Subzi Mandi, Azadpur. The Inspector of the RPFC visited the premises of the petitioner establis...