Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Efficient Offset Printers Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The complainant firm has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-DDA in cancelling the allotment of plot and has claimed withdrawal of the cancellation of allotment and delivery of possession of the plot or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 7,55,000 with 24% interest, Rs. 2.00 lacs as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 25,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Case of the complainant, which is a partnership firm, in brief, is that residential/commercial/mixed land use scheme was advertised by OP in the month of July/August 1996 in the west part of Delhi known as Bindapur in the Dwarka/Pappankalan project, by means of auction. The OP offered to render services by making improvement in the land for valuable consideration and handing over the same to the successful bidders/allottees in the shape of mixed land use/plots. The complainant in good faith, participated in the public auction on 18.9.1996 and was the successful high...

Sri M.C. Singhania and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants herein are officers in Indian Foreign Service (hereinafter referred to as IFS) (Branch 'B'). Through the present Application filed by them under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, they seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash office memorandum dated 25.4.2005, as also declaring the second proviso to rule 15(4)(ii) of the Indian Foreign Service (Recruitment, Cadre, Seniority and Promotion) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Rules) ultra vires, and to direct the respondents to assign the 'year of allotment' to the applicants according to their date of empanelling for the particular year taking into consideration the vacancies for each panel year in the light of the seniority list of Grade I of IFS (B). They also seek issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix their 'year of allotment' according to the year in which the vacancies had arisen.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present...

Asi Baban Rao Vs. Government of Nct and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(2)SLJ118CAT

1. The O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The following orders have been impugned in the O.A.: (i) Order dated 20.03.2007 of Disciplinary Authority, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, Delhi by which the applicant has been dismissed from service by dispensing with the departmental enquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India; and (ii) Order in appeal dated 14.05.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Range, Delhi upholding the order of the Disciplinary Authority.2. The applicant was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in Delhi Police during the period of the alleged incident for which action has been taken against him. The facts of the incident, as mentioned in the order of the Disciplinary Authority, are as follows. The applicant was on emergency duty from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM on 19.03.2007. It is alleged that he left the Police Station without making any departure in Daily ...

Lachhman Das Behari Lal Vs. Shri Ghanshyam Das Jetha Nand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)448

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction, infringement of copyright / trademark, passing off and rendition of accounts etc. The defendants have been proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff has filed its evidence in the shape of affidavits of PW1 to PW12. The plaintiff has also filed documents which have been marked as exhibits PW1/1 to PW1/13. The document at page 51 filed on behalf of the plaintiff as Annexure - VIII contains the plaintiff's mark as well as the defendants' mark. The plaintiff's mark is marked as exhibit-A. The defendants' mark is marked as exhibit-B. The document at page 52 (Annexure - IX) which is a bill issued by the defendant No. 3 is marked as exhibit-C.2. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm which was constituted in 1925. Later, in 1981, due to expansion of the business, the plaintiff moved a part of its business activities as well as its head office to Delhi. The plaintiff firm is in the business of manufacturing an...

C.M. Srivastava and Dr. Raksha Arora Vs. S.C.E.R.T.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ505

ORDERHima Kohli, J.1. On 23rd August, 2007, the counsel for the respondent had placed on record a copy of the judgment dated 14th August, 2007 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. v. V.K. Sodhi and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3272/2003. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court held that the respondent No. 1/SCERT is not a 'State' or 'other authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and for that reason concluded that normally it is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While holding so, the Supreme Court set aside the order and judgment dated 19th May, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3693/1998 entitled V.K. Sodhi v. Lt. Governor of Delhi.2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the aforementioned judgment does not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition, namely, his entitlemen...

Ramesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1019]; (2008)ILLJ135Del

ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on this appeal, which has been filed by the workmen. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18th July, 2006 passed by the appropriate Government, a writ petition was filed by the workmen assailing the findings therein that the disputes raised should not be referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 18th November, 2006, with an observation that the appellants can amend their statement of claim.2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have looked into the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour dated 18th July, 2006 whereby the Ministry had informed the workmen that the dispute in respect of which reference was sought is not fit for adjudication on the grounds mentioned in the said order. Since the said grounds have relevance for deciding the issue raised before us, we extract the ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. S.R. Construction Co. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR141(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the respondent for rejection of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on the ground that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the said petition. It has been contended by the respondent that, first of all, the arbitrator was appointed by an order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge on a petition under Section 11 of the said Act. thereforee, in accordance with Section 42 of the said Act, the objections, if any, under Section 34 of the Act, would lie before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi who appointed the sole arbitrator. Secondly, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the total claims preferred before the sole arbitrator came to Rs 19.55 lakhs. Thus, this Court would not have jurisdiction inasmuch as, had a suit been filed of the same value, then the suit...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Dhanwant Rai and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ461

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. As the issues involved in these appeals are identical, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment and order. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 20th September, 2004, passed by the learned Single Judge directing for payment of retirement benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, unpaid salary etc to the respondents. The appellant, namely, Delhi Transport Corporation, did not pay the aforesaid retiral benefits to the respondents on the pretext that the respondents have not vacated the residential accommodations provided by the Corporation. 3. The principal question that was urged and decided by the learned Single Judge was whether an employer can withhold retiral benefits of a retired person, who has no proceedings pending against him, on the ground that the retiree continues to be in occupation of the accommodation provided by the employer. The learned Single Judge held that the Corporation could not have withheld the payment o...

Pawan Gupta Vs. Pritpal Singh Saluja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ695

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th December, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought for by the respondent, was addition of an additional party, namely, Ms. Mani Gupta, who is the wife of the appellant, in the pending suit filed by the respondent praying for recovery of money. The amendment was prayed for in view of the defence taken by the appellant in his written statement that the sum of Rs. 2,56,000/-, which was given in the name of M/s Friends Industrial Corporation by cheques dated 30th March, 2000 and 7th July, 1999 were not received by him and the said Friends Industrial Corporation is a sole proprietorship of his wife.2. In the suit, recovery was sought in respect of the amount which was allegedly given on loan by the respondent to the appellant to M/s Gupta Sales Corporation and M/s Friends Industrial Corporation. Aft...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dlf Universal Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]297ITR342(Delhi)

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated July 13, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' in I.T.A. Nos. 4984 and 4985/Del/2003 relevant to the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94.2. Broadly, the issue that is involved in this appeal is whether the Revenue could have imposed a penalty on the assessed under the provisions of Section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), even though two applications filed by the assessed for stay of recovery of tax were pending before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to have imposed a penalty without disposing of the stay applications pending before him.3. On May 23, 2007, we had directed learned Counsel for the Revenue to produce the original file containing the order, if any, passed on the stay applications pending before the Assessing Officer. Today, learned Counsel for the Revenue informs us that the original record is not avail...