Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Delhi Auto and General Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mehra Goel and Co.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Limited grievance of the appellant against order dated 31.7.2003, passed in execution proceedings is that instead of straightaway proceeding under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum should have proceeded in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The grievance appears to be justified. The respondent is concerned with the recovery of the dues awarded to him. So far as proceedings under Section 27 of the Act are concerned these are penal proceedings against a person who fails or omits to comply with the order passed by the District Forum or State Commission. Such proceedings can end up in fine upto Rs. 10,000 or imprisonment only and therefore no useful purpose is served in initiating proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, at first instance. Counsel for the appellant states that there are batch matters lying and they are settling the dispute with th...

Tushar Ranjan Mohanty S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicant, a member of Indian Statistical Service (for short ISS) in non-functional selection grade (NFSG), has sought the following reliefs: 8.2 to quash the retrospective effect (Rule 1(2) of the Notification No. G.S.R. 411(e); dated 1.07.2006 (Annexure A-1) as illegal, arbitrary, whimsical, fanciful, and for taking away the vested rights of the applicant. 8.3 to grant all consequential benefits /reliefs following out of such quashing of the retrospective effect (Rule 1(2) of the Notification No. G.S.R. 411(E), dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure A-1): 8.4 to quash any illegal action earlier taken that is sought to be legalized by the operation of Rule 1(2) of the Notification No. G.S.R. 411(E), dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure A-1) as being void-ab-initio; 8.5 to issue any such and further order/directions this Hon_ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and 2. For the sake of convenience, brief factual matrix of the case is highlight...

Parveen Kumar S/O Baldev Ram Vs. Commissioner of Police, Jt.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Constable Parveen Kumar, the applicant herein, through present Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, calls in question order dated 13.4.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority vide which his four years approved service was forfeited permanently entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4050/- to Rs. 3710/- with immediate effect. He was, however, reinstated from suspension but the period of his suspension was not treated as if spent on duty. He also challenges order dated 13.6.2005 vide which his appeal carried against the order aforesaid was dismissed by the appellate authority.2. Brief facts of the case reveal that in the departmental enquiry ordered against the applicant, charge was framed against him to the effect that ACP/Kamla Market was on night patrolling of Central District on the intervening night of 7/8.2.2003 and when after patrolling in the jurisdiction of P.S. Rajender Nagar he was heading for Shanker Road Crossing around 3...

Umaballav Mohapatra, Advocate, Vs. Central Administrative

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai and Ors. held as follows: that procedural law cannot betray the substantive law by submitting to subordination of complexity. Courts are equipped with power to interpret law are often posed with queries which may be ultimate. The judicial steps of the Judge then do stir to solve novel problems by neat innovations.2. In the above backdrop, a peculiar situation whereby the Memoranda filed by the legal representative of the Government, i.e., Senior Central Government Standing Counsel (SCGSC) and Additional Senior Standing Counsel (ASCGSC) have been rejected as inadmissible under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the procedural rules led to a representation by one Umaballav Mohapatra, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel at Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal, was treated as an OA and on transfer, was admitted to Full Bench where notices have been issued to the President of the Bar Association and the Senior Standing Counsel. Following questions have been ...

Paritosh Chandra Basu S/O Late Sri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this O.A, applicant has assailed Order dated 21.06.2004 (Annexure A-1), under which the penalty of 'Censure' was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and Order dated 09.11.2004 (Annexure A-2) by which Reviewing/Revision Authority upheld the penalty of 'Censure', inter alia alleging that while working as SSO I at CQA (T&C) Kanpur at the time of processing Consignee End Checks recommended acceptance of substandard lots of Cotton Wool Ex-M/s Shiv Shakti Surgicals, Jind Haryana cleared vide SQAE(GS) New Delhi, I. Note dt. 18.06.1997 as also acceptance of substandard Caps Balcalava snow Ex-M/s Minerva Hosiery Mills (P) Ltd. Ludhiana accepted against I. Note dt. 10.06.1997. (i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash the impugned penalty order dated 21.6.2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure A-1) and order dated 9.11.2004 passed by the Reviewing Authority (Annexure A-2), as being void, arbitrary and illegal and against the declared law on the subject. (ii...

Bwl Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR398(Delhi)

ORDERING:The prices fixed by MTNL shall remain valid for the period of delivery schedule stipulated under the 'Schedule of Requirements' by MTNL. Increase and decrease of taxes and duties will not affect the price during the originally offered delivery schedule.12.3 For any add-on order, price will be fixed after adjusting the price according to the taxes and duties as on date of such order.9. He submits that under the General Purchase Conditions, the bidders, like the Petitioner, were required to quote firm prices, item wise (clause 3.2). The bidders were also required to confirm that their 'quoted prices shall remain, in the event of an order, Firm and Fixed and subject to no variation of any description during operation of the order' (clause 3.3 of the General Purchase Conditions). All these clauses, according to the Petitioner, clearly show that the contract was a fixed price contract for all supplies to be made there under and the Respondent could not reduce the prices unilaterall...

Anil Bagla Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Del)444

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 31st May, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'), Bench D, New Delhi in ITA No. 950/Del/2005 for the relevant Assessment Year 2001-02.2. There are four questions that have been urged by learned Counsel for the assessed.3. The first question pertains to a gift of Rs.2 lakhs stated to have been made by one Shri Rajesh Gulati to the assessed on 24th March, 2001. The Tribunal did not accept the genuineness of this gift for the reason that on his examination by the Assessing Officer, Shri Rajesh Gulati stated that he knew the assessed since 1998 but after the death of his father, he (Rajesh Gulati) had never met the assessed nor did he know anything about the family members of the assessed. The assessed has also never visited the house of Shri Rajesh Gulati. The Tribunal was of the view that under the circumstances, it would be quite unnatural for a person who had never contacted the donee or known a...

Executive Engineer Irrigation and Flood Control Department Vs. Shree R ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR194(Delhi); 2007(98)DRJ28

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 seeking dismissal of the Transfer Petition No. 15/2006 on two counts. It is firstly contended that the petition has been wrongly styled as a Transfer Petition and should have been numbered as an Original Miscellaneous Petition (OMP) inasmuch as it has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') challenging the Award dated 10.11.2004 made by Mr T. S. Bhatija, sole arbitrator. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that while the Registry of this Court was of the view that the petition cannot be numbered as a Transfer Petition, the petitioner insisted that the same should be numbered as such. According to the respondent No. 1 the object of this was to get over the question of limitation. This leads to the second ground taken by the respondent No. 1 and that is that the petition is, on the statements as made in t...

Rajan Kakar and ors. Vs. Vijaya Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi17; 2007(98)DRJ332

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. Mr. Sanjeev Pathak, learned Counsel waives notice of Rule. With consent of learned Counsel for parties, the matter was heard finally.2. The petitioners impugn the respondents' recourse to the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (hereafter called 'Secularization Act') and also an order dated 16th October, 2006 made by the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act.3. The brief facts for the purpose of deciding this case are that the petitioner is a customer borrower of the second respondent He entered into a transaction whereby an amount of Rs. 9,90,000/- was borrowed in the year 2004. In terms of the loan agreement/arrangement, the liabilities were to be liquidated over a period of 10 years by equal monthly Installments to the tune of Rs. 12,700/-. It is alleged that on account of certain compulsions as well as family exigencies the petitione...

S.K.N. Associates Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ43

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the deletion contained in the 14th Endorsement to the petitioner No. 1's certification marks license No. CM/L-2341642 for IS: 9798: 1995 which seeks to delete 'single stage low pressure regulators for use with LPG mixtures, suitable for valves having 25.6 mm collar diameter and maximum rated capacity = 0.5 m3/hr' from the said license. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant renewal of the license without the aforesaid deletion.2. The petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the manufacture of various appliances, including LPG pressure regulators marketed under the trade name and style 'SKN'. The petitioner No. 2, who is a citizen of India, is a share-holder and Director of the petitioner No. 1. In 1987, the petitioner No. 1 is said to have commenced production of LPG pressure regulators used for regulation of the flow of LPG from the gas cylinder to the burner of the stove. Shortly after the ...