Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Mahender Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ299

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 8th November, 2006, directing registration of an FIR against the petitioner and for quashing the FIR No. 612 of 2006 at Police Station Connaught Place.2. A perusal of the instant FIR would show that the complainant alleged that the he was a well-known builder namely M/s Ansal Buildwell Limited. Some dispute was going on with the petitioner in respect of the deposits made by him regarding booking in future projects. The petitioner started pressurising the officials of the respondent company that they should give him Rs.50 lac over and above the amount deposited by him in respect of future project at Panipat failing which he would implicate the complainant/respondent officials in false cases and if the company wants to save it from the cases, it should give Rs.50 lac extra. The petitione...

Lala Charat Ram and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ65

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners pray that the order dated 18.11.2000 summoning the petitioners to face trial for offences under Section 109/120B/339/340/383/503 IPC be set aside and complaint filed by the complainant Bhupendra Singh Chauhan be quashed.2. At the outset, I may note that petitioner No. 1, Lala Charat Ram, impleaded as accused No. 1 has died during pendency of the present petition. Hence, the complain qua him i.e. Lala Charat Ram has abated.3. In his complaint, Bhupendra Singh Chauhan stated that first petitioner Lala Charat Ram was the Chairman of M/s. Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. Petitioner No. 2 Ashok Kumar Taneja was stated to be the Senior Executive Director of the said company. Petitioner No. 3 R.Shriniwasan was stated to be Executive Director of the company. Petitioner No. 4 Rajeev Sethi was stated to be the Junior Executive Director of the company. Petitioner No. 5 Alok Bhattacharjee was stated to be Assistant General Manager of the company and petitioner No. 6...

Prakash and Poonam Tours and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of 4,53,186/- and penalties. The applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 1 lakh at the time of hearing of the appeal.The demand is confirmed by treating the applicant as tour operator. The contention is that the applicants were only transporting employees of Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Ltd. Therefore, they are not providing any service as tour operator. The applicant also submitted that some portion of the demand is beyond five years.2. The fact that the applicant is only transporting the employees of Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Ltd, prima facie, we find that amount already deposited is sufficient for the purpose of hearing the appeal.Service tax and penalties are waived for hearing the appeal. The stay petition is allowed....

Rashpal Singh Vs. Davinder Kaur Sethi and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC75

1. The order impugned in this appeal is one dated 5.1.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh in Appeal 5/2005. The appeal before him had been filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein against the order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Recovery Officer in R.C. 555/2001 issued pursuant to the order in O.A. 481/ 2001 (old DRT, Jaipur O.A.No. 21/99). The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal below whereby the sale of the property in question to the appellant herein was set aside.2. The relevant facts may be stated briefly. The respondent No. 4 herein-Punjab National Bank (applicant in O.A.) had filed O.A. before DRT, Jaipur against M/s. Amrit Cellulose Ltd. (respondent No. 5 herein) and its directors/guarantors including respondents 1 to 3 for the recovery of Rs. 2 crores and odd. Managing Director of the company, namely, Mr. J.S. Sethi died after the O.A. was filed and the respondents 1 to 3 herein were his legal heirs, too, besides being guarantors/mortgagors. The O.A. was allowed ...

Phoola Kaul Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ58

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner, Phoola Kaul is the mother-in-law of the complainant, Neeru Kaul.2. The present petition is directed against the order on charge dated 5.7.2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioner was charged with the offences under Section 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Backdrop facts giving rise to the present petition are that the marriage between Neeru and Abhimanyu (son of the petitioner) was solemnized on 2.11.2000 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Abhimanyu was employed at Canada and after the marriage he left for Canada while Neeru continued to reside with her in-laws. Unfortunately, the marriage turned sour and Neeru left her matrimonial home.4. On 22.4.2002, Neeru got a legal notice served upon her husband and father-in-law, Chaman Kishan Kaul through Ravinder Zadoo, Advocate. In the said legal notice it was alleged that her husband had deserted her and that her husband and father-in-law had subj...

Kewal Krishan Kumar Vs. Rudi Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)374; 2007(35)PTC848(Del)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. In this appeal, challenge is made to the order dated 21st November, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the appellant herein. The appellant contends that he is trading in atta etc with the trade mark/name 'Shakti Bhog' registered in the name of the appellant effective from 16th June, 1982 and that registration of the trade mark 'Shiv Shakti' with a device of 'Trishul' and 'Damru' in favor of the respondent No.1 by respondent No.2 - Assistant Registrar Trade Mark and upholding of the said order by the learned Single Judge was uncalled for and unjustified.2. On 30th October, 1990 respondent No.1 herein filed an application for registration of the trade mark 'Shiv Shakti' with a device of 'Trishul' and 'Damru' in Class-30 in respect of atta, maida and suji. The said application was in Class 30. It was also claimed that the respondent No.1 had been using the said mark effective from 6th March, 1990. The said application was dul...

Mahipal Singh Bisht and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ748

Hima Kohli, J.1. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioners have approached this Court against the respondents with a grievance that their services were terminated verbally and for directions to the respondent No. 2, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, to take the petitioners back in service as Data Entry Operators and to grant the petitioners temporary status with effect from the date when they were purportedly verbally terminated from service by the respondents.3. A brief narration of the facts is necessary. The petitioners No. 1 to 4 claim that they were appointed as Data Entry Operators (DEOs) on daily wage basis with the respondent No. 2 on different dates between October, 1999 to December, 1999. The petitioners discharged their duties as DEOs from the date of their respective appointments till 31st August, 2001. However, suddenly thereafter, the petitioners were verbally informed that their services had b...

P.K. Biswas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ261

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal revolves around the issue of appointment of a Deputy Governor in the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant and the respondent No.3 were working as Executive Directors with the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant is senior to respondent No.3, though both are designated as Executive Director, as he was appointed a month earlier than the respondent No.3. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent No.3 has been appointed as a Deputy Governor from the position of Executive Director, although he was senior to respondent No.3 but his case was ignored and he was not considered for promotion.2. The appellant being aggrieved filed a writ petition. The said writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge but the same was dismissed holding that the contentions raised by the appellant are baseless and have no merit. It was also held that the post of Deputy Governor in the Reserve Bank of India is not a promotional post.3. Being aggrieved by the a...

Dr. Sunil Kumar and ors. Vs. State (Govt. of Nct Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)DMC212

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Allowed subject to just exception.Crl. M. No. 11045/07 in Bail App. No. 2097/07Allowed subject to just exception.Bail App. No. 2096/07 & 2097/07Notice. Counsel as above accepts notice for the State. Complainant is present in person in Court.2. Bail Application No. 2041/2007 is coming up today as an 'After Notice Misc. Matter'. Since petitioners of all the bail applications seek pre-arrest bail in same FIR, as agreed by learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State as also the complainant, all applications are taken up for disposal today itself.3. FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by Ms. Shalini who, on 22.11.2004 got married to Rajesh, petitioner in Bail Application No. 2097/2007.4. A child, Baby Bhavishika, was born to the parties. Unfortunately, Ms. Shalini had to leave her matrimonial house on 10.12.2006 as she alleged extreme mental and physical torture.5. Petitioners of Bail Application No. 2041/2007 are the sister and brother...

Shiv Prakash Sharoha Vs. Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Ne ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Complaint of the appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 2,20,000 on account of having been wrongly diagnosed by the respondent was dismissed vide impugned order dated 5.6.2007 by holding that the treatment given by the respondent was correct and there was no negligence nor was the diagnosis wrong. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The case of the appellant in brief was that on 10.9.2002, he felt uneasiness with pain in chest. He consulted doctors of respondent. The appellant reached at 2.15 p.m. at emergency ward of respondent. The duty doctor examined the appellant and checked his blood pressure. The duty doctor did not find anything alarming. He also informed the appellant that chest pain may be due to hypertension. He advised the appellant to visit OPD for further investigation. 4. While the appellant was going towards the OPD wing of respondent, he again felt chest pain and immediately reported chest pain to Dr. Ajay S...