Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Rajesh and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)DMC442

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By the instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners sought quashing of the FIR No. 30 of 2007 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered with Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi and quashing of another FIR bearing No. 659 of 2006 under Sections 323/506/34 IPC registered with Police Station Anand Vihar, Delhi.2. The above two FIRs were a result of matrimonial discord. After registration of these FIRs, a compromise was arrived at between parties before the Court of Ms. Reena Singh Nag, ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and this compromise was signed by both parties. It reads as under:COMPROMISE DEEDTHIS COMPROMISE DEED is executed on 19th day of January, 2007 at Delhi between:Sh. Rajesh s/o Sh. Mukut Lal r/o V.P.O. Jawli, P.S. Loni, Distt.Ghaziabad, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as FIRST PARTY/HUSBAND).ANDSmt. Neelam w/o Sh. Rajesh D/o Sh. Yudhvir Singh ...

Startech Enggcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bundelkhand University

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT276

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard.2. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.4.2006 returning the plaint holding that Courts at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint.3. Reason for holding that Courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction is that the works executed in respect whereof payment is claimed in the plaint were at Jhansi. The tenders were submitted at Jhansi. The acceptance of the tenders was at Jhansi. That the works were executed at Jhansi.4. The impugned order has not dealt with the pleadings in the plaint with respect whereto territorial jurisdiction was pleaded, is the grievance urged in the instant appeal.5. In the plaint, in para 9 a specific averment has been made as under:Moreover the part payments in respect of the afore-said works executed by the plaintiff under the various work orders, have been made by the defendant to the plaintiff vide various bank drafts payable at Delhi and part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.6. The impugne...

Paragon Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR358(Delhi); 2008(101)DRJ193

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby the award made by the sole arbitrator (Mr. K.K. Verma) on 19.05.2007 has been challenged. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had preferred two claims as well as the claim for interest in respect thereof. The learned arbitrator has denied the claims of the petitioner and has passed a nil award.2. The arbitration was in respect of disputes which had arisen in respect of the expansion of SGM Hospital Mangolpuri by adding a 150- bedded maternity and child block, a 26-bedded emergency ward block and ancillary facilities. The petitioner was to undertake the building works and internal services including internal electrical works by virtue of the agreement No. 41/EE/PWD-26/2003-04. The initial period contemplated for completion of the work was 24 months. The date of commencement, as per the agreement, was 19.08.2003. Consequently, the completion ...

D.T.C. and anr. Vs. Shri Surinder Arora and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT456

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The present appeal preferred under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the award dated 14.7.2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. Rs. 8,10,000 along with interest @ 9% p.a. to the claimants from the date of filing of the petition till the date of impugned order.2. Before adverting to deal with the contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to give brief facts of the present case as under:On 2.9.2000, the deceased Shri Sanjiv Arora was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DL-53-K-5982, when the offending bus bearing registration No. DL-1P-A-2974 came from behind the scooter at a very fast speed and hit him due to which Shri Sanjiv Arora died.3. Mr. Jyotindra Kumar, counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/-p.m. The second contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the T...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Maheshwari Transformers Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue wants to charge service tax from the appellants under service maintenance or repair. Prior to 16-6-2005 scope of maintenance or repair relates, service provided by any person under maintenance contract or agreement. Present dispute is for the period prior to 16-6-2005. We have gone through the copy of contract product by the Revenue. Agreement is regarding rate contract for repair of damaged transformer. There is no agreement for maintenance of transformer.3. Further, we find that the CBEC issued a Circular relied upon by the Commissioner provides that prior to 16-6-2005 maintenance or repair carried out under the maintenance contract was covered under service tax. Repair or servicing carried out under contract other than maintenance was not covered under the purview of service tax. In view of the above circular and in view of the fact that there was no maintenance contract we find no infirmity in the impugned order....

Malpani Finance Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard learned D.R. as the appellants have filed written submissions and requested to decide the appeal on merit.2. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand of Service tax was confirmed and penalties imposed on the ground that the appellants were providing business auxiliary services. We find that the appellants entered into an agreement with the ICICI Bank to promote retail activities of the bank. The contention of the appellants in the written submission is that they are not providing any business auxiliary service, and they are under the franchise agreement with the ICICI Bank.3. We have seen terms and conditions of the agreement which shows that the appellants has to promote retail finance of the bank. Therefore, the appellants are providing the service of business auxiliary. There is nothing on record produced by the appellants that the appellants are paying to the bank any amount being their franchise. On the contrary, the appellants are getti...

Gulshan Kumar S/O Sh. Dev Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 16.02.2006 (Annexure-A), Memo dated 11.11.2002 (Annexure-A1), Memo dated 10.01.1997 (Annexure-A2), Memo dated 24.07.1996/06.01.1997 (Annexure-A3) and appellate order dated 18.01.2007 (Annexure-1A) Direct the respondents to pay all arrears of pay and allowances in respect of the increments lessened in accordance with the impugned order dated 16.02.2006 (Annexure-A) along with interest @ 24% p.a. since the day date his pay is reduced as per impugned order till the payment is made and fix his pay as per his entitlement. Issuance of directions to the respondents to the effect that the applicant be immediately promoted to the next higher post of DE (Group-A) with all ancillary benefits since the day and date his Juniors have been promoted without any further delay.2. It is stated by applicant that he was charge-sheeted vide memorandum dated 10.1.1997 on the allegations that: while functioning as SDE (RLU), Shakti Nagar, New Delhi during ...

Shri S.M. Sharma, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Noida Special Economic Zone, who is the third respondent in this application, had issued an Office Memorandum (Annexure A-2), on 18.11.2005 whereby proposal had been floated to fill up the post of Appraiser/Superintendent of Customs in the scale of Rs. 7500-250-12000 General Central Service Group `B', Gazetted in the office of the Development Commissioner. The intent was to prepare a panel of personnel to be shortlisted for appointment by transfer on deputation basis. Annexure-I to the Office Memorandum referred to the job requirements and details of qualifications required to be possessed by the incumbents. The proposals duly recommended were to be received within two month's time.2. Consequent to the above and follow up steps, the fourth respondent stood appointed as Appraiser on 04.05.2006. The applicant was expecting a selection to the position, which had arisen thereafter, but came to note that the fifth respondent also had come to be appoi...

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Ias S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This application is filed on 04.07.2006. The relief sought is for a direction to the respondents to pay the applicant TA/DA in connection with his visit from Delhi to Bombay and to Delhi in response to the letter of second respondent dated 21.5.1996. As the claim possibly might be barred to be adjudicated under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, a Miscellaneous Application has been filed for condonation of delay (MA 1127/2006).2. We had heard the applicant in person. Mr. Gautam Godara, who had appeared on behalf of the respondents explained to us the stand of the Government with reference to the counter affidavit filed dated 07.02.2007 opposing the claim. The respondents have further contended that sufficient and cognizant reasons for condonation of delay are also not made out.3. According to the applicant, while he was under suspension, he had been served with an order dated 21.05.1996 (Annexure A-6) issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Government o...

Upender Gupta S/O Shri S.C. Gupta, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through It ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The above four cases urge the same point. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the facts relating to OA 514/2007 could be taken notice of for appreciating the factual position.2. By Notification dated 20.10.2006, as available to the Indian Customs and Central Excise Establishments, 194 officers in the Junior Administrative Grade had been conferred with Non-Functional Selection Grade (Rs.14300-400-18300) with effect from different dates, as could be seen from Annexure P-1.3. The short question to be decided is the manner of fixation of initial pay viz. as to whether Fundamental Rule (FR) 22 (I) (a) (1) was to be made applicable or it was to be FR 22 (I) (a) (2) as had been applied. If Sub-rule (1) was to be applied, the officer would have become entitled to get his pay fixed after receiving one notional increment in the lower scale and a fitment in the higher scale but if it was on the basis of Sub-rule (2), there was only a fixation admissible to the stage next above his...