Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Sh. Deepak Verma S/O Sh. J.P. Verma Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) M/O

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant had initially challenged orders dated 09.3.2007, 10.3.2007, 14.3.2007 and 16.7.2007, however when the matter was called today, counsel for applicant submitted now he is challenging only order dated 16.7.2007 (page-18) whereby applicant was transferred from Delhi Circle to Punjab Circle by the CPMG and order dated 16.7.2007 issued by the Senior Supdt., Post Offices, whereby applicant's name was struck off from the strength of New Delhi South West Division (page-19). It is stated by the applicant that he is a Postal Assistant, working at Delhi GPO in Delhi Postal Circle. Vide order dated 09.3.2007 he was transferred by the CPMG to New Delhi South West Division (page-15). Vide order dated 14.3.2007 (page-17) he was posted to Chanakyapuri Post Office. Applicant joined at South-West Division on the same date. However within four months thereafter applicant was once again transferred by the CPMG from Delhi Circle to Punjab Circle (page-18) and his name was struck off...

Shashi Kant Singh and anr. Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(237)ELT455(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.09.2007 in terms whereof the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has directed further investigation into the matter and filing of a supplementary charge-sheet on account of the fact that the trial court has found that no investigation whatsoever against the owner of the premises was done.2. The petitioners are employees of a transport firm M/s. Speedage Express Cargo Services and one deceased Kailash Chand was sitting on the roof of the container for counting of articles and got electrocuted. The order dated 01.08.2007 shows that in view of the electrical inspection report showing that the current through the building came charged because of there being no earthing of the wires, the proper investigation in that behalf would have been made. The IO sought time to further investigate the matter and filed the supplementary charge-sheet.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks to rely upon the judgment of ...

E.S.i.C. Vs. Hotel Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT60; [2008(117)FLR474]; (2008)IILLJ489Del

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The above captioned appeals raise a common question of law and hence are being decided together.2. Facts relevant to FAO No. 250/1987 are that the first respondent Hotel Corporation of India, intended to set up a five star hotel near the International Airport at Delhi called Centaur Hotel. On 1.2.1981 it awarded the work of constructing the hotel to the second respondent M/s. Tirath Ram Ahuja Pvt. Ltd. The hotel building was stipulated to be completed by December 1983.3. When the work was in progress, a wing consisting of 200 rooms was completed. It be noted that 400 rooms were to be constructed under the original contract. Due to the ensuing Asian Games to be held in the month of November- December 1982, first respondent decided to commence partial operations from the building by putting to use the 200 rooms which were constructed. Appellant learnt that partial operations had commenced from the building. It demanded ESI dues with effect from 1.6.1982. It demand...

Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. P.S. Prasad and Family (Huf)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT664

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.1.2007 passed in RCA No. 22/2006 has been prayed for in the above captioned civil miscellaneous application.2. A substantial question of law stands framed vide order dated 31.5.2007.3. Since hearing of the appeal is likely to take time, arguments were heard in the afore-noted civil miscellaneous application.4. Jural relationship between the parties of landlord-tenant is not in dispute. The dispute is whether the appellant is liable to be ejected from the suit premises as per the case set up in the plaint or is it entitled to defend its possession as per defense pleaded in the written statement.5. To put it pithly, according to the appellant, under the agreement dated 20.9.1980 being not a lease agreement but an agreement to lease it was entitled to protect the possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The stand of the landlord was to the contrary. The landlord succeeded. Two ...

Meenakshi Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asil Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT554

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard for disposal.2. Petitioner imp leaded as a defendant in a summary suit is aggrieved by the order dated 8.10.2003 declining leave to defend.3. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case the issue of grant of leave to defend had to be considered with reference to the claim in the plaint for the sum due under the various bills raised by the plaintiff and separately with respect to the claim for interest as laid in the suit.4. A perusal of the plaint (copy at pages 60-67 of the record of the instant petition) shows that respondent filed a suit claiming decree in sum of Rs. 8 lacs with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum. The basis of the suit was a written acknowledgement by the defendant.5. Facts leading to the written acknowledgment by the defendant as stated in the plaint were that the parties had commercial dealings whereunder plaintiff was supplying C.R. Steel strips to the defendant at agreed rates and that a...

Rahdey Lal Vs. the Chief Administration, Haryana Urban Development Aut ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ121

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th of September, 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground that the Delhi Court does not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.2. The appellant as petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking a direction for allotment of a plot measuring 8 marla in Sector 8 and 9 Urban Estate Karnal in terms of the memorandum dated 16th March, 1996, which was annexed as annexure-P-1 in the writ petition. The appellant also sought for quashing of the letter issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula whereby the appellant was informed that he was ineligible for allotment of a plot. Even in the writ petition the appellant pleaded that in 1989 some plots were allotted in a discretionary quota, which were later set aside by a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and consequent upon the said judgment, the Haryana Urban Developm...

Provogue (India) Td Vs. Naveen Kholi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ627

S. Ravindra Bhar, J.LA. No. 525/2008 (Exemption C. Fee)Learned Counsel states that the balance Court fee would be paid during the course of the day. Let the application disposed in terms of the statement.LA. No. 524/2008 (Org. Documents)Allowed, subjected to the petitioner filing the originals within six weeks.LA. No. 523/2008 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC)1. Issue notice Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the defendant-respondent. Counsel states that he would not be filing a separate reply to the application and has instructions to oppose it today. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the application was heard finally.2. The plaintiff-applicant seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, representatives etc. from interfering and obstructing its uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the its business from premises being G-7, Janak Palace, Janak Puri, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as suit premises). In this application, an ...

Gayatri Gupta Vs. Palaseem Developers (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 18.9.2007, whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation on account of late delivery and possession of the shop was dismissed is that the District Forum has not at all taken into consideration the actual facts. According to the Counsel for the appellant the entire payment of consideration for the shop allotted to the appellant was made on September 2004 and the sale deed was also executed in September 2004, wherein it was mentioned that the possession of the shop has been given to the appellant but in actuality the possession was given on the intervention of the District Forum in January 2007 and therefore the District Forum has not granted any compensation by way of interest of otherwise by taking view that the possession of the shop has already been given in September 2004. 2. Aforesaid facts persuade us to allow the appeal at the outset, set aside the impug...

ideal Security Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ45CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. In terms of the impugned order, the appellants are required to pre-deposit amount of Rs. 37,24,912/- and various penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The dispute is with regard to the valuation of security services provided by the appellants. The appellant provide Security personnel is to various clients including the official liquidator. As far as the liability of providing services to official liquidator is concerned, in view of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the official liquidator was directed to pay the service tax to the Government without intervention of the appellant, that liability comes to Rs. 14.7 lakhs. The learned DR stated that they have information that this part of this amount will be paid by the official liquidator.3. Be that as it may, the learned advocate stated that in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the valuation of taxable service would be only on the gross amount received by the service provider for the services r...

Smt. Vandana Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Direct Respondents to grant Extra-ordinary Family pension to the applicant w.e.f. 25.1.2004; Direct respondents to pay ex-gratia compensation of Rs. Five lakhs to the applicant; Direct Respondents to pay interest on the arrears of extra ordinary family pension at the rate of 9% per annum; Award exemplary cost against the respondents and in favour of the applicant; Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant.2. It is stated by the applicant that her husband late Constable Suresh Kumar was serving with Delhi Police as a Constable in Traffic Unit. He was performing his duty in PAP Circle. However, he was relieved on 24.1.2004 from his duty at 06.00 PM by Traffic Inspector of PAP Circle with direction to report to Model Town Circle for Republic Day arrangements duty at Chhattarsal Stadium. While travelling from his duty place i.e. PAP Circle to his new duty place i.e. Model Town Circle, he met with a road accident at...