Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Poonam Gupta and anr. Vs. Anita V.Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ676; [2009]0SCL0(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM No. 288/2008 (exemption)Allowed, subject to just exceptions.FAO(OS) No. 8/2008 and CM No. 289-290/2008 289-290/2008 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th November, 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellants herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking for a decree of specific performance in which an application was filed by the appellants-defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants which is the subject matter of the suit and relied upon by the plaintiff is opposed to public policy and, thereforee, the same is barred under Section 23 of the Contract Act.3. The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid application in the light of the facts of the case. Upon making reference to the various averments made ...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Anita and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ1725

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The appellant, United India Insurance Company insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred an appeal challenging the impugned order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the learned MACT. The impugned award has arisen out of the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant as well as against respondent Nos. 6 & 7 claiming compensation for the death of Shri Ashok Kumar.2. The brief facts which are necessary for deciding the present appeal inter-alia are that on 2.2.2006 at about 11.00 A.M., the deceased Shri Ashok Kumar was traveling by TSR bearing No. DL 1R E 2032. When he had reached at Outer Ring Road, Curt Service Road, Vijay Ghat, suddenly the TSR turned upside down due to the rash and negligent driving. As a result thereof, Shri Ashok Kumar fell down on the road along with the TSR and due to which he died.3. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts of the case as well as evidence led by the parties had passed an award vide order dated 2...

Gita Berry Vs. Genesis Educational Foundation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT155

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Crl. PC') filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the Complaint No. 431/1/06 titled as 'Genesis Educational Foundation v. Rajesh Berry and Anr. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ('Act') .2. The complaint sterns from a dishonoured cheque dated 20th January, 2006 drawn on the United Western Bank Limited by Shri Rajesh Berry, husband of the petitioner in favor of the complainant Genesis Educational Foundation in the sum of Rs. 6,75,00,000/-. The case of the petitioner is that the offence under Section 138 of the Act cannot be said to have been made out against the petitioner only on the ground that she was a joint account holder along with her husband. She has admittedly neither drawn nor issued the cheque in question and thereforee the complaint against her was not maintainable.3. The petitioner further refers to the wording of Section 138 of the Act to contend th...

Ginni Gupta Vs. Paras Rampuria Plantation Limited.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 8.11.2006 passed by the District Forum the respondent has been directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 12,500 each besides Rs. 2,000. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent floated a Scheme under the name and style of Green Earth Unit Senses-II in the year 1993. Under this Scheme the respondent-Company was to grow rosewood for the benefit of the unit holders and promised huge returns on the investment of the consumers. The scheme also assured a periodical minimum return of Rs. 525 per unit per year from the end of first year upto 15th year. The period of the scheme was 15 years. The appellants purchased 4 such units each at the rate of Rs. 3,500 each as per the details given in the annexure to this order. Respondent-Company paid the assured return of Rs. 525 per unit only for 5 years and thereafter it stopped ma...

Tycoon Events and Promotions (P) Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR476

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order in revision passed by Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the penalties imposed under Section 76 of Finance Act was enhanced to @ Rs. 100/- per day for delay in payment of Service Tax.3. The contention of the appellant is that the amount of Service Tax along with interest was paid even prior to issuance of show-cause notice. A show-cause notice was issued on 5.3.04 for imposition of penalties under Section 75, 75A, 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. The adjudicating authority after considering the explanation given by the appellant for non-deposit of tax with due dates imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A of Act and penalty of Rs. 100/- was imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act and penalty of Rs. 200/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act.4. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show-cause notice under Section 84(2) of the Finance Act to show cause why the penalty of Service Tax should not be enhanced. As ...

Rishal Singh, Asi Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Rishal Singh, the applicant herein, was involved in a criminal case pertaining to FIR No.324/96 in 1996. The long and agonizing trial spread over a period of more than a decade came to an end only on 27.7.2007 when the learned ASJ, Rohini acquitted him of the charge framed against him. Meanwhile, the applicant had been suspended, but on his acquittal, vide order dated 2.11.2006 the period of his suspension was decided as spent on duty for all intent and purposes. In the interregnum, DPC for consideration of the applicant for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector was held on 16.1.1997, 6.11.1997 (review DPC), 2.12.1998, 1.9.2000, 15.3.2002, 28.3.2003 and 21.10.2004. The applicant was found fit for promotion as per his records only in the DPC which was held on 21.10.2004 and accordingly his name was admitted to the promotion list E-1 (Exe.) with effect from 21.10.2004. The recommendations of DPC, insofar as the applicant is concerned, as per rules, were each time kept in sealed cove...

Virender Singh S/O Dharam Pal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Virender Singh, applicant herein, had to face a trial along with his father pertaining to FIR No. 323/1995 under Section 308/34 IPC at P.S.Najafgarh, New Delhi. He was acquitted of the charge framed against him vide judgment dated 06.01.1997 passed by Shri B.B. Chaudhary, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. Even though the applicant was acquitted for the offence registered against him way back in 1995, his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) for which he applied in 2005 has been cancelled vide order dated 16.05.2007 (Annexure A-1).This is the order which has been called in question by the applicant in the present Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. Brief facts, as set out in the Application, reveal that the applicant was born on 09.09.1977 and attained majority on 09.09.1995.He was still a minor when he was involved in criminal case pertaining to FIR No. 323/95 under Section 308/34 IPC Police Station, Najafgarh, New Delhi. It...

Vysya Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs. Amrit Lal Bajaj and Co. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT741

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this common order I shall dispose of above three applications for leave to defend since all the three applications under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC are based on similar facts and only the cheque numbers and amount differs. The defendants in all the three suits are common. In two suits, plaintiff is M/s Vyasa Leasing and Finance Ltd. and in third suit, the plaintiff is Mrs. Alka Goel.2. The case of plaintiffs in all the three suits is that plaintiffs were holding certain shares of M/s. Rahul Dairy and Allied Products Ltd. The Plaintiffs sold these shares to defendant(s) in the month of July/August, 1994. The market rate of the shares at that time was between Rs. 38 and Rs. 40. The defendant agreed to purchase shares in Suit No. 2010/97 and 2013/97 for sum of Rs. 1 crore 20 lac. The total number of shares purchased in two suits by the defendant was 3,39,000. Defendant is stated to have issued two cheques, one of Rs. 1 crore 10 lac and other of Rs. 10 lac in Se...

Abhay Sapru Vs. Chitralekha Bakshi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ744

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No. 16A, Westend, New Delhi. The substantive reliefs prayed for in the suit reads as follows:pass a preliminary decree of partition declaring that the Plaintiff and Defendants each have 1/3rd share in property No. A-16, Westend, New Delhi - 110021; and thereafter appoint a Local Commissioner to partition the suit property by metes and bounds and pass a final decree after considering the report of the Local Commissioner ; andpass a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants restraining them from creating any third party rights/interest in any manner whatsoever in the property No. A-16, Westend, New Delhi - 110021; pass a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants restraining them from making any additional construction and/or alterations in the property No. A-16, Westend, New De...

Cable News Network Lp, Lllp (Cnn) Vs. Cam News Network Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(1)113; 2008(36)PTC255(Del)

G.S. Sistani, J.I.A. No. 10600/20061. The plaintiff has filed the present application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 pursuant to a suit instituted by it alleging infringement of its registered trade mark, passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff, vide the present application, has sought interim relief.2. The facts, as set out in the plaint, are that the plaintiff is a leading news group engaged in disseminating world news on electronic media. It owns and runs the 'CNN International' which is a global 24-hour news television network launched in the September of 1985. The various news brands of the plaintiff include nine cable and satellite news channels of which 'CNN Cable News Network Television Channel' is stated to have pioneered the concept of 24-hour television news and 'CNN Headlines News Television Channel' is stated to update 84 million households on the day's news every 15 minutes 24 hours each day. Both CNN Cable News Network Tel...