Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Siemens Ltd. Vs. Nova Iron and Steel Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT302; 2008(102)DRJ69; (2008)151PLR16

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By virtue of the order dated 11.12.2007, the following issue was directed to be treated as the preliminary issue:(1) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the suit? (OPD)2. The counsel for the parties were heard on this preliminary issue. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the defendant on the ground that the defendant had placed purchase orders on the plaintiff for supply of electrical equipments which had to be delivered to the defendant at its factory at village and P.O. Dagori, Tehsil Belha, District Bilaspur, M. P. (now Chhattisgarh). The plaint alleges that the defendant had initially issued letters of intent, which contained the terms of the supply to be made by the plaintiff to the defendant and the price and delivery conditions etc. The letters of intent were confirmed by purchase orders, which were placed by the defendant on the plaintiff. Details of the purchase orders have been set out in Paragraph 6 of ...

Juliana Loiseau Vs. the British High Commission and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT788; 2008(102)DRJ429

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present suit is instituted by the plaintiff praying inter alias for a decree of damages/compensation for an amount of Rs. 71,00,000/- together with pre-suit, pendente lite and future interest in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants on account of the loss of salary, provident fund, gratuity benefits, future job prospects, pension benefits etc., claimed by the plaintiff.2. The undisputed facts leading to the institution of the present suit are that vide letter of appointment dated 8.10.1982 (Ex.P-1), the plaintiff was appointed as a Staff Nurse Grade-III with the defendant No. 1, The British High Commission, New Delhi, w.e.f. 1.11.1982. Enclosed with the said letter of appointment, was a Booklet containing the conditions of service for Locally Engaged Staff (Ex.P-2). The said appointment was subject to probation for a period of twelve months, which period was completed by the plaintiff on 1.11.1983. Thereafter, vide letter dated 2.11.1983 (Ex.P-4), the p...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narender Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1481

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed.F.A.O. No. 18 of 2002:The question which arises for consideration in the appeal stands concluded by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K. : 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), followed in the decision reported as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Khajuni Devi III (2006) ACC 768 (SC).2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, compensation payable has to be with reference to the statutory provisions in force as on the date of accident.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as Rathi Menon v. Union of India : 2001 ACJ 721 (SC).4. In the said decision Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue whether decisions under Workmen's Compensation Act would be applicable to decisions under the Railways Act. In view of the difference in the scheme pertaining to compensation und...

inspr. Mahipal Singh No. D-1/855 Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A case FIR No. 303 under Section 302/34 IPC, PS Kalkaji, New Delhi was registered on the complaint of one Kashmiri Lal for the murder of his brother Ajeet @ Ajju. The trial in the said murder case culminated into acquittal of all four accused by Shri J. M. Malik, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide judgment dated 7.5.2004. Shri Suresh Chander, the then Additional SHO/Kalkaji, was the investigating officer of the murder case, whereas the applicant was posted as SHO/Kalkaji at that time. Explanation of the applicant, now an Inspector in Delhi Police, on the ground of supervisory lapses was called for in the said murder case on 27.7.2005. He responded to the same vide reply dated 9.11.2005. The competent authority found the reply submitted by him to be satisfactory/convincing, and, therefore, dropped the minor penalty proceedings vide order dated 31.12.2005. The order dated 27.8.2007 has been passed by Joint Commissioner of Police/Armed Police, Delhi to hold regular departmental en...

Ex. Const. Raghuvinder Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Raghuvinder Singh, a former constable in Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging order dated 29.5.2000 (Annexure A-1), vide which pursuant to a departmental enquiry for his unauthorised absence for a period of 221 days, he was dismissed from service with immediate effect, as also order passed by the appellate authority dated 25.3.2003 vide which his appeal preferred against the order aforesaid has since been dismissed.2. The facts which are not in dispute reveal that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant on the allegation that while he was posted in Security Main Line temporarily for security duties, he absented himself unauthorisedly, which fact was recorded in DD entry No.8 dated 26.10.1998. Three absentee notices dated 17.2.1999, 10.3.1999 and 22.3.1999 were issued directing him to resume duty at once, or in case of illness, to report for second medical opi...

Dr. B.M. Gulati Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT556; [2008(117)FLR1162]

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Dr B.M. Gulati through this writ petition assails the order dated 8th May, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 1943/2001. The Tribunal, while dismissing the said application held that the petitioner is not entitled to payment for the costs incurred at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as EHIRC) as the same is not an authorized or a referral hospital. The Tribunal also held that petitioner being an ESIC retiree, was not eligible for treatment at EHIRC. Further, the petitioner's wife had not taken the treatment in an emergency condition from EHIRC. Relief was denied holding that in any case, the department had reimbursed the petitioner at prevailing rates admissible at AIIMS. 2. Petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 8.5.2003. Out of the total amount of Rs. 3,52,338/- (Three lac fifty two thousand three hundred thir...

Bajaj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mcd and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT168

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This order shall dispose of the objections filed against the arbitral award dated 31.03.2006 awarding an amount of Rs. 21,05,866/- in favor of the contractor. The arbitral award directs the respondent/MCD to pay the award amount within 30 days from the date of the award failing which to pay 12% interest on the award amount from the date of award till payment.2. The contractor being the petitioner herein does not dispute that he has already received the entire award amount in terms of the arbitral award dated 31.03.2006. His grievance against the award is on account of non-awarding of pendente lite interest by the learned Arbitrator.3. Mr. Rastogi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contractor/petitioner has contended that the amount awarded by the learned Arbitrator is based upon the admission of liability by the respondent/MCD made in the office nothings of 12.9.2003 for releasing the amount of Rs. 21,05,866/- on account of difference in the price of wh...

Saraya Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Finance, ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Del)257; [2008]306ITR189(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The grievance of the Petitioner is with regard to the constitutional validity of Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).2. According to the Petitioner, both these provisions deserve to be declared unconstitutional and in the alternative they have to be read down suitably. It was not explained to us how and in what manner should the provisions be read down, and the only submissions made were that the provisions were constitutionally invalid.3. Sections 153A and 153C of the Act read as follows:Assessment in case of search or requisition. 153A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish wi...

Sh. Rajendra Jha Vs. Ms. Arti Rohatgi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006ACJ2729; 150(2008)DLT33; (2008)151PLR633

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case inter-alia are that the appellant is a practicing Advocate, aged about 41 years. On 31.5.2004 at about 5:20 p.m. while he was returning to his house from Tis Hazari Courts and was standing at bus stop of ISBT, near Ritz Cinema Hall, the respondent No. 1 came from Mori Gate side by driving her car No. DL-6CB 5679 in rash and negligent manner and the said car ran over the right foot of the appellant causing him grievous injuries in his foot and various other injuries. The respondent No. 1 did not care to stop her car despite injuries caused to him and the appellant after noting down the number of the car informed the same to the Police Control Room. The police apprehended the respondent No. 1 and an FIR was registered with P.S. Kashmiri Gate. The appellant in the meanwhile got himself medically ...

Cce Vs. B.L. Maratha

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was set aside under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is seen that the respondents provided rent-a-cab service to BSNL. The respondent paid the tax during the adjudication proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Section 80 of the said Act after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in proper manner.The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below: 5. I have gone through the case records and submissions made by the appellant. I find that Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that notwithstanding any thing contained in the provisions of Section 76, Section 77 or Section 78, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. I find that the appellant is sort of illiterate ...