Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Krishan Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ2158; 149(2008)DLT457; (2008)151PLR1

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.CM No. 11410/2005 in FAO No. 217/2005There is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal. Notwithstanding the fact that delay has not been satisfactorily explained I condone the delay. The CM is allowed. FAO No. 217/20051. Shakuntala Devi admittedly suffered injuries and died on account of being crushed by the train from which she fell. Her husband and children filed a claim under the Railways Act, 1989 and sought compensation payable under the applicable Rules. Needless to state, 2 issues of substance were framed by the Railways Claim Tribunal. Firstly, whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train in which the alleged accident took place and secondly whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident entitling the applicants to the statutory compensation. 2. The deceased, her husband and children were passengers in the train as per claim made by them. Railway tickets purchased were proved as Ex.AW-1/3 to Ex. AW-1/8. 3. Thus, finding returned...

National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Industrial Development Ban ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ251(Del)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. What is under challenge in this appeal is the order dated 13th September, 2002, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application filed by the appellant-NTPC under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The NTPC filed the said application praying for rejection of the plaint in the suit, being Suit No. 904/2002, instituted by the respondent No. 1-IDBI against Spectrum Power Generation Co. Limited (SPGL for short), Jaya Food Industries Limited (JFIL for short), Mr.M.Krishna Rao(defendant No. 3), National Thermal Power Corporation (for short NTPC) and Spectrum Technologies USA (STUSA for short). The aforesaid suit was filed by the IDBI in its capacity as lead institution representing a consortium of financial institutions, namely, IFCI, LIC, UTI, IIBI, GIC, NIC, NIA, OIC and UII, collectively called as 'the Lenders'. In the said suit, challenge was made to the legality and validity of the compromise agreement dated 9th April, 2001 a...

B.S. Constructions Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ257(Del); 2008(102)DRJ455

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM No. 3268/20081. By this application the appellant prays for condensation of delay in filing the appeal. There is a delay of two days in the filing the appeal. On going through the application we find that the appellant has been able to make out a case of sufficient cause for condensation of delay. Accordingly, we allow the application and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is taken on record.The application stands disposed of.LPA No. 108/20081. This order shall dispose of the appeal which is filed by the appellant challenging legality of the order dated 9th January, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order of the respondents dated 13th August, 2007, whereby the appellant was restrained/ debarred from participating in the tender process of the MCD for a period of two years on account of non-execution of the work of...

Ms. Rabia Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia University and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ587

Gita Mittal, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner assails a communication dated 1st February, 2008 whereby the respondents communicated the decision of the Dean Faculty of Education cancelling the petitioner's admission to the B.Ed. (Nursery Education) course conducted by the respondent No. 1.2. There is no dispute to the material facts essential for the purposes of effective adjudication of the subject matter of this writ petition and to the extent necessary, the same are noted hereafter. The petitioner had passed her high school and senior secondary examination from the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. After completing her senior secondary education, she successfully completed her B.A. History (Hons.) from the respondent No. 1 University in the 2004-2005 academic session. To support her submissions in this writ petition, reliance is placed on the petitioner having pursued the compulsory subject of Islamiat and Urdu language in the first year of her B.A. Course in which she clai...

Shri Vidyanidhi Dalmia Vs. Smt. Nilanjana Dalmia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT19; I(2008)DMC848; 2008(102)DRJ611

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this application, the defendant seeks rejection of the plaint, under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter 'CPC') on various grounds, such as the plaint not disclosing a cause of action, the suit being barred and so on.2. The plaintiff has, in the suit, seeks the following reliefs:a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from entering into or attempting to enter into or approach within 100 metres of the plaintiff's residence at F-1, Anand Niketan, New Delhi and from speaking to or approaching the Plaintiff's staff in any manner whatsoever;b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from speaking with or addressing any written communication to the personnel associated with the Plaintiff's companies including Directors on any issue not relating to the respective companies;c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from talking, threatening, addressing communications to ...

Ge Capital Transportation Vs. Shamsuddin

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR104(Delhi); 151(2008)DLT372

Veena Birbal, J.CM No. 3950/20081.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.CM (M) No. 350/2008 & CM No. 3951/20082. The case of the petitioner is that on 28.02.2006, respondent entered into a loan agreement bearing No. TNGURRCVZ00236299 with petitioner in respect of vehicle bearing description as LPT 2515. The loan agreement was for Rs. 10,49,000 and loan was to be repaid in 48 monthly Installments of Rs. 26,750 each. It is alleged that the respondent in all has paid 8 Installments on the date of filing of original miscellaneous petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before learned District Judge and 16 Installments are due. As per petitioner, total amount payable by respondent on the date of institution of aforesaid petition was Rs. 10,38,444.00 inclusive of interest in terms of agreement. Petitioner has also given a legal notice of termination of loan agreement to respondent on 22.11.2007. It is averred that as per Cla...

Pyare Lal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)DMC806; 2009(1)SLJ248(Delhi)

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 11.3.1999 and order dated 12.3.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. CC-169/1994 whereby he was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with a default stipulation for his conviction under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) was awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- with a default stipulation.2. The relevant facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant, who while posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI) at Preet Vihar Police Station was apprehended by the Anti-Corruption Branch officials accepting bribe from the complainant (PW-2), have been noticed by the learned trial Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment and the same are being re-pr...

In Re: Hindustan Hydel Projects (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]86SCL102(Delhi)

ORDERVipin Sanghi, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation of Hindustan Hydel Projects Pvt. Ltd. (applicant/transferor company No. 1) and Shantikunj Investments Pvt. Ltd. (applicant/transferor company No. 2) with Hydel Construction Pvt. Ltd. (applicant/transferee company).2. The applicant/transferor company No. 1 was incorporated on 1-9-1978. The applicant/transferor company No. 2 was incorporated on 19-5-1998. The applicant/transferee company was incorporated on 27-7-1972.3. The registered office of both the applicant/transferor companies and the applicant/transferee company are situated at C-287, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110 024, within the jurisdiction of this Court.4. The authorized share capital of the applicant/transferor company No. 1 is Rs. 50 lakhs divided into 5 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10 each while the issued, subscribed and paid-up equity share capital of the applicant/transferor company ...

Dr. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir S/O Shri Jawahar Singh Gambhir Vs. Amrit Pal ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ574

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 07th August, 2006 delivered by the learned Single Judge declaring the plaintiff-appellant to be the owner of 1/4th share of the suit property. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:a. The appellant and respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 are related to each other. Respondent No. 3, Sh. Jawahar Singh Gambhir, is the father of the appellant and the respondents No. 1 and 2. The appellant and the respondents No. 1 and 2 are brothers.b. The Respondent No. 3 was the absolute owner of suit property bearing No. 6/88, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). c. The Respondent No. 3, the father, voluntarily and out of love and affection for his children made a gift of 1/4th share in the suit property having a 2 1/2 storeyed house constructed thereon, in favour of the appellant and respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 also retained 1/4th share in the suit property.d. For the purpose ...

Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, is recipient of services of 'Goods Transport Agency'. Though they are recipient of services, by a deemed provision under Rule 2(p) of Cenvat Credit Rules, they are required to pay the Service Tax and accordingly paid the service tax; after paying the said Service Tax they have taken credit of the same in their cenvat account holding it as tax paid on input services. For payment of their subsequent liabilities of Service Tax on services received by them, they have used cenvat account and issued invoice to self which indicated the amount of Service Tax paid by them from the cenvat account. In addition to being deemed service provider, as they are also the recipient of input services, based on the invoice issued on self indicating the Service Tax paid by them from their cenvat account, they have taken the said Service Tax again as credit.The Department is objecting to the same on the ground that the credit is being taken on a document ...