Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Ex. S/K. Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT795

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner in this writ of mandamus has prayed for directions to the respondents to release his disability pension along with interest at the earliest.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as follows:The petitioner was enrolled in 13 Battalion CRPF Ajmer in the year 1976 as Safai Karamchari (No. 761240871). On 26.10.83 while the petitioner was posted at Agartala (Tripura), he was injured while on duty and on 7.2.84 his left leg below knee was amputated. The petitioner, thus, became permanently disabled with one leg. It is alleged that the petitioner had suffered injury while he was working in Taliyamore, D Company, 73 Battalion and was asked by Mast.Havaldar to clean the store. When he was cleaning the store, some setroys were putting Iron Pickets and due to negligence of one Sepoy, one iron picket slipped and fell on the foot of the petitioner which allegedly led to the aforesaid permanent disability. On 3.8.84 a medical board was cons...

Smt. Mohari Devi and ors. Vs. Shri Rajender Pal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1370

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present appeal the appellants seek to challenge the impugned Award dated 27.07.2006 so as to claim enhancement in compensation amount over and above the amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The conspectus of facts relevant for deciding the appeal are:That on 26.6.92 Shri Rameshwar alias Shanti Swaroop, the deceased was driving taxi bearing registration No. DL1T-0337. He had taken his friends namely Shri Kishan Lal, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Mangat Singh and Shri Joginder Singh who were all residents of Delhi to Haridwar for 'Ganga shanan' in said taxi. On the next day at about 8.00 a.m. while they all were returning in the same taxi and had reached near Kasba Purkaji nearby Peer at Rourkee, one truck bearing registration No. URM 1137 was parked diagonally on the road facing Purkaji. As soon as the car reached near the truck, the truck driver reversed the truck suddenly, without giving any signal and struck the taxi which resulted in the ...

Kanwar Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT18

T.S. Thakur, J.1. One of the primary questions that falls for consideration in these two appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to demand copies of even such of the documents as are not relied upon against them by the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with an Inquiry initiated under the provisions of Section 16(1) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 read with Rule 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings & Appeal) Rules, 2000. The Adjudicating Authority's refusal to supply the said documents led to the filing of WPs(C) No. 1970/2007 and 1971/2007 by the appellant, which were heard and dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of T.N. and Ors. : 2000(70)ECC198 , Syndicate Bank and Ors. v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati : (2006)ILLJ988SC , Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. : 2006(197)ELT18(SC) , Chandrama Tewari v. Union ...

i.T.i. Limited Vs. Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR100(Delhi); 2008(102)DRJ443

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the arbitral tribunal whereby the appellant's application under Sections 16 and 17 of the said Act was dismissed.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of this appeal. He submitted that the order appealed against is actually an order passed under Section 16(2) of the said Act and not under Section 17 thereof. That being the case, he submitted, the present appeal would not be maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 16(6) read with Section 37(2)(a) of the said Act.3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the application made by the appellant before the arbitral tribunal was a hybrid application invoking both Section 16(2) and Section 17 of the said Ac...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Shri Shiv Khullar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR42(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Above captioned appeals arise out of 2 identically worded orders of even date 2.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award dated 11.4.1995. 2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the present appeals are that respondent No. 1 Mr. Shiv Khullar, the sole proprietor of M/s. Shivam Enterprises and M/s. Khullar Enterprises was the owner of two premises bearing municipal Nos. 30 & 32, Main Market, Lodhi Road, Delhi. 3. Respondent No. 1 acting as sole proprietor of M/s. Shivam Enterprises and M/s. Khullar Enterprises entered into 2 agreements dated 1.10.1998 with appellant company M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Both the agreements were identically worded save and except, one agreement pertained to M/s. Shivam Enterprises and premises bearing No. 30, Main Market, Lodhi Road, Delhi and the other related to M/s. Khullar Enterpris...

Oman International Bank S.A.O.G. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industria ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]143CompCas494(Delhi); (2008)3CompLJ113(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner is a banking company constituted under the laws prevailing in Sultanate of Oman. For carrying out banking business in India, it has been granted license by the Reserved Bank of India. It had granted financial accommodation to the two companies, namely, Premier Synthetics Ltd. (respondent No. 2 in WP(C) No. 3669/2006) and Blue Blends (India) Ltd. (respondent No. 2 in WP(C) No. 3672/2006) and both the companies are declared as sick companies. Both these companies have approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short the 'BIFR') for revival/rehabilitation on the ground that they are sick companies. Though their reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (in short the 'SICA') for declaring them sick companies was rejected by the BIFR, appeals filed by them before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short the 'AAIFR') under Section 25 of the Act have bee...

R.K. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ242

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Director in the Ministry of Rural Development. He retired on 31st January, 1992. His wife is suffering from Cancer. It is the petitioner's case that he is entitled for reimbursement of all medical expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his wife in terms of the Central Government Health Scheme ('CGHS') for treatment in approved hospitals which, according to him, has been turned down on flimsy grounds. The petitioner opted for the benefit of CGHS on 27th June, 1996 through the CGHS Dispensary No. 79, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. An Identity Card, bearing Token No. P050093, was duly issued to him. This card is valid both for himself and his wife. It is stated that on 24th April, 2006, the petitioner's wife was diagnosed with Breast Cancer. Consequent upon this, she was admitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences ('AIIMS') on 28th April, 2006 where she underwent surgical intervention. She was also advised to undergo chemo...

Dr. Parma Nand Sharma Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ882

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for setting aside the Resolution and order dated 14th January 1978 passed by the respondent No. 4 Ishwar Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') whereby the name of the petitioner had been removed from the list of members of the respondent No. 4 society as well as the confirmation of such an order through the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 17th May, 1978 and the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 5th November, 1981 on a reference made by the petitioner by the nominee of the Registrar.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:a) The petitioner Dr. P.N. Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioner') was on 11th March 1961 vide membership No. 35 enrolled as a member of the respondent society. The Property No. A-19/A Kailash Colony, New Delhi was purchased by the Petitioner HUF for running a nursing home and in 1969 the nursing home started functi...

Surender Kumar S/O Harpal Singh Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected Original Applications as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The counsel in both the Applications is the same and he also suggests likewise. The bare minimum facts that, however, need necessary mention, have been extracted from OA No. 630/2008 in the matter of Surender Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board. The Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash order dated 30.1.2008 whereby, as per the case set up by the applicant, he has been declared ineligible for the post of Fire Operator on the ground that the OBC certificate furnished by him has been issued by authorities outside Delhi and not from Delhi. In consequence of setting aside the order aforesaid, the applicant seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to undergo the fitness test and protect his seniority in case of any delay occasioned...

Vikas Vij and ors. Vs. Rajiv Marwah and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC288; 148(2008)DLT791

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. In January 2005 the respondent No. 1 entrusted 4 diamonds for sale to the petitioners. Petitioners failed to make payment for the diamonds and even failed to return the same.2. On 17.5.2005 a memorandum of understanding was entered into between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 under which petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay, as price of the diamonds, Rs. 34,70,000/- to the respondent No. 1.3. Pursuant to the aforenoted memorandum the petitioners issued two cheques, dated 5.8.2005 and 5.2.2006 in sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- and Rs. 5,50,000/- respectively to respondent No. 1 which were dishonoured when presented for encashment.4. On 23.3.2006 respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner No. 1.5. On the basis of the complaint made by the respondent No. 1 to the police, on 12.9.2006, a FIR bearing No. 377/2006 under Sections 420/406/120B/34 IPC was registered against the petitioners.6....