Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Rajiv Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Chief Engineer (Arc) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR379(Delhi); 2008(102)DRJ594

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Appellant-M/s. Rajiv Associates Pvt. Ltd. assails the order dated 10th January, 2005 of the learned Single Judge dismissing CS (OS) No. 1838A/ 1998, being a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The present appeal was filed belatedly on 2 June, 2005. Appellant has also filed an application being CM No. 8997/2005 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condensation of delay of 97 days in institution of the appeal.2. We have heard Mr. D. Moitra, learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal as also the application for condensation of delay. The facts in brief culminating in filing of the present appeal may be noted:(i) Respondent-Airports Authority of India had invited tenders for construction of service road connecting NH-8 to BPCL Installations at Brijwasan. M/s. Rajiv Construction Company had submitted tender and was the successful bidder and was awarded the contract. Disputes and d...

Harish K. Dogra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ200; 2009(3)SLJ285(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.11.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, dismissing OA No. 738/2006 filed by him. Petitioner in the above OA had challenged the order of recall dated 1.3.2006, passed by the respondents recalling the petitioner compulsorily from his posting at New Zealand as High Commissioner of India. The Tribunal after considering the factual version as presented by the petitioner and the respondents, reached the conclusion that the order of recall passed by the respondents was in accordance with para 8(2)(1) of Annexure 12 to the Indian Foreign Service (Pay, Leave and Compulsory Allowances) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the IFS(PLCA) Rules'). The Tribunal reached the conclusion that the conditions and circumstances for invocation of the Rule were in existence and that there was no ground for interference with the orders passed in exigencies of service....

Harsh Rani W/O Late Ravi Dutt Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to apprise her about the action taken on her application dated 9.12.1999 seeking compassionate appointment and to decide the same without waiting for the outcome of the civil suit pending in the court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.2. It is submitted by the applicant that her husband, Late Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma was an employee of the respondents. At the time of employment, he was a bachelor but he married the applicant on 28.8.1995 at Hosiarpur, Punjab and since then she has been living with him in Government accommodation bearing Quarter No. 125/15, Sector-I Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. This was duly intimated by the applicant's husband vide his application datcd 19.12.1995 to the department for entering the same in his service book (page 15).3. On 10.3.1998 she gave birth to a girl child. Unfortunately, her husband died on 26.8.1998 but she could not know about it as she was with her parents in Pubjab due to her ...

Accord Alloys Limited Vs. Pee Ell Alloys and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC497; 150(2008)DLT564

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff placed a purchase order on the defendant No. 1 for supply of High Carbon Ferro Chrome. The payment was to be made by the plaintiff through a letter of credit. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff placed an order for 300 Metric Tonnes of High Carbon Ferro Chrome upon the defendant No. 1. It is further submitted on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint that the defendant No. 1 has only supplied 195 Metric Tonnes out of the order of 300 Metric Tonnes. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the original rate agreed upon by the parties was Rs 60,000/- per Metric Tonne. Subsequently the rate has been increased to Rs 63,000/- per Metric Tonne on account of increase in the chrome content in the said goods. The purchase order, according to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, was placed on 03.01.2008 and the same was confirmed by the defendant No. 1 on the same day. The purchase...

Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Vidyut Product Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR374(Delhi); 150(2008)DLT204; 2008(102)DRJ569

Manmohan, J.1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act praying for quashing of the order dated 20th September, 2006 passed in CS(OS) No. 219-A of 1997 and order dated 24th July, 2007 passed in I.A. No. 12419 of 2006. By way of the first order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Appellant's application under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of an Arbitrator on the ground that it was barred by limitation. A notice to arbitrate had been issued on 26th July, 1976 and since the claim had been repudiated by the Respondent immediately, the limitation would commence in 1996 itself. As the said order had been passed ex parte, the present petitioner filed an application seeking its recall. The learned Single Judge re-heard the counsel for the Appellant on merits but still dismissed the application for appointment of an Arbitrator on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Learned Single Judge held that ...

Lic of India Vs. Chanderkala

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Admittedly the insurance claim of the respondent assured cover of life was repudiated by the appellant on the solitary ground that the assured had given his age 48 years in the proposal form whereas his age was 51 years. In our view this is hardly any ground of repudiating the claim. 2. However, this ground of repudiation did not find favour with the District Forum and as such vide impugned order dated 12th May, 2004 passed by the District Forum the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 1 lac sum assured under the policy with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Broad facts are more or less not in dispute. The plea was taken that the diseased/ insured had deliberately concealed/withheld material facts / information with regard to his habit of smoking and ailment besides his age and as such Clause 5 of the terms and ...

Shri Dilip Kumar Saha, Ps Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The short but important question is as to whether the applicant could have been deemed as having retired from Government service from 01.08.2007, as claimed by him, consequent to his written notice (Annexure A-3) dated 27.06.2007. The sustainability of the disciplinary proceedings vide charge memorandum dated 10.08.2007, as well as the validity of the formal letter dated 16.08.2007 rejecting the request for voluntary retirement depend on this. The text of the notice of the applicant would be highly relevant and is extracted as hereunder: I understand that DOP&T has not taken appropriate action for transferring/surrendering my services to other non-sensitive Ministry, in spite of taking up by the Ministry of Defence, I intend to take Voluntary Retirement from Government Service with effect from Ist August, 2007. I have joined Delhi Administration on 30th July, 1979 as Stenographer Grade 'D' and joined as Stenographer Grade 'C' in Ministry of Defence through UPSC in the month of ...

Shri Phool Chand S/O Shri Pohap Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant commenced service in the year 1976 as a Caneman in the MES at par with the applicants in OA 804/1998 and OA 1018/2003. It is submitted that he had put up a claim for wages applicable to the skilled category but the petition was rejected. This had prompted him to file OA 2634/2004. Although his case had been dismissed, a review application had been filed, which had been disposed of on 30.05.2006, with a direction issued on 01.08.2006 that respondents are to consider grant of pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 to the applicant in the light of the findings entered and pass a speaking and reasoned order. When no follow up orders were forthcoming, applicant had filed CP 35/2007.2. On the issue came up for hearing, the respondents had brought to the attention of the Tribunal an order passed by them on 15.02.2007, whereby the applicant had been advised that he could not be considered as similarly placed to the handicapped persons he had compared himself and, therefore, the claims wer...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Md. Sakur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1562

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent.2. Appellant, Indian Railways, is aggrieved by an order dated 16.5.2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal allowing compensation in sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to the complainant whose son has been held to have suffered an untimely death at an untoward incident when traveling as a bona fide passsenger in the Mahananda Express. The deceased was traveling from Delhi to Mansi Junction vide train No. 4084 Dn. Mahananda Express. The accident in question took place about 7 km away from Barauni Junction. That the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train was established with reference to a journey-cum- reservation ticket authorizing the holder thereof to undertake the journey from Delhi to Mansi. The Tribunal has believed the testimony of the witnesses of the claimant that the bogie was overcrowded and the deceased could not reach his seat and due to a sudden jerk he fell off the train.3. Section 123(c) defines...

Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. M.P. Beer Products Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT391

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.I.A. No. 6059/20071. This application has been made under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaint was liable to be rejected/returned.2. In reply to the application, the plaintiff has denied that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction and submitted that the Dhodha House judgment relied upon by the defendant was not applicable.3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for injunction and damages for infringement of trade mark, copyright and passing off seeking relief that this Court should issue a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant from using the trade mark '5000' or 'President 5000' which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'Haywards 5000 Super Strong Beer' in respect of its goods. Prayer was also made that the defendant be directed to handover all goods, packaging material connected with the trade marks '5000' a...