Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Shama Kaur and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2453

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment dated 18.4.1996, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Suit No. 584 of 1988.2. By virtue of the said judgment, the appellants have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 91,200. The appellants being aggrieved by the same, have preferred the present appeal.3. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it may be useful to detail out certain facts and circumstances, which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal.4. On 5.6.1988, one Pritam Singh had met with a road accident while he was proceeding from Janakpuri to Kamla Market. The cause spelled out being rash and negligent driving of a bus bearing registration No. DHP 3356 (hereinafter in short referred as 'the offending vehicle') owned by respondent No. 1, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation...

In Re: Ufo Moviez Ltd.; in Re: Ufo India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]146CompCas453(Delhi)

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. Both these petitions are proposed to be disposed of by this common order. The petition being Co. P. No. 61 of 2008 has been filed by M/s. UFO Moviez Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'the transferor company') and petition being Co. P. No. 60 of 2008 has been filed by M/s. UFO India Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'the transferee company'). Both these petitions have been filed under Sections 391 - 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation for amalgamation of the transferor company with the transferee company.2. The brief facts giving rise to these petitions are as follows:The transferor company was first incorporated under the name and style of M/s. Zefaan Media P. Ltd., on May 5, 2005. Later on, its name was changed to M/s. UFO Moviez P. Ltd., and consequent upon change of its name, a fresh certificate of incorporation was issued by the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana on August 30, 2006. The transferor company be...

Ashok Kumar Guliani Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ624

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The petitioner in the present petition seeks mandamus against DDA for allotment of any vacant MIG flat in the Rohini Zone on the terms and conditions and cost as prevalent in the year 2002, after treating the case of petitioner duly covered under the 'Wrong Address Policy' of DDA.2. Ms. Richa Kapoor, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the intimation of new address of the petitioner was given to the respondent DDA, but still the respondent/DDA had sent the demand-cum-allotment letter at the address of the petitioner, which was given at the time of registration in the year 1979. Grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that in the year 1979 the petitioner got himself registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 for allotment of MIG flat and was allotted registration number 17790 with priority No. 24464. At the time of registration the petitioner had given his address as C6/39A, Lawrence Road, Delhi -110035. Some time...

Tarif Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ545

ORDERIn accordance with BSF Academy I O N No. 1806/5/E-3/ACPS/846 dated 16.1.201, read with the board proceedings approved by the IG/Di-rector BSF Academy and the clarification No. 32 of office memo No. 35034/1/97/Estt (D)(Vol.4) dated 10 Feb' 2000, the pay scale of serving/retired HC/Compounder of this Centre are fixed as under giving them the benefit of ACP Scheme a shown against their names.S. No. Rank and Financial Scale of pay Pay scale/pay Pay scale/pay Name upgradation/date being received on grant of first on grant of on the grade on financial scond financial the grade of upgradation upgradation financial upgratation 1. 70055771 On 9.8.99 one 3200-85-4900 In pay scale Rs. 5150 from HC/Vet 4305 500-150-8000 1.8.2000 Rs. Compdr Rs. 5000, from 5000, from Mahendr Singh 9.8.99 9.8.99 Rs. 5300 from 1.8.2002 the date next annual increment shall be 1.8.03.2. 670211027 On 9.8.99 one 3200-85-4900 -do- -do- HC/Vet/Compdr 4135 Tanrrit Singh3. 691650018 On 9.8.99 two 3200-85-4900 In pay s...

Rukmani Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ2202

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present appeal the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 18.9.2006 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Brief summary of facts to deal with the contentions of the parties are:On 18.5.2002 around 12 o'clock (noon) the deceased who was working as a driver on truck No. DL 1G-A 5414 along with a helper/cleaner S.L. Kalyan Mal was passing through Kanjhawla when all of a sudden a motor cycle was seen coming at a high speed on wrong side and in an attempt to save the motor cycle rider, his truck collided with a tree which resulted in a serious accident and death of the said driver. The deceased was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where he was declared as brought dead.A claim petition was filed on 10.3.2003 and an award was made on 18.9.2006. Aggrieved with the said award the appellant preferred the present appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated t...

Delhi State Electricity Workers' Union and Anr. Vs. Kuldeep Kumar and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ342

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This regular first appeal arises from the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 28th February 2006 in Civil Suit (OS) No. 1011/2004. The appellants/plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 Kuldeep Kumar. The appellant No. 1 is the Delhi State Electricity Workers' Union, stated to be a recognized Union, and the appellant No. 2 is the President of the appellant No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is the Registrar of the Trade Union.2. The undisputed facts of the case as summarized up by the learned Single Judge are as follows:(a) The Delhi Vidyut Board was unbundled with the result that there was changed/amendment in the name and constitution of appellant No. 1 as it originally stood. The appellants claim to be looking after the interests of workmen in various electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies operating in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The dispute really ari...

Delhi State Electricity Workers' Union Vs. Kuldeep Kumar and Anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ530

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This regular first appeal arises from the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 28th February 2006 in Civil Suit (OS) No. 1011/2004. The appellants/plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 Kuldeep Kumar. The appellant No. 1 is the Delhi State Electricity Workers' Union, stated to be a recognized Union, and the appellant No. 2 is the President of the appellant No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is the Registrar of the Trade Union.2. The undisputed facts of the case as summarized up by the learned Single Judge are as follows:(a) The Delhi Vidyut Board was unbundled with the result that there was changed/amendment in the name and constitution of appellant No. 1 as it originally stood. The appellants claim to be looking after the interests of workmen in various electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies operating in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The dispute really ari...

Green Park Extension Residents Association Vs. Municipal Corp. of Delh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ577

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By this writ petition filed by the Green Park Extension Residents Association mandamus has been sought for the removal of unauthorized construction raised by the office of Chief Electoral Officer in the 'C Block park and for restoration of the park to its original shape.2. Vide order dated 22.4.2008, directions were given to the respondents to file their respective affidavits to clarify the position with regard to unauthorized construction having come up in the green area of C block park in the Green Park Extension Colony, New Delhi. Pursuant to the said directions, affidavits have been filed by the respondents. The respondent MCD in their affidavit filed through Commissioner, MCD, has taken a stand that the part of the land on which office of the Election Commission was set up was a small area of park measuring 8.2m X 11.2m in the said block 'C, Green Park Extension. It is further stated that as per the lay out plan, green area is measuring around 4103.33 sq. yar...

Dhiraj Narang and ors. Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ611

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. These ten petitioners who are the residents of D Block, New Friends Colony have filed the present writ petition in the nature of mandamus seeking removal of office of Delhi Jal Board i.e., respondent No. 2 from the Green Area as specifically shown in yellow colour in the site plan as annexure P-I.2. Before addressing the arguments, counsel for the petitioner gave a suggestion that the said unauthorized complaint centre of the Delhi Jal Board can be easily shifted to the office of the DJB already operating nearby Opposite C-Block, New Friends Colony, Shopping Centre. To examine this submission of counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vijay Zaveri, Adv. was appointed Local Commissioner to visit the said site of Delhi Jal Board and to report whether said site is suitable for accommodating the Complaint Centre of the Delhi Jal Board.3. After visiting the said site the said Local Commissioner apprised the Court that the said site of the Delhi Jal Board is roughly at a distan...

J.P. Kapoor Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Main complaint of the appellant before District Forum against the respondent bank with whom he was having saving bank account and went for obtaining a draft of Rs. 70,000 was that the draft was not signed by two officers as prescribed by rules though he had also claimed Rs. 200 as penalty paid by him to the police for parking the scooter in the non-parking area and also missing of Rs. 10,000 from the dickey of the scooter. 2. However, vide impugned order dated 5.5.2004, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum absolving the respondent bank from the charge of deficiency in service. Feeling aggrieved he has preferred the present appeal. 3. We have perused the impugned order and find that the draft in spite of having not been signed by two officers was duly encashed on the same day and as such the appellant did not suffer any loss on account of non-signing of the draft by two officers, which may be lack of due care but it did not cause loss to th...