Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2008 Page 13 of about 224 results (0.012 seconds)Harpal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT209; 2008(103)DRJ498; [2008(118)FLR567]; (2008)IIILLJ917Del
Veena Birbal, J.1. This petition filed in public interest seeks writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to make a reasonable policy so as to provide treatment, financial assistance, occupation, home care etc. to poor cancer patients. The petitioner has further sought direction to the Union of India to introduce amendment to definition of 'disability' in Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' so as to include a person suffering from cancer within that definition. Lastly, the petitioner has sought allotment of a kiosk/stall by DDA in his favor. 2. The petitioner avers that he is a patient of 'left parietal astrocytoma', a form of brain cancer which was detected in 1993. He was operated upon but due to his inability to perform his duties and strenuous tasks properly; his services were terminated in 1995 and he has been redendered jobless since then. He further st...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Builders Vs. D.D.A. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR361(Delhi); 2008(104)DRJ205
Veena Birbal, J.1. Present appeal has been preferred under Section 37(1) of Arbitration Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for setting aside the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 5.7.2006 in C.S. (O.S.) 3458/2002 by which the arbitral award was modified and made rule of the court. The appellant has also challenged order dated 1.9.2006 by which the review application of the appellant was dismissed. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of present appeal are that the appellant was awarded a contract for construction of 1323 SFS Houses at Sarita Vihar, Sector-1, New Delhi vide agreement No. 6/EE/SED-3/DDA/88-89 dated 22.9.1988 by DDA. Certain disputes arose between the parties and arbitration was initiated as per Clause 25 of the agreement. The arbitrator published his award on 4.8.1992, awarding a sum of Rs. 12,99,750/- to the appellant along with simple interest @ 15% per annum from the date of publication of the award to the date of actual payme...
Tag this Judgment!Himalaya E-com Marketing and Finance Ltd. and ors. Vs. Gnct of Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ503
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing of FIRs No. 450 dated 21st April, 2006 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3/4/5 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and FIR No. 972/2007 alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 422 and 120B of the IPC. A mandamus directing the respondents not to prevent the petitioners from carrying on their occupation, trade and business and for a declaration to the effect that the business run by the petitioners does not fall under the mischief of Act has also been prayed for. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:2. Petitioner No. 1 is a limited company while petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Director. Petitioner No. 3 claims to be an ex director of the said company, all of whom are shown as accused persons in the two FIRs mentioned above. Th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ujjal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ581
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question the validity of a notification dated 5th November, 1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a declaration dated 21st May, 1985 issued under Section 6 of the said Act whereby nearly 21 bighas of land situate in Sy. Nos. 245, 247, 248 and 340/250 of village Said-ul-Ajaib has been notified for acquisition for the public purpose of planned development of Delhi. The factual backdrop in which the challenge has been mounted may be summarised as under:2. The petitioner claims to be owner/bhumidar of land measuring 12 bighas and 12 bids was in Sy. No. 245 of village Said-ul-Ajaib. He also claims to have entered into an agreement to sell with the owners of nearly 8 bighas of land in Sy. Nos. 247, 248 and 340/250 of which he claims to be in possession upon payment of a major part of the consideration settled for the same. 3. By a preliminary notification dated 5th November, 1980 ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ashutosh Bajpai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2008)4CompLJ13(Del); 2008(103)DRJ460
Veena Birbal, J.1. Consumer Complaint No. 59/2003 was filed by respondents No. 2 to 5 who happen to be the family members of deceased Vishnu Kumar Shukla before the UP State Commission Dispute Redressal Forum alleging negligence in providing medical treatment to the deceased by the hospital run by the petitioners. The allegations made against the petitioners were that the deceased was kept in the hospital with the ulterior motive of extracting money from the respondents. It was also alleged that the petitioners did not refer the deceased to PCI Hospital as a result of which he died. Since no one appeared before the State Commission it proceeded ex parte against the petitioners and awarded Rs. 22 lakhs as compensation to the widow and family members of the deceased i.e. respondent nos. 2 to 5 together with interest @ 12% p.a. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the State Commission, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 19 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Nambiar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 150(2008)DLT312; 2008(103)DRJ554
T.S. Thakur, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in this petition is whether an order passed by a writ court can be said to have been effaced by a subsequent order passed by the competent authority in exercise of its powers of review under Section 15A of the Citizenship Act. The petitioner contends that the order made by the High Court of Bombay in the writ petition filed by the petitioner before that court had no doubt upheld the order passed by the competent authority under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955 cancelling his registration as an overseas citizen of India, but the said judgment would stand effaced by the subsequent order passed by the said authority in review under Section 15A. The respondents on the other hand argue that the judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay upholding the order of cancellation of the petitioner's registration remains binding upon the parties to the said judgment till such time the same is set aside or modified by the Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Set Discovery P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi159; 151(2008)DLT531; 2008(104)DRJ590
Siddharth Mridul, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of Section 36 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 (the TRAI Act, 1997) and in particular regulations 4.1 and 4.2 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004 (Interconnection Regulations 2004) as vocative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In addition the petitioner also challenges the direction dated 12th January, 2005 issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, (TRAI) directing the petitioner to restore the signals to respondent No. 4, a last mile operator, and the show cause notice dated 25th January, 2005, issued by TRAI, upon the petitioner's failure to comply with the direction dated 12th January 2005.2. The petitioner-company is a distributor of satellite television channels to various cable operators based on affiliation agreements. Three Star Communications-respondent No. 4, entered into an a...
Tag this Judgment!Rps Panwar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ675
ORDER WHEREAS a case against Shri R.P.S. Panwar, General Manager (Telecom), Muzaffarnagar, in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation. AND WHEREAS, the said Shri R.P.S. Panwar was detained in custody on 18.09.2003 for a period exceeding forty-eight hours. NOW, thereforeE, the said Shri R.P.S. Panwar is deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of his detention i.e. 18.09.2003 in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and shall remain under suspension until further orders. By order and in the name of the President.(D.P. Saini)Under Secretary to the Govt. of IndiaIt is clear that it was because of his detention exceeding 48 hours that he was treated under deemed suspension. This suspension was extended from time to time. The orders passed extending the suspension after every 180 days are identically worded with change of dates. thereforee, purpose would be served in taking note of one such order. While extending suspension, order dated 19.4.2...
Tag this Judgment!Onkar Nath Goenka Vs. Gujarat Lease Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: IV(2008)BC514
ORDERG.S. Sistani, J.1. The present petition bearing Crl.M.C. No. 485/2005 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the order dated 27.4.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Crl. Rev. No. 637/2004 as well as for quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 5427/1. Accompanying the present petition are applications bearing Crl.M.A. Nos. 808/2006 and 809/2006 seeking stay and exemption respectively.2. Brief facts of the case are that one M/s. Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. had taken on lease certain equipments from the respondent. Consequent thereto lease agreements dated 16.8.1993 and 30.8.1993 were signed. At the time of the execution of the lease agreement certain post-dated cheques were handed over to the respondent. However, the said cheques were returned with the remarks 'Account Freezed/Account Attached'. This was followed by a legal notice, dated 13.7.1998 and, thereafter a complaint-bearing C.C. No. 5427/1 alleging off...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Ram Gautam and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ452
Manmohan, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 353/2005 registered with Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi under Sections 406, 498A and 34 IPC as well as the proceedings now pending before the court of Ms. Rekha, Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.2. The Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the father and mother of Mr. Vipin Gautam i.e. the husband of the complainant Ms. Monika. The Petitioner's counsel Mr. Sharma states that Ms. Monika/Complainant has been treated by the Petitioner No. 1 as his niece and the Petitioner No. 1 had even performed the bhaat ceremony of the elder sister of the Complainant. It is pertinent to mention that the bhaat ceremony is performed at the marriage of a girl by her maternal uncle. Mr. Sharma states that the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, their relatives and friends had never consented to the marriage of the Complainant with their son as the said marriage was against their will and without th...
Tag this Judgment!