Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal Vs. Machine Tools (India) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR90(Delhi); 151(2008)DLT646; (2008)152PLR56

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide FAO No. 203/2005 the appellant thereof has challenged an order dated 03.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge holding that reference to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was invalid and as a consequence thereof the award has been set aside.2. FAO No. 253/2006 is actually a cross-objection filed by the respondent to the impugned order dated 03.01.2005.3. Pertaining to the challenge to the order vide FAO No. 203/2005 relevant findings of the learned Trial Judge are as under:12. As regards other plea, the counsel for the objector filed copy of general conditions of contract, form DGS & D 68 (revised). Clause 24 therein contains arbitration clause. Sub-clause (VI) thereof reads as under:Subject as aforesaid, the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the rules thereunder and any statutory modifications thereof for the time being in force shall be deemed to apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause.13. The counsel for...

J.L. Kapur Vs. Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ527

Manmohan, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction for setting aside the order dated 10th January, 2008 of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal as well as the ex-parte arbitration award dated 2nd March, 2007 and for a direction to the Respondent No. 1 to offer a legally valid sale deed of flat No. 401 for registration in favour of the Petitioner.2. Though there are multifarious litigations between the parties, the facts relevant to the present case are that on 12th October, 2006 the Respondent No. 1 Society raised a claim against the Petitioner and filed an arbitration petition under Section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act 2007 praying for an award of Rs. 65,178/- (Rupees sixty five thousand one hundred seventy eight only) along with 18% interest on account of:(i) Sweeping(ii) Cleaning of area(iii) Maintenance of roads including zonal roads.(iv) Maintenance of sewage lines.(v) Maintenance ...

L.K. Behl, Dr. Vs. I.D.P.L. Employees Co-operative Group Housing Socie ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ564

Manmohan, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the order of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal dated 26th September, 2006 and to restore the award passed by the Arbitrator for refund of the money deposited with the Respondent Society with 18% interest and costs.2. Briefly stated the material facts of this case are that in the year 1974 the Petitioner was enrolled as a member of the Respondent Cooperative Society. At that stage, Petitioner was neither a member of any other cooperative housing society nor did he own any other residential property in Delhi. However, in the year 1978 Petitioner enrolled himself as a member of another cooperative housing society. On realising that he could not be a member of two cooperative societies, Petitioner in 1984 allegedly resigned from the membership of the other cooperative housing society. However, in 1986 the Respondent Coopera...

Mrs. Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Mrs. C.K. Bedi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR537(Delhi); 2008(104)DRJ213

Hima Kohli, J.I.As. No. 6374 & 6375/2006 & 1807/2007 (for condensation of delay) Although, notice was issued on I.A. No. 1807/2007, vide order dated 19.2.2007, vide order dated 13.12.2007, the orders passed on 19.2.2007, 28.5.2007 & 10.7.2007 were recalled. Appearance was entered on behalf of the respondents on 13.12.2007. However, no replies have been filed. The aforesaid applications are not seriously opposed by the counsel for the respondents. As per the averments made in the applications filed by the petitioner, condensation of delay of 23 days in filing the accompanying petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is sought by the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that the award was rendered on 5.7.2006. Though a copy of the same was received by the counsel for the petitioner on 10.7.2006, as the petitioner was abroad at the relevant time, she received the award from her counsel only on 16.9.2006, after re...

Sh. Ved Prakash and ors. Vs. Smt. Natho Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT250

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The two captioned appeals challenge an order dated 4.10.1997 allowing Probate Case No. 346/1988 holding that the propounders of the will Ex.PW-1/1 having successfully established that the will was the last legal and valid testament of late Chelu Ram were entitled to obtain letter of administration with a copy of the will annexed thereto. 2. The appellants of FAO No. 8/1998 are the children of late Smt.Govindi Devi. The appellants of FAO No. 47/1998 are the sons of late Smt.Angoori Devi. The 2 ladies were 2 out of the 6 daughters of late Shri Chelu Ram. 3. Late Chelu Ram died on 4.1.1986. His wife had pre-deceased him. He was blessed with 6 daughters and 2 sons. 4. His sons were Rattan Chand and Ramesh Chand, husbands of Natho Devi and Rajeshwari Devi respectively. His daughters were named Gobindo Devi, Gianwati, Bharto, Bharpai Devi, Angoori Devi and Chameli. His daughters Angoori Devi and Chameli had predeceased him. 5. Natho Devi and Rajeshwari Devi, the 2 dau...

National Agricultural Co-op. Marketing Federation of India Vs. Shri La ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ507

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner seek action to be taken against the respondent for having committed contempt of this Court.2. The petitioner has not made any specific reference in the prayer clause to any order, contempt in relation whereto is alleged to have been committed by the respondent. However, in para 18 of the petition it is pleaded as under:18. The Petitioner herein and being the Respondent in the aforesaid OMP is filing the present petition to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent herein, as the Respondent is guilty of willfully disobeying the order and direction passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 27.04.2007 in FAO(OS) No. 384/2006 reaffirming and restoring the order dated 30.03.2006 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said OMP.3. Indeed, during arguments Shri T.K. Ganju, Senior Advocate who represented the cause of the petitioner alleged that the contempt committed by the respondent is of willful disobedience to the order da...

Delhi Jal Board Vs. Nayanga Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)ILLJ74Del

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.2. Two points are sought to be urged in the appeal. Firstly that the workman was a casual employee and hence would not be entitled to the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and secondly that the employee was not on duty as falsely alleged by him and that he did not suffer any injury while performing duties.3. To appreciate the arguments advance at the hearing today to challenge the impugned order dated July 26, 2005 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation a peep has to be made into the impugned order.4. In para 2 of the impugned order it has been recorded that the summons in the claim petition were duly served upon the appellant requiring reply to be filed by July 1,2002. That in spite of service none appeared for the appellant. Matter was thereafter adjourned repeatedly on as many as 10 dates. With great difficulty a reply was elicited because the authorized representative of the respondent who chance...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late Rajesh Pilot

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)403

A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The appeal is by the Department and it relates to the asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessee died on 29th July, 2000 and assessment has been made in the name of the legal heir of the deceased. The question that falls for consideration is whether the amount received is 'income'. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short 'CIT(A)'] held that the amount could at best be in the nature of a gift or donation on account of the assessee's personal qualities and for the social work that he had been doing for the social upliftment of the people of his constituency and the country at large and consequently, deleted the amount of Rs. 10 lacs from the assessment. The order of the CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal.2. It is well-settled that every receipt is not taxable as income, it may be a receipt, but not necessarily 'income'. The question is whether the ingredients commonly embedded in the concept of 'income' are present.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant ...

Veena Batra and Others Vs. Ram Lal Kundan Lal and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. This case has arisen from the death of Sh. Narinder Batra within one and a half hours of the operation known as fibular grafting and decompression of femoral head for the problem of hip joint pain (condition of necrosis of the femoral head). Complainants are the LRs of the deceased and have claimed compensation of Rs. 19,50,000 for the loss which complainants have suffered due to untimely death of Sh. Narinder Batra. 2. Deceased Sh. Narinder Batra, 33 years old, was an employee of the State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi, drawing a salary of Rs. 10,908 p.m. He was suffering from hip-joint pain and was under treatment of OP No. 2, Dr. S.P. Mandal, at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as outdoor patient. Dr. Mandal advised Mr. Batra surgery of the hip-joint. He also suggested to him to undergo the surgery at Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Hospital, OP No. 1, where it would be less costly than at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. He was also assured that OP No. 1 hospital would p...

Earthtech Enterprises Ltd. Vs. National Agricultural Co-operative Mark ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi155; 2008(2)ARBLR267(Delhi); 150(2008)DLT182; 2008(103)DRJ601

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition has been filed purportedly under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') for termination of the arbitration proceedings before the learned sole arbitrator. 2. An application had been filed by the petitioner under Section 32(2)(c) of the said Act before the learned arbitrator for termination of the arbitration proceedings before him. It was contended that the arbitration proceedings were founded on a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.10.2003 which had been allegedly entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. It was further contended that on 15.10.2007 the respondent had filed a criminal complaint with the CBI against the petitioner. In that complaint, the respondent is said to have denied having entered into the said Memorandum of Understanding. In fact, it is allegedly stated in the complaint that the Managing Director of the respondent played a fraud upon the responde...