Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT367; 2008(103)DRJ369

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited is a company registered under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, with the Central Government and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi each having 50% holding. This is the third round of litigation between the petitioner and Delhi Municipal Corporation, the respondent herein, on the question whether the petitioner is liable to pay property tax and other taxes under the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The petitioner had earlier filed Civil Writ No. 2065/2002, which was allowed vide order dated 4th April, 2002 with the direction to the Assessing Authority to decide the question whether the petitioner is liable to pay tax in view of Section 184 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 1989 Act, for short). After remand, the Additional Assessor and Collector passed another assessment order but again without deciding the question whether Section 184 of the 1989...

Raman Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ117

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this writ petition the Petitioner seeks an order quashing a Notification, No. 1602 dated 4th May 2001 issued by the second Respondent including the Petitioner's name in the O Specific Approval List maintained by it.2. The facts relevant for the present case are as follows. The first, second and third Petitioners are partners of the fourth Petitioner, a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act (hereafter O the firm O). The second Respondent is a company, duly registered and wholly owned by the Government of India. It is the sole insurer of export business in India and no bank offer credit to exporters without obtaining insurance policy from it. The third Respondent is involved in the banking business and is one among the many banks who provide a range of export insurance services in collaboration with the second Respondent.3. It is submitted that one of the policies issued by the second Respondent is the Whole Turnover Packing Credit Gu...

Air Deccan (Deccan Aviation Ltd.) Vs. Ajay Goel

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On the allegation of having cancelled the ticket 6 days before the date of departure which was booked about 6 months in advance on a false representation that the flights were not operational from 1st May to 31st May, 2007 from Bombay to Delhi, the appellant has been held guilty for deficiency in service and unfair conduct and directed to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation and cost. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned order, in brief, were that under promotional fare scheme of which the basic fare was less than Rs. 300, respondent booked return air ticket with the appellant for himself and two of his relative passengers Mr. Basant Garg and Saurabh Garg from Airlines Website from his residence at Mansarover Garden on 12.11.2006 i.e. about 6 months in advance from 3.5.2007 and returning on 6.5.2007. On 26.4.07, respondent received call from Bangalore i.e. merely 6 days before...

Kuldeep Kumar S/O Ranbir Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Kuldeep Kumar, a Head Constable with Delhi Police, the applicant herein, pleads discriminatory treatment meted out to him in the matter of out of turn promotion. His prayer in the present Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is thus to issue direction to the Commissioner of Police to consider his case for grant of out of turn promotion under rule 19(2) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 and promote him to the next higher rank of ASI (Exe) under the said Rules w.e.f. 5.7.2005, with all consequential benefits of pay/allowances etc.2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the Application reveal that the Inter State Cell of Crime Branch, Delhi Police, since the very beginning of bomb blasts at cinema halls had put their best in solving these cases. After arrest of two accused, Balwinder Singh and Jagan Nath, the mastermind of these blasts Jaspal Singh @ Raja and his other associate, namely, Vikas Sehgal were at large a...

inspector Hem Chander S/O Mool Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Hem Chander, an Inspector with Delhi Police, applicant herein, in the present Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calls in question the summary of allegation dated 14.3.2008 and prays for quashing and setting aside the same.2. Brief facts as projected in the application reveal that the applicant was appointed as Sub Inspector in Delhi Police in the year 1979 and thereafter promoted to the rank of Inspector in 1994. Vide order dated 20.3.2007, he was nominated as Baggage Officer for President's visit to Morocco, Greece and France during the month of April, 2007. In the order aforesaid it was specifically mentioned that there was no DE/PE/criminal case pending against the applicant as per record. It is the case of the applicant that on receipt of the above important assignment he engaged himself in preparation and completion of necessary formalities, but all of a sudden, he was informed that on account of some reports from vigilance branch in ...

Asi (Exe.) Sheoraj Singh Dhama S/O Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Thro ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Pursuant to a regular departmental enquiry, Sheoraj Singh Dhama, an Assistant Sub Inspector with Delhi Police, the applicant herein, has been visited with the punishment of forfeiture of one years approved service permanently entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 4900/- to Rs. 4800/-, vide order passed by the disciplinary dated 22.3.2007. The appeal preferred by the applicant against the order aforesaid has been partly allowed inasmuch as, punishment of one years approved service is to be temporary for a period of one year, vide order dated 13.6.2007.It is against the report of the enquiry officer dated 30.10.2006 holding the applicant guilty of the charge framed against him, as also the two orders referred to above that present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed.2. The enquiry officer after recording statements of Dharam Pal (PW-1), Ashok Kumar (PW-2), Const. Ajeet Singh (PW-3) O.P.Khanna (PW-4) and Inspector Hari Chand...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Manju Bala W/O Late Sh. Kamal ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1665; 150(2008)CLT597; 2008(103)DRJ412; [2008(119)FLR181]

V.B. Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the 'Act') has been filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. against the award dated 11.02.08, passed by Ms. Deepa Sharma, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal'), Patiala House, Delhi.2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that on 06.12.04, the deceased, Sh. Kamal Jeet Singh along with his friend, Sh. Anchul was coming as pillion rider from Banhukami to Nakopdar on a two wheeler scooter bearing no. PB-08K-9406 and when they reached Aalu Godown, Malsian Road, Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab, a Truck bearing Regn. No. RJ-37-G-1075 came from the side of Nakodar at a fast speed and hit the scooter from the wrong side. Due to the said accident Kamal Jeet died. Respondent No. 6 who is owner of the Truck was driving the same.3. A petition seeking compensation was filed by the widow, minor children and parents of the deceased against the driver/own...

Schreder S.a and anr. Vs. Twinkle Luminaries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi137; 150(2008)DLT187; 2008(103)DRJ588; LC2008(3)184; 2008(37)PTC343(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff No. 1 is a company which has been incorporated in Belgium and engaged in the business of photo metrically controlled luminaires and various lighting products, including street lighting fixtures and floodlights and claims to have worldwide operations. The suit has been instituted through Mr S.K. Dutt, who is the Constituted Attorney of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 2 is an Indian Company and has been authorized by the plaintiff No. 1 to use the technology of the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 2 is the sole distributor of the plaintiff No. 1's products in India by virtue of an agreement dated 5.12.2002.2. It is claimed by the plaintiff No. 1 that it is the registered proprietor of several designs in India under the provisions of The Designs Act, 1911 in respect of luminaires which include design registration nos. 170084, 182340 and 182343. It is alleged that the said design registrations are valid and in force and they have been renewed fro...

Kurup Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limit ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi197; 2008(2)ARBLR290(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition has been filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') seeking an order from this Court terminating the mandate of the sole arbitrator and appointment of a substitute arbitrator. On 23.01.2008, when this petition came up for hearing for the first time, notice was issued to the respondents. The learned Counsel for the respondents was present and accepted the notice and sought time to file a reply. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 filed their reply and the petitioner filed its rejoinder to the said reply. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents today. The petition has been heard in the absence of the counsel for the respondents.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that on 23.10.2003, the respondent awarded the work of erection of, inter alia, the HRSG Boiler at the Indian Oil Corporation Limited Refinery at Mathura, U.P. The contract was t...

Shri Vijay Chaudhary Vs. Shri Gyan Chand Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2008)BC455; 151(2008)DLT237; 2008(104)DRJ349

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C (for short 'the Code') has been preferred for quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled 'Gyan Chand Jain v. Vijay Chaudhary', earlier pending in the Court of Ms. Navita Kumari Bagha and now pending in the Court of Mr. Sudesh Kumar, M.M., Patiala House, New Delhi.2. The case of the complainant/respondent in his aforesaid complaint is that on 8.8.2004 (which according to the counsel for the respondent should be read as 6.8.2004), the accused/petitioner visited the shop of the complainant and took some diamonds and diamond studded jewellery worth Rs. 1,52,35,000/- on consignment/ sale basis and in lieu thereof, the accused/petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 061630 for a sum of Rs. 1,52,35,000/- drawn on Federal Bank, Overseas Branch, New Delhi dated 10.4.2006. It is further alleged that the complainant presented the said cheque through its banker for collection and the ...