Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Bua Singh Vs. Dalip Singh Cheema and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT117

S.L. Bhayana, J.1. This appeal has been filed by defendant No. 2 arising out of a suit for possession which was decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The facts giving rise to the filing of the suit may be summarized as under:2. The suit property bearing plot No. 11 measuring 250 sq. yds. situated at C-51, Vijay Vihar, Phase-II , Village Rithala, Delhi, originally belonged to Vijay Singh,PW-1 as a part of his ancestral property.3. Briefly stated the plaintiff's case is that his wife Amarjit Kaur purchased the suit property on 23.01.1984 vide a registered sale deed from Vijay Singh for Rs. 6000/-. The plaintiff further stated that a boundary wall demarcated the suit property and three rooms were constructed on the said plot. In the year 1989, defendant No. 1 Gurdeep Kaur filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff had illegally and in an unauthorized manner occupied the suit property. Subsequently the suit for permanent injunction ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. N.K. Garg and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR83(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.CM No. 7778/2008Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.FAO (OS) No. 257/20081. Admit.With the consent of the parties, since only a short question is involved, appeal is taken up for disposal.2. The appellant-Union of India by this appeal assails the order passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No. 327/2002 dated 19th March, 2008 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 holding that objections do not fall within the ambit of Section 34 of the Act.3. The learned Single Judge in his succinct judgment has culled out the relevant facts. For facility of reference, we recapitulate some of these.The Union had awarded the contract to the respondent which entailed filling up for earth in embankment, construction/extension of hume pipe bridges, bridges of varying sizes, construction of barriers, etc. in connection with 2nd line work of Ghaziabad-Hapur BG Doubling vide Letter No. 7...

Puran Chand Packaging Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sona Devi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT111; (2009)153PLR25

V.K. Shali, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the order dated 4th July, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 513-A/1996 by virtue of which a decree for possession in respect of the suit premises has been passed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs on the basis of an application filed by them bearing IA No. 2217/1998 under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the CPC.2. Briefly stated the case set up by the appellant/defendant in the appeal is that the appellant/defendant was granted a leave/licence in respect of property bearing No. D-29, S.M.A. Industrial Area, GT Karnal Road, Delhi vide agreement dated 12th June, 1987. The relevant terms and conditions of the agreement are as under:1) That the licensee have undertaken to pay a sum of Rs. 16,500/- per month excluding consumption charges for industrial power, commercial light and water charges on or before the 7th day of each English calendar month. The payment for industria...

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Vs. Gold Line Impex Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT531

V.K. Shali, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the creditor Bank) against the Order dated 31st March, 2008 passed by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi by virtue of which, the Learned Appellate Tribunal has stayed the dispossession of the respondent No. 1/appellant before the Tribunal M/s Gold Line Impel Pvt. Ltd. during the pendency of their application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act).2. That briefly stated the admitted facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2, M/s Priyanka Overseas Private Ltd. was a borrower having availed of certain credit facilities from the petitioner bank (hereinafter referred as the borrower). The borrower had given equitable mortgage of certain agricultural land and a residential property in question bearing No. A-1/131, Safdarjung Enclav...

Ganpati-rv-talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)CTLJ137(Del)

V.K. Shali, J.1. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner is challenging the issuance of order dated 7th March, 2008 by the respondents wherein the respondents had communicated to the petitioner that it is not meeting the eligible criteria of the tender floated by the respondents and, therefore, their commercial bid will not be considered.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondents floated a tender on 7th November, 2007 for the purpose of supply of Thick Web Switches (60 Kg.). In pursuance to the aforesaid tender, the petitioner a Joint Venture company was one of the bidders. The relevant tender conditions are as under:2.8 The tender will be in two packet systems i.e. (i) Technical Bid (ii) Commercial Bid.The technical bid and the commercial bid should be in separate packet/cover duly sealed and supercribed on the packet/ cover clearly as 'Technical Bid' and 'Commercial Bid'. Both the bids, each in a separate packet/c...

Bharat Sewak Samaj Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT453

V.K. Shali, J.1. The petitioner by virtue of the present writ petition has challenged the notification bearing No. (9)(60)/2003/L&B;/LA/6084 dated 06.07.2004 and the subsequent proceedings taken thereto by virtue of which his land measuring of 12 Bigas 05 Biswas in Khasra No. 301, 493/302 Village Ladha Sarai, New Delhi has been acquired.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Act, 1860 is the owner of the aforesaid land which was purchased by it from the Union of India for a total consideration of Rs. 18,375/- (Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five) vide sale deed dated 22.02.1962. The said sale deed is duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi. The petitioner Society was formed by the first Prime Minister of India and Late Shri Guljari Lal Nanda was its first Chairman and thereafter high dignitaries were occupying the said office. The Society was formed for the charitable purposes and run...

Munshi Ram Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ226

Hima Kohli, J.1. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 8.5.2008, counsel for the decree holder took time to respond to the correctness or otherwise of the computation handed over by the counsel for the judgment debtor on 2.4.2008. Instead of responding to the same, counsel for the decree holder has filed written arguments, without seeking or being granted leave of the Court. The same is neither necessary, nor permissible for the reason that the limited issue account of which the present execution petition has been lingering is the tanner of calculating the interest on the amount awarded in favour of the decree holder.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the decree holder assailed an award dated 31.3.1995 by filing a suit bearing No. 1012A/1995. The learned Sole Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 15,10,684/- in favour of the decree holder. It was further clarified in the award that if the aforesaid awarded amount was not paid to the petitioner/decree holder, it would attract simpl...

Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chauhan Gas Agency and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Appellant was having LP gas connection of the gas manufactured by the respondent No. 2 and supplied by the respondent No. 1. Though initially there was complaint of leakage of gas from the cylinder which according to the respondent No. 1 was rectified but within three days there was violent explosion in the kitchen of the appellant resulting in fire due to leakage of the gas from the pipe as a result of which several kitchen appliances and other household goods were destroyed. On account of loss suffered by him, instant complaint seeking actual expenses of Rs. 87,200 and Rs. 1 lac as compensation and Rs. 15,000 as cost of litigation was filed by the appellant. 2. Vide impugned order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the District Forum the complaint was dismissed merely on the premise that on the perusal of the entries in the complaint register of the respondent No. 1 for the month of June, 2004 show that there were three complaints with regard to change of pip...

Shri Mohd. Azeem Khan S/O Late Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(i) Quash and set aside the impugned order (Annexure A-1) with direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's case fairly for grant of appointment on compassionate ground as LDC in Group 'C' post for which he is seeking. (ii) Call for the records of consideration with merit drawn up by the Board of Officer, Board No. 6 held on 25.5.2006 specifically stating inter-alia the criteria adopted for drawing up the merit list. (iii) Pass any order or direction deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with award of the cost of this application in favour of the applicant against the respondents.2. It is stated by the applicant that his father, Late Shri Abdul Naeem Khan, died in harness on 12.9.1996 leaving behind his widow, 3 sons, 2 daughters and 2 daughters not mentioned. Since they did not have any immoveable property and no other source of income, so he applied for compassionate appointment. Though one son is employed but he is living separately with his ...

Smt. Rashmi JaIn W/O Shri Pravesh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A lis is maintainable before judicial fora only when it infringes a legal right of a person. Under Article 53 of the Constitution of India the executive power of the Union has been vested in President and has to be exercised either by him directly or through officers subordinate to him on delegation of powers in accordance with the Constitution.This executive power has to be exercised with prior legislative support. Any order passed by a higher rank Government authority, law presumes it to be a bonafide act and misuse of power in such a situation should not be readily inferred, as held by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta and Ors.. However, executive function by the administrative authority is not beyond the purview of law but is subjected to a judicial review to judge its correctness. Any administrative order passed by a public functionary or even by a statutory authority has to be adjudged on the touchstone of its being malafide or in contraventi...