Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Ex. Const. R.S. Shekhawat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT450; 2008(103)DRJ486

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in the CISF on 8.5.1990 and during the tenure of his service was posted with IOC (Mathura) w.e.f. 14.6.2002. The petitioner sustained certain injuries in November 2003 and was advised lighter duties. The petitioner was, thus, posted on duty at the Watch Tower No. 14.2. The date of the incident which resulted in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is dated 5.6.2004 when the petitioner was posted on the said duty tower between 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The petitioner claimed that he received an anonymous call at about 7:50 a.m. on the said date informing him about some goods hidden in the nearby Fire Practice Yard. The petitioner went to look to the same but did not find anything and thus came back to the tower.3. The petitioner was served with the Memorandum dated 21.6.2004 alleging indiscipline and carelessness towards his duties as he was found wandering while holding some goods in his hands which goods were thrown in a nea...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ek Lakh Hussain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ455; [2008(118)FLR857]

S. Muralidhar, J.C.M Nos. 7517/2008 & 7519(exemption) in LPA No. 254/2008Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.The applications stand disposed of. CM No. 7518/2008 (delay) in LPA No. 254/2008For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CM No. 7520/2008 (delay) in LPA No. 254/2008For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.C.M Nos. 7532/2008 & 7534(exemption) in LPA No. 257/2008Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.The applications stand disposed of. CM No. 7533/2008 (delay) in LPA No. 257/2008For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CM No. 7535/2008 (delay) in LPA No. 257/2008For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.LPA No. 254/2008, CM No. 7516...

B.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ161

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. ASI/Executive B.K. Sharma, the petitioner joined CISF on 3rd January, 1970. He was promoted as ASI/Executive in the year 1984. While in service and being posted as ASI, `F' Company, Durgapur Steel Plant, the petitioner availed casual leave of 15 days. He was to join the duties on 16th June, 1986, but he failed to do so and was proceeded departmentally for his unauthorized absence when a Memo was sent to him directing him to submit his written statement of defense by Registered post on 13th August, 1986. Such an absence of the petitioner was without permission/sanction for overstaying for more than 57 days unauthorisedly. Since no response was received from the petitioner to the charge sheet as also that the petitioner failed to participate, an ex parte inquiry report was given by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner proving the charge. The Commandant (Plant) after agreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer awarded punishment of dismissal from service t...

Sanjeev R. Apte Vs. I.F.C.i. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)3PLR44

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The writ petition challenges the order dated 27th November, 2007 passed by the Chairman, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The facts of the case are as under:2. The dispute arose from the judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT') in O.A. No. 415/2000 filed by IFCI Ltd. against M/s A.E.C. Ssangyong Ltd. and others for recovery of Rs. 50 crores and odd with pendente lite and future interest. The petitioner herein was the guarantor for the repayment of the said loan amount. Pursuant to the said suit, a recovery certificate was issued where the petitioner was Certificate Debtor No. 2. In these proceedings on 24th December, 2002, the following order was passed:CD No. 2 through his counsel is directed to deposit his passport with the undersigned immediately. He is directed to file affidavit of assets/movable/immovable and details of bank accounts and details of family members by next date of hearing. CD. No. 2 is directed not to...

Ramanand Vs. Delhi Jal Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Though it is pleaded that it the appellant is not consumer qua the respondent as he has not availed the services of the respondent. He is now insisting that the respondent should provide water from whatever source it may arrange. However, the complaint of the appellant seeking direction to the respondent to re-bore the tube-well from where he had been getting water as the same had gone dry was dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.1.2008 by the District Forum. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Allegations of the appellant leading to the impugned order, in brief, are that a tube-well (water pump) in Village Mahipal Pur Extension was installed in April 2003 by the respondent and the villagers were taking water therefrom. The said tube-well is out of order and the people of the said area are suffering from non-availability of water from this tube-well. Not only the appellant but many persons were facing problems and all the...

Malik Mohd Naqi Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation to be paid by the respondent for taking inordinate delay in installing new electricity connection, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the appellant was that he being a tenant in respect of property No. 2202, Chitli Qabar, Delhi from where he was carrying business of machinery part was having three phase connection and was making regular payment of electricity bill and subsequently he surrendered the three phase connection due to his old age and not being able to run the business and applied for single phase connection which was not sanctioned within the stipulated period of 60 days. 3. In our view the amount of compensation is reasonable. However, if the grievance of the appellant have not been redressed, he is at liberty to file fresh complaint before the District Form. However, limitation will not come in the way as the grievanc...

Valvoline Cummins Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Del)292; 2008(103)DRJ567; [2008]307ITR103(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Since we have heard learned Counsel for the parties in detail, we propose to dispose of this writ petition as well as the application for interim relief.2. Rule D.B.3. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 120(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short the CBDT) issued a Notification dated 17th September, 2001 conferring the powers and functions of an Assessing Officer on Joint Commissioners of Income Tax which by virtue of Section 2(28C) of the Act includes an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax.4. Under these circumstances, the return of the assessed for assessment year 2005-2006 was taken up for consideration by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. The returned income was Rs. 7.5 crores and on 31st December, 2007 the Additional Commissioner assessed the income at Rs. 58.68 crores. There was, thereforee, an eight-fold increase between the returned income and the assessed income. The tax liabilit...

Canbank Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd. and an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR365(Delhi); 2008(104)DRJ59

Manmohan, J.1. The Appellant has filed the present first appeal being FAO (OS) No. 71/2006 under Order XLIII read with Order XLIIA read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966, against the order dated 29th August, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By way of impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Respondent No. 1's application for referring the disputes raised in the suit by the Appellant/Plaintiff to arbitration. In fact, the learned Single Judge specifically directed, 'that the parties should take recourse to arbitration and the Arbitrators be appointed in terms of the Arbitration Clause.'2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Plaintiff is dominus litus and has the right to choose the parties and the forum to enforce the rights legally available to him. He further contends that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Respondent/Defendant No. 2 is neither a signatory nor a party to the Master Lease Agreement or the...

U.M. Cables Limited Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR533(Delhi); 2008(104)DRJ238

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a manufacturer and supplier of telecom cables and had participated in a tender floated by the respondent/BSNL on 12.1.2005 for procurement of underground cables. The petitioner was a successful bidder in the aforesaid tender and was issued a purchase order by the respondent on 30.7.2005. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the terms and conditions of the tender included an arbitration clause as contained in Clause 20, which is reproduced hereinbelow:20 ARBITRATION20.1 In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this agreement or in connection there-with (except as to matters, the decision of which is specifically provided under this agreement), the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration o...

Anil Arora and anr. Vs. Anand Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT443; 2008(104)DRJ571; (2008)152PLR43

1. The question which is to be considered in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether the learned single Judge was right in granting leave to the appellants to defend the summary suit filed by the respondent on the condition that the appellants shall furnish security of an immovable property to the extent of the suit amount. The respondent has filed the suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.1,20,48,788/- with pendent lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. Later the respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint which was allowed by the Court. By way of amendment the respondent made certain additional averments and also claimed interest prior to the institution of the suit. The respondent's case as pleaded in the plaint is that he is engaged in the business of investment. The appellant No. 2 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 dealing in stocks and share broking and is having membership of...