Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

Sh. Kamal Prabhakar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR405(Delhi); 161(2009)DLT99

Hima Kohli, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the objections filed by the Objector/Union of India/ against the award dated 1.2.1996 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Shri Gian Chand, Superintendent Engineer (SG) appointed by the objector/Union of India in terms of Clause 7 of the General Conditions of Contracts governing the parties. The facts of the case are encapsulated as below.2. The petitioner/contractor was awarded a contract for periodical services to certain buildings in the Delhi Cantonment Area for Rs. 1,26,780/- The said contract dated 28.7.1989 was to commence on 10.8.1989 and was to be completed within a period of six months, by 9.2.1990. Counsel for the objector/Union of India states that notices were issued by the objector/Union of India to the petitioner/contractor for completion of work and improving the progress of the work from time to time. However, as the petitioner/contractor was not keeping progress in the work, his contract was cancelled vide letter dated 6.11.198...

Madhu Garg Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1067

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Since both the petitions are connected matters and have been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Ghanshyam Das Gupta on 14.5.2007 and Pooja Aggarwal on 12.5.2007 who are co-accused persons in FIR No. 369/2007 Police Station Sultanpuri, registered under Section 468/471/420/120-B Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).2. Accused Pooja Aggarwal allegedly purchased a Plot No. 141, Pocket 21, Sector-24, Rohini from Smt. Manorama on 12.4.2001 by way of General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell etc. The petitioner Madhu Garg had allegedly purchased the said plot from Manorama the original allottee of DDA by way of registered documents on 17.10.1997 that is prior to the transaction which allegedly took place between Pooja Aggarwal and Smt. Manorama.3. Pooja Aggarwal claims that she had raised construction on the said plot in October 2006 and the house was assessed by the MCD in her name. Pooja Aggarwal also filed a civil suit seeking rel...

R.N. Goel Vs. Nirmal Goel and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ714

Aruna Suresh, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner Shri R.N. Goel, Advocate under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of criminal complaint dated 11.09.2006 filed by the respondent under Section 500 Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. and for setting aside the summoning order dated 25.05.2007 in the said complaint passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi.2. Petitioner was appointed as a Senior Central Government counsel by the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India on 17.02.2006 for conducting an arbitration case titled ERA Construction (India) Limited v. Union of India vide letter dated 17.02.2006 being letter F. No. 30(1) 2006 for contesting the arbitration case on behalf of the Union of India. On 22.03.2003 respondent Nirmal Goel, an engineer who was the Departmental Representative approached the Petitioner and asked him to complete the case within two or three hearings, alt...

Smt. Kusum Sandhu and anr. Vs. Sh. Ved Prakash Narang

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1078; 2008(106)DRJ721

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Smt. Govind Kaur was the owner of building known as Rai Bahadur Basakha Building situated at Plot No. 5 & 8 comprised of Khasra No. 200/31 and 588/500 Block F, Khasoor Road of Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Smt. Govind Kaur executed a registered Will on 14.2.1984 in favour of petitioner No. 1 Smt. Kusum Sandhu, her daughter in law and petitioner No 1's children. Smt. Govind Kaur allegedly executed an agreement to sell dated 4.8.1986 in favour of respondent/complainant thereby agreeing to sell her 1/5th undivided share in the said property through her attorney Pritam Singh for consideration. 2. Smt. Govind Kaur died on 29.9.1986 and on her death petitioner No. 1 along with her children became absolute owner of the said property by virtue of the said Will. Petitioner No. 2 happens to be the husband of petitioner No. 1. After the death of Smt. Govind Kaur, petitioner No. 1 filed a suit on 26.7.1988 against the respondent and one Smt. Suman Mahajan seeking possession...

Sanrachana (India) Inc. Vs. Ultimate Flexipack Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR400(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking therein an Arbitration Clause 11 contained in the general conditions of contract governing the parties.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a contractor executing various types of works with the government and private agencies. The respondent floated a tender for execution and completion of a work named as 'Balance Civil Work at Ultimate Flexipack Limited Bari Barhmana, Jammu'.3. The petitioner submitted its tender to the respondent which was accepted vide letter of intent dated 21.10.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner executed the work at the site. It is claimed that in the course of execution of the work, disputes and differences arose between the parties, and as a result, the work could not be completed till the end of November 2006.4. Counsel for the petitioner states that in the aforesaid circumstances his client invoked t...

Jayshree Khemka and anr. Vs. Prema Kanodia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2008)BC357; 2008(106)DRJ809

Aruna Suresh, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the Criminal complaint No. 184/1 of 2005 under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter as N.I. Act) as well as the summoning order dated 15.3.2005 against the petitioners. The said complaint is pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate Shri Rakesh Kumar, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. A cheque bearing No. 964109 drawn on State Bank of India, Faridabad, Haryana issued on 24.12.2004 by the petitioners as alleged in the complaint was dishonoured and hence formed the subject matter of the present dispute. The petitioners are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the complaint being directors of Respondent No. 1 M/S Khemka Ispat Ltd. registered under the Companies Act, The complainant Sh. Prem Kanodia is the Proprietor of M/s Century Metal.2. It is alleged in the complaint that M/s Khemka Ispat Ltd., (hereinafter as the company) approached the complainant for purch...

Jumman Sheikh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)DMC617; 2008(105)DRJ340

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The appellant was, by a judgment dated 27.8.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of his wife Saira Khatun and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment RI for six months vide order dated 28.8.2004. The appellant is in appeal against such conviction and sentence.2. Facts leading to appellant's trial unfold that on 21st April, 2001 at 7.45 a.m. one Smt. Sudesh came to Police Station Narela Industrial Area, Delhi and lodged a report that the wife of the appellant had committed suicide. The information so furnished was registered in daily diary being DD No. 2A dated 21.4.2001. A copy of DD entry was marked to ASI Umed Singh for necessary action. ASI Umed Singh, accordingly, accompanied by constable Jitender Kumar No. 896-NW, proceeded to premises No. T-247, Shivaji Nagar Extension, Delhi. Apart from him, Insp. Sajjan Singh, SHO, PS NIA, Delhi also re...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Reebok India Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Del)508; [2008]306ITR124(Delhi)

1. The issue sought to be raised by the Revenue in this appeal pertains to the nature of the transaction which the assessee has entered upon with its suppliers. The assessee markets footwear, apparel accessories and sport goods. For this purpose, the assessee has entered into agreements with various manufacturers who manufacture the said items according to the specifications, drawings and designs provided by the assessee.2. The question arose as to whether the payments that the assessee makes to its manufacturers would fall within the purview of Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue is essentially as to whether the transaction is one of sale simpliciter or is a works contract. If the transaction is in the nature of a works contract, it would fall under Section 194C and, therefore, the assessee would have had to deduct tax at source in terms thereof. Since the assessee had not deducted any tax at source, the Revenue's contention was that the assessee was in default in view...

Asi (Min) Ashok Kumar Tyagi S/P Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, an Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial), has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question order dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure A-1) passed by the disciplinary authority, vide which pursuant to directions given by this Tribunal in an earlier Original application filed by him, he was inflicted the punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily entailing reduction in his pay from Rs. 3795/- to Rs. 3710/- per month, effective from the date of previous order issued on 25.5.2001, as also order dated 24.11.2003 (Annexure A-2) passed by the appellate authority dismissing his appeal carried against the order dated 21.4.2003.2. Brief facts of the case reveal that while serving the Delhi Police as Head Constable (Min), the applicant was served a summary of allegations with list of witnesses and documents on 8.8.2000. It was alleged against him that 'while he was posted in Communal Branch/SB h...

B.P. Sinha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT15

ORDER No. 06/05 Of late it is observed that various Courts have quashed the orders of dismissal/removal passed by the disciplinary authority against the delinquents solely on the ground of failure to provide Defence Assistant in the Departmental Proceedings.2. The procedure for conducting departmental enquiry for Non Gazetted ranks has been laid down in Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. In the said Rules there is no provision for engagement of Defence Assistant by the delinquent employees in the departmental proceedings initiated against them. In such cases where the petitioners have raised the issue of Deptt having not provided Defence Assistants in the inquiry, the Deptt has tried to defend its interest citing absence of specific provision in this regard. However, in many cases Courts have not accepted this plea of the Deptt and have instead observed that disciplinary proceedings being quasi judicial in nature attract the Principles of natural justice as the order in the proceeding involv...