Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

Bhagwan Dass and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present Review Application has been filed against the Tribunal's order dated 12.10.2007 vide which OA No. 408/2007 was dismissed finding no ground for interfering in the impugned order. (a) Finding recorded in Para-12 of the judgment is factually incorrect, as it is based on a misleading account of the actual number of vacancies given by the respondents. (b) It is highlighted by the review applicant that the Tribunal erred in observing that the applicants have apparently appeared in the written test held on 15.11.2003 and 29.11.2003 because the applicant never appeared in the test as the selection was pending as averred in paras 4.6 & 4.7 of the OA. (c) It is further averred that there was no pleading on either side about the 23 posts of cadre restructuring as in fact there were only 12 posts which is admitted by the respondents in para 9 of the counter. (d) It is also one of the grounds that the Tribunal has not considered the clarification dated 6.1.2004 of the Railway Bo...

Sh. Ghasi Ram S/O Late Sh. Jhamman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant (Sh. Ghasi Ram) herein has sought direction to rejoin his duties w.e.f. 01.10.2006. He is aggrieved by order dated 17.07.2006 (Annexure-A) whereby his deemed suspension issued vide order dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure A-2) was extended upto 30.09.2006. Despite lapse of the period of suspension applicant has not been allowed to rejoin his duties nor was he paid subsistence allowance regularly or any pay or allowance w.e.f. 0.10.2006. Quash the impugned order No. 10(4)/B/DCC-1/E-III/1662 dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure-A impugned) as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Direct the respondents to refund the recovery made from the subsistence allowance for the period from August, 2005 to October, 2005 being illegal and arbitrary. Declare that he is entitled to be treated on duty with all consequential benefits, including pay and allowances, after lapse of the period of deemed suspension ordered vide order dated 17.11.2005. Direct the respondents to pay the interest @ 12% p.a. on the ...

Shri AnisuddIn and anr. Vs. Mrs. Vimla Sethi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT342; 2008(105)DRJ469

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a suit claiming a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 23.04.1981 / 05.05.1981 and for directing the defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed in respect of plot No. 226, Block-A, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the said plot') in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also sought a decree declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the super-structure standing on the said plot.2. The plaintiffs, who are brothers, have pleaded that the defendant No. 1 (Smt Vimla Sethi) was the original allottee in respect of the said plot. The perpetual sub-lease dated 24.03.1973 (Exhibit DW-1/P-16) was in favor of the defendant No. 1: The President of India being the lessor, The New Friends Cooperative House Building Society Ltd being the lessee and the defendant No. 1 being the sub-lessee. Clause II(5) of the said sub-lease required the sub-lessee (defendant No. 1) to construct a resi...

Vijay Kumar and ors. Vs. Government of Nct and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ447

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This writ petition seeks the quashing of Direction No. 2 in Notification No. F.19(22)/Tpt./Sectt./2006/197 dated 26.05.2006 issued by the Respondent No. 2 (Lt Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi), in purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 67(1)(ii) read with Section 2(41) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), whereby goods carriages having a gross vehicle weight up to 3000 kgs and which are registered outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi) have been prohibited from entering into and plying on the roads of NCT of Delhi. 2. The petitioner Nos. 1 - 4 are residents of NOIDA, UP. They are registered owners of three-wheeler goods carriages, each having a gross vehicle weight of less than 3000 kgs. The said vehicles are registered with the registering authority, Motor Vehicles Department, NOIDA, UP. The vehicles of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 run on diesel whereas petitioner No. 4's ...

Phonographic Performance Ltd. Vs. Hotel Gold Regency and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2009Delhi11; 151(2008)DLT210; LC2008(2)451; 2008(37)PTC587(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have filed this application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint. As indicated in the order dated 25.02.2008, the counsel appearing on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the other defendants, all of whom supported this prayer for rejection of the plaint, raised the following two fundamental questions with regard to the maintainability of the suit:1. Whether, in view of the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of the Copyright Act, 1957, a suit for infringement of copyright would be maintainable at the instance of a registered copyright society in the absence of the owner of the copyright?2. Whether, in view of the provisions of section 61 of the Copyright Act, 1957, inasmuch as the owner of the copyright has not been made a party to the present suit, the same would be liable to be rejected on the ground of non-impleadment of a necessary party?The parties and the reliefs claimed:2. Bef...

National Highways Authority of India Vs. Afcons Infrastructure Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR56(Delhi); 152(2008)DLT24; 2008(105)DRJ11

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In the order dated 09.03.2007, it was made clear that the only issues which requires consideration in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is - whether the cess imposed by the Government of Karnataka after the contract came into existence is to be borne by the respondent/contractor or can be passed on to the petitioner/employer ?2. By the award dated 13.11.2006, an arbitral tribunal comprising of three arbitrators came to the conclusion that the increase in cost on account of levy of the cess by the Government of Karnataka has to be reimbursed by the petitioner / employer to the respondent / contractor. The petitioner has challenged this finding of the arbitral tribunal as being contrary to the terms of the contract. It is the petitioner's case that only Clause 45.1 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) is relevant inasmuch as it is a direct provision dealing with taxes. C...

Dayagen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Dorian Punj and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]151CompCas92(Delhi); 151(2008)DLT375; 2008(105)DRJ29; [2008]87SCL314(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.With the consent of the parties, I have finally heard the appeal and I proceed to dispose of the same.1. This company appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act 1956 (for short, the `Act') is preferred by the Appellants, M/s. Dayagen Private Ltd. (for short, `the company') and one Mr. Vinod Pandita. According to respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. Vinod Pandita was working in the capacity of an accountant in the company and was appointed as a Director of the company in the year 2002. The appeal is directed against the order dated 16th May 2007 passed by the Company Law Board (for short 'the Board') in Company Petition No. 5/2007. By the impugned order the Board declined to dismiss the Company Petition (being C.P.No. 5/2007) filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 397, 398 of the Act, upon hearing C.A. No. 59/2007 whereby the maintainability of the said petition was challenged by the Appellants. The Board has directed CA No. 59/2007 to be considered along with the com...

Phonographic Performance Ltd. Vs. Lizard Lounge and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(2)465

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. As indicated in the order dated 19.03.2008, the counsel appearing for the defendant No. 7 as well as the counsel appearing for the defendants 4 and 9 had raised the issue of maintainability of the present suit. The identical issue had been raised in a similar suit filed by the same plaintiff. Detailed arguments had been addressed in an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC [IA No. 334/2005] in the said suit [CS(OS) 1498/2004]. The counsel for the parties are the same and they reiterated the arguments made in that application for the present suit also.2. The said is 334/2005 has been allowed by a detailed judgment delivered today. The plaint in CS(OS) 1498/2004 has been rejected. The following two questions had been considered in that application:1. Whether, in view of the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the Copyright Act, 1957, a suit for infringement of copyright would be maintainable at the instance of a registered copyright society in the absence of the...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. N.K. Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT505; 2008(105)DRJ218

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 13th March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8161 of 2005 and Batch. The writ petitions challenged the validity of the notices issued by the Collector of Stamps under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ('Stamp Act') demanding transfer duty as well as deficient stamp duty and penalty equal to ten times of the deficient duty.2. The demand for transfer duty was made in respect of the conveyance of plots of land in favor of the appellants who successfully bid for them in auctions held by the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA')/ Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD'). Consequently, perpetual lease deeds were executed and registered in their favour. The writ petitioners had also paid the appropriate stamp duty and transfer duty in terms of the certificate issued by the Collector of Stamps in each of the cases.3. On 29th August 2004 a general order was issue...

Pure Pharma Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR57(Delhi); 2008(105)DRJ194

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner seeks the setting aside of the award dated 22.09.2003 made by Justice C.L. Chaudhary, a former Judge of this Court, in his capacity as the sole arbitrator. Although, several grounds have been taken in the petition, Mr. Shiv Khorana, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, pressed for the setting aside of the award on three grounds.2. The first ground taken by him is that the learned Arbitrator had placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. : [2003]3SCR691 , which was a decision that was not available to the parties prior to the date when arguments had concluded and the learned arbitrator had reserved the award. It is contended that the award is based, inter alia, on the said decision of the Supreme Court which was decided in May, 2003, whereas the arguments had concluded and the written submissions of the parties had already been submitted much prior ...