Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

Sanjay Banaik Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ93

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 CCrPC) seeking the quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 521/01 titled B.K. Embroidery v. Right Channel Resources and Amr. under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1888 (NI Act) pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), New Delhi and all proceedings consequential thereto.2. This Court has heard Mr. Narender Vashishta, learned Advocate for the petitioner. Despite service none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 complainant.3. The case of the complainant M/s. B.K. Embroidery is that it rendered embroidery services to accused No. 1 M/s. Right Channel Resources of which the accused No. 2 Sanjay Banaik is the Proprietor. In discharge of its liability for the services rendered, the accused issued Cheque No. 052863 dated 11th March 2004 for a sum of Rs. 50,000 in favour of the complainant. The cheque when presented for payment was dishonored on the g...

Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs. D.K. Monga

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the District Forum whereby the application of the appellant for deciding the complaint of the respondent in which the pleadings were complete on merits and not by way of dismissal in default was rejected. On the face of it the impugned order suffers from inherent infirmity as the District Forum has observed that the respondent cannot be asked to produce the machines lying with him. If it was so, the District forum could have exercised the jurisdiction of deciding the complaint on merit once the pleadings were complete instead of dismissing it. 2. We have been impressing upon the District Forums that whenever the complaints and the pleadings reach the final stage after undergoing the mill of pleadings and affidavits by way of evidence which is very time consuming, the District Forum should always decide the complaints on merits. Sub-clause 2(c) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act provi...

Subhash Chandra Gadia Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This order of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Shri O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. 2. This is an appeal filed against Adjudication Order No. ADM/SDE/147 TO 152/B/UPS/89/4846 dated 29th September, 1989 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 totaling to Rs. 14,00,000 against the appellant for contravention of Section 9(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(e), a penalty of Rs. 16,50,000 for contravention of 9(1)(f)(i) and a penalty of Rs. 1,45,000 for contravention of Section 8(1) FER Act, 1973, on the reasons that the appellant as resident of India, (1) made payment of US dollars 99539.60 and Singapore dollar 762 to different persons without any general or special permission from RBI and holding JCP bonds of US dollars 10000even after acquiring the status of a person resident in India, (2) received payment of Rs. 16,26,500 as consideration and in lieu of payment of US dollars 75000 and Singapore dollar 61663.40 ; a...

Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ27

T.S. Thakur, J.1. This writ petition has been filed in public interest. It paints a grim picture about the failure of the civic agencies in regard to the solid waste management in Delhi giving the capital of this country the dubious distinction of being the dirtiest city in the world. It points out that according to a study conducted by the Central Pollution Control Board, the gap between the waste generation and management will rise to 64% by 2021 from the present level of 40%, having regard to the current population growth and the change in urban life style. The petition alleges that landfill sites are packed with a mixture of non-biodegradable and toxic waste resulting in contamination of the ground water on account of the considerable leaching of the solid wastes from these areas. It also leads to atmospheric pollution and contamination and is thereby a great threat to the health of the citizens. It proposes effective measures at the grass root level in fiscal and non-fiscal areas ...

Hari Prakash Edn. Welfare Society Vs. Dda and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT84; 2008(106)DRJ69

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The issues that arise for consideration in this appeal and in the connected writ petition between the same parties are inter related. The same shall, therefore, stand disposed of by this common order. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal and the accompanying writ petition may be summarized as under:2. The plaintiff-appellant society secured the allotment of a plot of land measuring 800 sq. mts. in Sector A, Pocket B of Vasant Kunj area of New Delhi. A perpetual lease dated 12th April, 1990 was, pursuant to the said allotment, executed in favour of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the society has, after obtaining the requisite permissions raised construction necessary for running a nursery school in the name and style of 'Tender Hands Nursery School' in the said plot of land.3. By a show cause notice dated 'nil' but received by the appellant- society on 16th April, 2003, the society was accused of using the property for an unauthorized purp...

Col. Harish Chandra Goswamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT93; 2008(106)DRJ37

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The short question that falls for determination in this petition is whether the petitioner's consideration for promotion to the rank of Brigadier was proper and valid in accordance with law. The challenge to the petitioner's non-selection for promotion is based entirely on the plea that the Selection Board concerned had, contrary to the directions issued by this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, considered the petitioner to be unfit for promotion, not because he was less meritorious than his batch mates of the 1963 batch of officers but because the Board was influenced by the petitioner's trial and punishment which fact the Board could not have 0taken into consideration as the court martial proceedings as also the punishment imposed upon the petitioner had been quashed and the petitioner held entitled to all the benefits as if he had not been tried or punished. Before we advert to the merits of the contentions o...

Rakesh Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT663

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner is serving as Commandant in the Border Security Force. He is facing trial by the General, Security Force hereinafter referred to as GSFC for disobedience of lawful command given to him, malingering and for making false allegations against his superiors punishable under Sections 21(2), 24(b) and 35(a) of the BSF Act, 1968. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under:CHARGE SHEET The accused Shri Rakesh Sharma, Second-in-Command, IRLA No. 18430868 of 131 Bn BSF attached with 26 Bn BSF is charged with:(FIRST CHARGE) DISOBEYING A LAWFUL COMMAND GIVENBSF ACT SECTION 21(2) BY HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERin that he,at Sector Headquarter BSF Baramulla on 25 Aug 2002 when asked by DIG BSF Baramulla to take over the charge of Commandant SB-II Adhoc Battalion deployed on election duty under Frontier/Sector HQ Baramulla, did not take over the charge of said Battalion as reported by SHQ Baramulla Frontier vide Signal No. O/4989 dated 29.08.02 & FTR HQ BLA L/No. ...

Northern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ710

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Northern Coalfields Ltd. against the decision of a Single Judge of this Court dated 10.07.2007, whereby the two applications filed by respondent No. 1 and 2 under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure were allowed and the plaint filed by the appellant was rejected. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:2. In May 1984, the appellant issued a tender for construction of a Coal Handling Plant at Bina (hereinafter 'the Bina Project'). This construction work was to be carried out under two contracts. They were (a) a Contract for Works and Services; and, (b) a Contract for Equipment and Spares. Both the contracts were awarded to M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (respondent No. 1) on 21.09.1988. Clause 3 of the terms of the said Contracts prohibited the contractor, i.e., respondent No. 1 herein, from sub-letting; a. the whole contract; or, b. any part thereof without the prior written consent of...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brijesh Maji @ Viresh S/O Sh. Bai ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1971

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the 'Act') has been filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 16.05.08 passed by Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as the 'Tribunal').2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on 19.10.05, Brijesh Maji @ Viresh, Respondent No. 1 herein, was going on his bicycle to his house. At about 10.30 p.m., when he reached at Sector-I, R.K.Puram red light, a Tata Sumo No. DL-1 VB-2332 which was being driven by Respondent No. 2 herein in a rash and negligent manner hit into the Respondent No. 1's cycle due to which he fell and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Safderjung Hospital for treatment.3. The Respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- against the Respondent No. 2 being the driver of the offending vehicle, Respondent No. 3 being the owner of the offending vehicle and...

Const. Jasbr Singh, No. 803/Sw Now 587/Sw (Pis No. 28881923) S/O Shri ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT782

Madan B. Lokur, J.CM No. 10056/20081. Leaned counsel for the Petitioner says that he has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court. The amount be made available by the Registrar General for utilization for juvenile justice.2. The application is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original number.WP(C) No. 3083/20083. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 2nd May, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2317/2004.4. The charge against the Petitioner was that he had received a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from one Shri Ravi Kumar (complainant) to get him enlisted in the Delhi Police. Thereafter, the Petitioner informed the complainant that the appointment would take some time and in the meantime, he suggested that the complainant should deal in liquor. According to the complainant, the Petitioner did not get him enlisted in the Delhi Police nor did he return the money to him. 5. Subsequently, i...