Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

Shatrudhan Singh S/O Sh. R.K. Singh and Usha Devi W/O Shatrudhan Singh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1938

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 against the interim award passed by Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi dated 30.11.07 & 16.02.08.2. It is stated by the Appellant that Respondent No. 1 to 3 had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal alleging that on 09.02.07 the deceased was standing along with her husband near Delhi Haat. One Maruti Van No. DDA 8487 was coming from the direction of AIIMS Hospital and was going towards Safdarjung Airport direction. At about 7.30 a.m. on 09.02.07 the Maruti Van being driven by Appellant No. 1 (herein) came from the side of AIIMS Hospital in a rash and negligent manner at a very fast speed and hit Smt. Devanti Devi, the deceased and caused the accident. The deceased was immediately taken to the AIIMS Hospital in very serious and critical condition where she was given all the best and required m...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Awanindra Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN193(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been preferred against the tribunal's order dated 15.06.2007 in respect of the assessment year 1996-97. The Assessing Officer had made an addition on account of the alleged unexplained investment made by the assessee through Certificate of Deposit (CD) in Wells Fargo Bank, USA. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had deleted the said addition and while doing so, he observed as under:I have considered in detail the facts and circumstances of the case, I have also perused the report of the F.T.D. dated 14/12/2000 and 19/4/2002 in para-e thereof, it is clear that there is prima facie evidence to indicate that the amounts deposited in Wells Fargo Bank were the funds of Mohd. Shaikh, Khursheed Ahmed and Mrs. Dina Shah. The appellant therefore has discharged the initial burden to show that the investments in the bank account were not made by him. There is nothing contrary on record to controvert the ...

Rizwana Shaikh Vs. Loveleena Nadir (Dr.) and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of alleged gross and sheer negligence as well as professional misconduct apart from breach of trust on the part of the OP, the complainant has, through this complaint, sought the following reliefs: (a) Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 towards the compensation to the complainant along with interest @ 24% . (b) Direct the OPs also to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the complainant towards the cost of litigation. 2. Allegations of the complainant, who is 42 years of age and a mother of three children i.e. two sons and a daughter aged around 20, 19 and 12 years respectively, in brief, are that in the month of August/September 1999, she had pain in her abdomen and had a complete ultrasound of the whole abdomen on 1.9.1999. As per the report of the ultrasound, both her kidneys were absolutely normal in size, shape, position and echotexture and the conclusion of the report was large cystic, septated abdominopelvic mass ovarian. 3. That on 4.9.1999,...

K.S. Patcha Vs. Arun Sarna

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT784

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/landlord has challenged the legality of order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the learned ARC in the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14-C read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner/landlord/owner of flat No. 118 Civil Supplies Co operative Group Housing Society Plot No. 6, Sector -4, Dwarka, New Delhi inducted respondent as a tenant by a lease agreement dated 6.1.2001 for a period of 11 months at the monthly rent of Rs. 3700/-. The petitioner at that time was employee of CPWD, Government of India and was working as an Assistant Engineer. He retired from the service on 31.1.2006. His family consisted of his wife, two sons and two daughters. While in the service, he was occupying the government accommodation and after his retirement he continued to occupy the government flat for some time. However, an eviction o...

Sh. Yogender Pal Gureja Vs. Smt. Paro Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2010ACJ371

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The appellant, who is the owner of the offending vehicle has preferred the present appeal so as to challenge the impugned Award dated 24.12.2004 whereby the Tribunal has made liable the appellant to pay the compensation amount along with the driver of the offending vehicle. Brief summary of the facts of the present appeal are:On 22.8.1988 at about 4 P.M. the driver of the Motor Cycle bearing registration No. DBT-5451, hit the deceased Shri Singeshwar Tanti at the traffic signal, near Police Station, Patel Nagar, New Delhi and due to such a forceful impact, the deceased received grievous injuries and later on died in the hospital. The accident had taken place due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of the said motorcyclist.2. Mr. K.K. Buchar, learned Counsel for the appellant raised two main contentions to assail the findings of the Tribunal. The first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that there is no evidence on record to show that the m...

K.R. Srinivasan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ47

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Commissioned Officer on 15.5.1967 in the Executive Branch of the Indian Navy. During his service he specialized in 'Hydrography' some time in Jan. 1969 while posted in the executive branch. He was then assigned his duties in Hydrographic Section of the Executive Branch.2. In 1976 the Navy started an exercise for creating a separate Hydrographic Cadre to retain professionalism in the service. They also sought views of those who were working in this branch and gave them option to come back to the general cadre while retaining the final decision to be taken by the Naval Headquarters vide letter No. NA/1648/76, dated 25.3.1976. The petitioner as well as others requested to come back to the general branch but the said option was refused at that time.3. However, based on the inputs from the naval commands and the apprehensions of vast majority (over 80%) of the hydrographic officers, including the petitioner, the Naval Headquarters afte...

Mustamand Ali Khan @ M.A. Khan Vs. Surjit Bhatia and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT24

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 24.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby he dismissed an appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 3.1.1994 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller. The Additional Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal held that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the eviction petition against the respondent since the property in question was wakf property and the petitioner had filed the eviction petition in his personal name, that also through an attorney.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a duly appointed mutawalli by the original wakif (trustee). This wakf was registered with the Sunni Central Wakf Board, UP. The Wakf Act would not be applicable in respect of the administration and in achieving aims and objects of the wakfnama ther...

S.K. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rite Foods Product (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(38)PTC200(Del)

Hima Kohli, J.1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit on 20th April, 2005 against the defendants praying inter alia for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the design of the plaintiff with respect to Duck jars described in detail in paras 9 and 10 of the plaint. The defendants No.1 to 3 are based in Madhya Pradesh and the defendants No.4 and 5 are based in Haryana. Appearance was entered on behalf of the defendants on 18th May, 2005, whereafter the defendants approached the plaintiff for settling their interse disputes. However, after some time, the defendants stopped appearing in the matter. As a result, they were proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 26th July, 2006, and the plaintiff was directed to file its ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit thereafter. Needful was done by the plaintiff who filed the evidence of Mr. Dinesh Bhadoria by way of an affidavit.2. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is a com...

Chander Bhan and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)DMC359

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present petition the petitioners who are parents-in-law of the complainant seek grant of anticipatory bail.2. Mr. Sharma, Counsel for the State submits that allegations are serious in nature against the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve grant of anticipatory bail.3. Complainant is present in the Court. She states that there is no possibility of her going back to the matrimonial home. However, the complainant is not averse to the matter being sent before the Mediation Cell. Let the matter be sent to the Mediation Cell, Rohini Court, Delhi for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties.4. Let the parties appear before the Mediation Cell, Rohini Court, Delhi on 11.8.2008 at 4.00 p.m.List the matter before the Court on 23.9.2008. Till then the petitioners shall not be arrested.5. Before parting with this case, I deem it expedient and in the larger interest of saving matrimony of the couples and to restore pe...

Sharmishtha Vs. Sujoy Mitra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)DMC633

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.CM No. 10900/2008 (exemption)Allowed subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.Caveat No. 161/2008Notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. S. Chatterjee, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.Caveat stands disposed of.C.R.P. 120/20081. The respondent/husband in this case was living with the petitioner in USA. Some differences arose between the parties while they were living in USA and respondent filed a petition for divorce in Pennsylvania. The petitioner had accepted the notice and appeared before the Court in Pennsylvania and a decree of divorce was granted. After the divorce was granted by Court in USA, the husband filed another divorce petition in Delhi. The respondent made an application that the second divorce petition was not maintainable, in view of the husband already having obtained divorce, which got dismissed by impugned order.2. It is submitted by Counsel for the respondent that a decree of divorce obtained from a foreign country is...