Delhi Court September 2008 Judgments

Richa and Company Vs. Shri Suresh Chand

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008BusLR1013(Del)

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has impugned the awards dated 22nd December, 2005 passed by Industrial Tribunal-II, Delhi in these petitions directing the petitioner/management to fix the duty hours of the workmen/respondent in different petitions, from 9.30 AM to 6.00 PM as was done by the management prior to 1st July, 2002 and not to fix the working hours from 9.30 AM to 6.15 PM as has been done by the petitioner/management.2. The awards dated 22nd December, 2005 were given in the applications filed by different workers/respondents under Section 33A of the ID Act, 1947. The different awards were during the pendency of complaint No. 22 of 1998 filed by Richa and Co. Karamchari Union Regd. The awards were given in complaint No. 17/2004, Sh. Bhagwan Singh v. Richa and Company; in complaint No. 16/2004, Sh. Upender Singh v. Richa and Company; in complaint No. 19/2004, Sh. Sunil Kumar v. Richa and Company; in complaint No. 23/2004, Sh. Vishwanath Jha v. Richa and Company; in complaint No....

Sandeep Sheoran Vs. Vice Chancellor Delhi University and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT332

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The petitioner applied for seeking admission to the Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) Course in Delhi College of Engineering, which is affiliated to the University of Delhi. The petitioner qualified in the Joint Entrance Examination 2008 conducted by the Delhi University. He had made his application as a ward of a defence personnel disabled in action. This category enjoyed reservation to the extent of 5% of the total seats. Within the said reserved category, four different priorities were stated, which are as follows:Priority I - Widows/ward of Defense Personnel killed in action.Priority II- Wards of serving personnel and ex-servicemen disabled in action.Priority III- Widows/wards of Defense Personnel who died in peace time with death attributable to Military Service.Priority IV- Wards of Defence Personnel disabled in peace time with disability attributable to Military Service.2. The submission of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner was an army personnel...

Ram K. Mahbubani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT471; 2008(106)DRJ906

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this writ petition three prayers have been asked for ' firstly for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus securing the release of the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Extradition Act, 1962 ('Extradition Act' for short); secondly, for quashing of the Orders of the learned ACMM dated 31.5.2007 and 28.7.2007 whereby, according to the Petitioner, he has been detained; and thirdly, for staying the proceedings in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM).2. The Petition discloses that the Petitioner was detained at Chennai Airport on 04.05.2005. He was subsequently released on bail by Order dated 12.5.2005 by 'the Madras Court', subject to his depositing the original Passport in that Court and executing a Bond for a sum of Rupees Ten Thousand. The Respondents have clarified that this was a 'provisional arrest' as requested for by the Government of the United States of America (USA) as envisaged in Article 12 of the Extradition Treaty ...

Tarun Bhatnagar Vs. Dmrc and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT734

Manmohan, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the prescription and application of 'B-2' medical standard for appointment to the post of Senior System Analyst (ERP) Functional Modules (Non-Executive), hereinafter referred to as Senior System Analyst, with the Respondent Corporation.2. The facts of the present case are that the Respondent Corporation issued an advertisement inviting applications for various executive and non-executive posts. One of the posts advertised was Senior System Analyst. The advertisement contemplated a three-stage selection process comprising of a written test, personal interview followed by a medical test. It was clarified in the advertisement that the candidates who fail in the prescribed medical tests will not be given any alternative employment.3. According to the Respondent Corporation, the medical standard applicable to the post of Senior System Analyst is that of categ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN19(Delhi)

ORDER1. The learned counsel for the revenue was asked to inform this Court as to whether the revenue preferred any appeals in respect of the orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the earlier assessment years. This was necessary because the Tribunal has placed reliance on the orders passed by it in respect of this very assessee pertaining to earlier assessment years.2. The learned counsel for the revenue states that her instructions are that no details are available except on the issue relating to entrance fee. She submitted that in the memorandum of appeal it has been stated that a Special Leave Petition is pending in respect of this issue.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/assessee has placed before us a copy of the order dated 19-2-2007 in ITA 688/2004. in that order it is indicated that the only issue raised by the revenue was with regard to the question whether entrance fee and subscription fee received by the assessee was entitled to exemption under...

Mc Donalds India Vs. Anupam Tripathi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. For having overcharged than MRP of a coke bottle, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 17.4.2007, held guilty for deficiency in service and directed to refund Rs. 10 and over and above pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. 2. The impugned order has been assailed firstly on the ground that the appellant had revised the rates from Rs. 20 to Rs. 30 per bottle which was reflected in the menu, but the District Forum has referred to the old menu where the price of the bottle was shown as Rs. 20. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent placed on record the old menu card which was revised w.e.f. 1.5.2007, and the bottle was purchased on 10.5.2007 and Rs. 30 was mentioned on the bottle itself which was not produced by the respondent. 3. The very connotation printed on the packaged goods namely MRP which means Maximum Retail Price leaves no manner of doubt that no trader or person can charge...

Jagdish Kumar Arora and Another Vs. Khosla Medical Institute and Resea ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The complainants are husband and son of the deceased patient Chander Kanta, who died due to alleged medical negligence on the part of Opposite Party (in short O.P.) Nos. 1 to 4. Alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs the complainants have through this complaint sought compensation of Rs. 18,50,000 on various counts. 2. The allegations in brief are that the patient Chander Kanta, a middle aged lady, was a patient of arthritis since 1991 and was getting treatment from Karnal and Sonepat till 1997. In the year 1997 the O.P.1 hospital came in the panel of FCI where the complainant No. 1 was employed and working at Sonepat. On 27.11.1997 the complainant got his wife referred to O.P.1 Hospital and got her admitted there for treatment. On 10.12.1997 the doctors informed the complainant that the patient was responding well to the treatment would be discharged in a week or so. However, on 12.12.1997 O.Ps.2 and 3, the doctors working with O.P.1 Hospital info...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.2.2008, whereby the appellant has been directed to indemnify the loss by way of theft in the following terms: (i) To pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 with interest @ 9% from 2.3.2007 till realization. (ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the complainant as compensation. (iii) To also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question was not road worthy as it did not have permit, road tax deposit challan was not valid and fitness was only upto 5.3.2005, which was in contravention of provision of Motor Vehicles Act, secondly that the District Forum has not allowed the depreciation of 10% while assessing the market value of the vehicle against the insured declared value (IDV) and thirdly the District Forum has also not directed the respondent...

Naresh Khetrapal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT183

Mukul Mudgal, J.CM No. 12766/20081. For the reasons recorded in the application for amendment and in view of fact that the Petitioner was never told that a vigilance enquiry was pending against him, the application for amendment is allowed and the Petitioner is permitted to challenge the validity of Clause 8(h) of the Tender terms.2. The application stands disposed of.WP (C) No. 6264/2008 and CM No. 11962/20081. Rule D.B.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.3. The present writ petition apart from challenging the decision of the Respondent not to open the financial bid of the Petitioner also seeks to challenge the legality of Clause 8(h) in respect of the Tender bearing No. 5.TP (10)/2008 dated 30.6.2008 which authorizes the Ministry of Tourism not to accept bids from agencies resorting to unethical practices or on whom investigation/enquiry proceeding has been initiated by the government investigating agencies/vigilance ...

Uppal Engineering Corporation Vs. C.W.C

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR161(Delhi); 160(2009)DLT548

Hima Kohli, J. 1. The present application filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') is directed against an award dated 05.9.1989 passed by the learned Arbitrator in respect of the disputes between the objector/contractor and the respondent/CWC. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the objector/contractor was awarded the work of construction of 50,000 MT capacity godown along with the ancillary buildings at Muzaffarnagar (UP), vide award letter dated 31.5.1979. The said work was to be completed within a period of 15 months i.e. by 09.9. 1980.2. It is the case of the objector/contractor that though it had geared up its entire resources and mobilized to the site of work, the work could not be proceeded with at the desired pace because of a stay order operating at the site of work and later, because of shortage of diesel, which the respondent/CWC failed to arrange, in spite of various requests made by the petitioner. On the other hand, the c...