Delhi Court January 2009 Judgments

Virendra Kapoor Proprietor Fantasy Lights Vs. Airports Authority of In ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT530

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The important question for consideration relates to the circumstances in which a single bid can be rejected and re-tendering ordered. In our opinion, when there is intrinsic evidence (as in this case) that the single bid is financially depressed and there is a real prospect of getting a much higher bid, the administrative authority can set aside the tendering process and call for a fresh tender.2. Sometime in January, 2008 the Respondents issued a Notice Inviting Tender for installing ball/balloon lights at Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Jaipur and Chennai airports. In the Notice Inviting Tender, the minimum eligibility criterion required experience of three years but this was later reduced to a period of one year. Unfortunately, neither of the parties has stated the minimum reserve licence fee for each of the airports. However, from Annexure P- 2 to the writ petition it appears that the minimum reserve licence fee at Ahmedabad airport was Rs. 20,000/- per balloon per month....

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Ginni Plastic Industries and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT46

Manmohan, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner Bank under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24th May, 2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 711 of 1995 by virtue of which the respondent/defendant's application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as 'CPC') had been allowed and the petitioner was directed to produce on record certain documents.2. It is pertinent to mention that the respondents had filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC for summoning the following documents in original:(a) Transfer voucher of cheque No. 518286, cheque No. 518285, cheque No. 518287 dated 24.04.1992 in the current account of Ginni Plastics Industry.(b) Loan documents files of following firms:(i) M/s. Nath Industries(ii) M/s. K.S. Enterprises(iii) M/s. Trendy Fashions(iv) M/s. Deepakshi Industries(v) M/s. Ruchika Enterprises(vi) M/s. Manku Enterpris...

Shri Ved Prakash Ahuja Vs. Major Suraj Prakash Chhatwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT49

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of property No. B-4/3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi in terms of a letter of the respondent dated 23.8.1978 and a receipt for earnest money of Rs. 5,000.00 dated 30.10.1978. The appellant at the stage of the said agreement was a tenant in part of the premises in suit. The total consideration agreed to was Rs. 1,10,000.00. The plaintiff claimed that assurances had been held out to him that documents of sale would be executed in his favour through various letters but to no avail and thus a legal notice dated 19.1.1982 was sent by the appellant expressing his willingness to perform his part of the contract with the balance consideration being ready with him but the same was denied vide reply dated 5.2.1982. The suit was verified on 9.2.1982 while it was filed on the Original Side of this Court on 23.4.1982.2. The respondent raised various preliminary objections including the legality and val...

Drishticon Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Chopra Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT119

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit for declaration and injunction making a prayer that this Court should declare the alleged agreement to sell dated 18th July, 2006, which contains an arbitration clause, as null and void being forged and fabricated. The other prayer made is that the Arbitrator appointed by the defendants be restrained from proceeding with the arbitration matter in pursuant to the arbitration Clause contained in the alleged agreement to sell.2. After receiving a notice of this suit, defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act with a prayer that the suit for declaration would not lie in view of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the parties should be referred to the Arbitrator who was already ceased with the matter. The arbitration Clause was invoked by the defendant by serving a notice of reference dated 19th October, 2008 under Section 21 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with C...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anita Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]182TAXMAN173(Delhi)

ORDER1. These three Appeals have been filed by the CIT(A), Delhi-XI under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for short), for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. With regard to the assessee's claim for expenses for assessment year 1999-2000, 75 per cent thereof had been disallowed primarily on the ground that although the assessee was doing export business up to the year 1998, business had closed down in the three subject assessment years. The assessee had disclosed that over a period of 14 years foreign exchange to the tune of Rupees 61.07 crores had been earned which entitled the assessee to Past Performance Quota (PPQ) on which there was a earning of Rupees 1,05,716 for its transfer which was duly offered for taxation. It had also been brought out that for assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 a large turnover could be achieved only on account of continued business.2. The ITAT has concluded on facts that the assessee was maintaining her office...

Mayur Batra Vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anoth ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident and was extensively damaged. The Insurance Company - O.P. No. l instead of declaring it as total loss and paying the claim of the insured amount directed for repairs of the vehicle in connivance of O.P. No. 2, the authorized service centre and dealer of the manufacturer of the car and since the repairs have not made the vehicle in question road worthy, the complainant has approached this Commission seeking reliefs mentioned in the prayer clause together with compensation of Rs. 7 lakh towards loss of use of vehicle and harassment and mental agony as well as cost of litigation. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint, briefly stated are that the complainant had purchased a Ford Endeavour Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) for Rs. 13,57,000, registered as a Private Vehicle in the name of the complainant vide registration No. DL 3C AN 0889 from O.P. No. 2, who are the Authorised Dealers ...

Sabir Khan Vs. Delhi Institute of Computer Sciences

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On the allegation of having not provided job after completion of the Diploma Course in spit of assurance, the appellant filed the instant complaint for the compensation and loss suffered by him. However, the complaint vide order dated 5.11.2008 was dismissed on the ground that there was no such assurance and more over the appellant has paid Rs. 11,000 towards registration fees of the entire Diploma Course further that the time in conducting the examination was also not much. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal on the premise that he took the admission with the respondent and opted for diploma course in multimedia being conducted by the respondent and also appeared in the examination for grant of scholarship which is totally sponsored by the respondent and a scholarship of 75% of the total fee was also granted to the appellant by the respondent. The respondent told him that the examination is being conducted by the Ministry of Tech...

Confident Dental Equipments Ltd. Vs. Devesh JaIn (Dr.)

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On the allegation of having sold a highly defective dental chair to the respondent, which was suffering from manufacturing defect, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 8.8.2008 directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,62,000 depreciated cost of the chair with interest @ 9% per annum besides Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Case of the respondent in brief was that the respondent is a Dental Surgeon by profession. He purchased a Dental Chair from the appellant for Rs. 1,80,000 on 11.3.2005. The Dental Chair was causing problem to the respondent again and again. The functioning of the chair is defective from the very first day of its installation. The product was also substandard. Several complaints were lodged with the appellant. The engineer of the appellant visited and tried to repair the chair but the dental chair could not be rectified. The chair is l...

Jasmine and Company Vs. State of Nagaland

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT509

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This petition under Section 20 read with Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed in relation to an agreement dated 6th September, 1988 between the Governor of Nagaland on the one hand and the petitioner on the other hand and which is not disputed between the parties. The said agreement provides for arbitration as under:In case of any differences or dispute between the government and the organizing agent on any matter pertaining to or arising out of the agreement, the issue of dispute will be referred to arbitration in Nagaland to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the government whose decision shall be final and binding on both the parties. 2. It is the case in the petition that the Government of Nagaland had under the agreement aforesaid appointed the petitioner as a sole organizing agent for the Nagaland State Lotteries in the name and style of Sri Lakshmi Lottery; that the agreement was for three years; the lottery was to be freely sold all...

Narinder Singh Vs. Devinder Kaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT213

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.IA No. 9109/20081. This application has been made by the applicant Rajinder Kumar Lamba under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for substituting the name of applicant Rajinder Lamba in place of plaintiff Narinder Kumar.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming 2/7th share in the property No. 72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Before filing the suit, he had entered into an agreement to sell with the applicant and had agreed to sell his undivided 2/7th share in the property to the applicant. The applicant filed a suit for specific performance against the present plaintiff and in that suit being CS(OS) No. 2100 of 1996, a decree for specific performance has been passed in favour of applicant and the applicant was directed to deposit the entire sale consideration in this Court. Same has been done. The applicant submits that a preliminary decre...