Delhi Court January 2009 Judgments

Nirmala Devi (Since Deceased) and anr. Vs. Smt. Mohini Devi (Since Dec ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT706

Manmohan, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25th May, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in execution proceedings being Ex. No. 66/2007 whereby the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure were dismissed. It is pertinent to mention that after filing of the present petition even the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 29th September, 2007.2. Mr. J.M. Kalia, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decree and judgment sought to be enforced was a nullity as it was without jurisdiction by virtue of Sections 14 and 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') and, therefore, the execution proceedings were not maintainable.3. In this connection, Mr. Kalia pointed out that the disputes between Pt. Bhagwat Kishore an...

Sunil Dutt and anr. Vs. Bhag Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)154PLR1

ORDERShiv Naryana Dhingra, J.1. This suit was filed before the Learned Civil Judge. After the trial was over and the case was at the stage of arguments, learned Civil Judge found that the statement of one of the witnesses showed that the value of the suit property was Rs. 30 lacs. In view of this statement of the witness, the Civil Judge came to conclusion that the matter was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, who could try the suits only upto pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 3 lacs and he, therefore, sent the case to the learned District judge for forwarding the same to this Court since this Court had original jurisdiction beyond Rs. 20 lacs. The case was received by this Court through learned District Judge and was renumbered and registered.2. After the case was registered, Counsel for the defendant stated that as the plaint has been returned under Order 7 Rule 10, CPC, therefore, this Court should start de novo trial and the defendant should be permitted to file fresh wr...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fortis Health Care Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]181TAXMAN257(Delhi)

ORDER1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to in short as the 'Act') against, the judgment dated 30-5-2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 1222/Delhi/2005 in respect of assessment year 2001 -02.2. The only issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal had misdirected itself in law in deleting addition of Rs. 18 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer as income from other sources.3. In order to deal with this appeal the following relevant facts are required to be noted:The assessee, which is a company, was carrying out medical and clinical research for which purpose it set up a super speciality hospital by the name of Fortis Heart Institute. An agreement dated l-4-?.C00 (hereinafter referred to as 'agreement' was executed between the assessee and the sister concern, namely, Speciality Ranbaxy Limited (SRL). The A...

Srinkhal Educational and Welfare Society Vs. Neeru Panchal and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. As many as five complaints were decided by the District Forum, vide impugned Order dated 21.2.2007, whereby the appellant was directed to refund the fees charged by them from each of the complainant/respondent and to pay Rs. 50,000 over and above as compensation for the mental agony and harassment. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present appeals. 2. Admittedly, the appellant is only an Off-Campus Study Centre and gives coaching to students for the Course of B.Ed. The fees were paid to the University through demand drafts through the study centre being run by the appellant 3. Grievance of the respondent-students was that they were not given correct information by the appellant inasmuch as the Off-Campus Study Centre run by the appellant was not approved by UGC nor was there proper environment in the classes run for B.Ed. at Off-Campus Centre during Sept. to Dec. and that their two years have gone waste as well as the amounts spent unne...

Maj. Gen. V.K. Singh (Retd.) Vs. Army Welfare Housing Organization (Aw ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral); 1. The main dispute between the parties is as to the covered area of a flat constructed by the Opposite Party (in short O.P) AWHO and purchased by the complainant. According to the complainant the covered area is 1269 Sq. ft., whereas the OP has shown the total super area, i.e. covered area as 1412 sq. ft. Vide order dated 21.9.2007 passed by this Commission in this complaint of the complainant seeking refund of the proportionate cost of covered area and compensation, the OP was given the following directions: (i) That the matter shall be referred to a technical expert committee for their opinion as to the covered area with regard to the balcony as well as the carpet area and if they agree to the view of the complainant the OP shall pay compensation of Rs. 50,000. (ii) As per the claim of the complainant and in view of the shortfall of the area, the OP shall refund the excess amount proportionately in accordance with the report of the technical committee....

Ravinder Singh Proprietor Rohit Road Lines Vs. Indian Oil Corporation ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT597

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question of law raised for consideration in this batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of our Constitution is whether the Petitioners are entitled to the award of a contract for road transportation of bulk petroleum products pursuant to a tender issued by the Respondent. Our answer to the question is in the negative.2. In our opinion, the Petitioners had no vested or even any accrued right to the award of a contract. The Respondent followed a fair, methodical and transparent system of awarding the contract and we do not find any discrepancy in the procedure followed by the Respondent. Merely because the Petitioners were agreeable to the rates given by the lowest bidder, it did not give then any right to a share in the transportation process.3. As agreed by learned Counsel for the parties, we have taken up WP (C) No. 8321 of 2008 as the main case. All other cases have more or less similar facts and nothing materially dissimilar has been brought to our notice...

Sh. Atul Gupta (Huf) Vs. Trident Projects Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]153CompCas474(Delhi); 158(2009)DLT1

Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of the two applications being IA No. 14928/2007 (Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 186/2007 filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint and application IA No. ___/2007 under Order X Rule 1 CPC filed by the Defendant No. 2 for deletion of his name.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 75,20,000/- by way of compensation against the Defendants claiming the joint and several liability of the Defendants. The Defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the promoters/directors of the Defendant company who are alleged to be liable for their fraudulent acts of using the corporate personality as a cloak to defraud the functioning of the company and thereby diverting the funds of the Defendant company to their own personal advantages or building projects in their individual names. In the suit, the allegation relating to fraud and misrepresentation ar...

Ravindra Pal Singh Vs. Surendra Pal Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT432

Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of application IA No. 9011/2007 (Under Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 2115/1999 filed by the defendant for setting aside ex parte order dated 12th July, 2007.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff and defendant are real brothers. Both are sons of Late Sh. Mahender Pal Singh who was the owner of the perpetual lease rights of the property built on the plot bearing No. 15, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 and other properties.3. It is an undisputed fact that late Sh. Mahender Pal Singh executed his last Will and Testament dated 16th May 1970 in the name of plaintiff and defendant. Sh. Mahender Pal Singh died on 15th May 1978.4. In 1979 the plaintiff and defendant jointly filed a Probate Case bearing No. 153/94 (Old No. 119/79 and 622/93) against all other legal heirs of late Sh. Mahender Pal Singh. That Probate was granted on 1st March 1995 in favour of plaintiff and defendant by the court of Additional District...

Vipul Gupta (Huf) Vs. Trident Projects Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT1

Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of the two applications being IA No. 14392/2007 (Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 195/2007 filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint and application IA No. 10454/2007 under Order X Rule 1 CPC filed by the Defendant No. 2 for deletion of his name.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 75,20,000/- by way of compensation against the Defendants claiming the joint and several liability of the Defendants. The Defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the promoters/directors of the Defendant company who are alleged to be liable for their fraudulent acts of using the corporate personality as a cloak to defraud the functioning of the company and thereby diverting the funds of the Defendant company to their own personal advantages or building projects in their individual names. In the suit, the allegation relating to fraud and misrepresentation ...

Pramod Kumar Aggarwal and anr. Vs. P.S. Dhingra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT260

Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of I.A. No. 6539/2008 filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 seeking amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant.2. The case of the defendant in this application is that the plaintiffs/non-applicants filed the suit for specific performance of a receipt cum agreement dated 10th December, 2005. In the plaint, it is stated that they are the joint purchaser of the property bearing No. C-43, Soami Nagar, New Delhi which is claimed by them to be the joint absolute property of the defendants and the suit is based upon a receipt cum agreement dated 10th December, 2005.3. The defendant on 25th August, 2006 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC being I.A. No. 10014/2006. The said application came up for hearing on 13th May, 2008 where the court observed that the plea raised by the defendant being a legal issue can be raised as preliminary issue in the written statemen...