Delhi Court February 2009 Judgments

Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. M. Tripat Bawa

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On having denied the possession for almost 10 long years and execution of necessary documents, in respect of a flat purchased by the respondent from the appellant, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 2.5.2008 directed to pay Rs. 3 lacs besides Rs. 10,000 as cost of litigation, besides following directions: A. OP will complete and execute all the necessary documents and all formalities for handing over the said flat to the complainant and is further directed to handover the possession of the flat No. 701, Vikas Deep, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi to the complainant without any further delay, if not already done. OP is not entitled to claim any other charges, interest or surcharge if any. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned order in brief were that respondent purchased flat No. 701, Vikas Deep, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi from the appellant, a housing and construction company. Th...

Sethi Engineering Corporation Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT19

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award dated 24th May, 2004 passed by the learned Arbitrator, Justice K. Ramamurthy (Retired).2. The facts relevant for deciding the objection petition are as follows:The Delhi Development Authority had awarded work to the Claimant/Non-Objector for construction of dwelling units '512 MIG Houses at Pocket-I, Dilshad Garden vide Agreement No. 14/EE/ND-18/82-83. The stipulated period of completion of the work was 12 months, which expired on 6th July, 1983. Disputes arose between the parties which were referred to the arbitration of the Engineer (Member), DDA, who made and published the award dated 20th July, 1992. The Claimant/Non- Objector approached the High Court for enforcing the award and the Respondent- DDA filed the present objections. By an order dated 19th October, 2001, the High Court holding that since the award was severable and not hybrid, remitted back the award...

Uniflex Cables Ltd. Vs. Mtnl and anr. Ac+

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT613

ORDERThe Purchaser shall consider placement of orders for commercial supplies only on those eligible bidders whose offers have been found technically, commercially and financially acceptable and whose goods have been type approved/validated by the purchaser. The Purchaser reserves the right to counter offer price(s) against price(s) quoted by any bidder.27. ISSUE OF ADVANCE PURCHASE ...

Shri A.K. Arora Vs. National Building Constructions Corporation Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT217

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. The petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer with the National Building Constructions Corporation Limited (NBCC Ltd.), the respondent herein. He has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the respondent be directed to accept his resignation with immediate effect. The facts in a nut shell are as follows:The petitioner joined the respondent, which is a Government of India Enterprise, as Junior Engineer on 28.1.1985. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and was designated as Project Executive. On 4.10.2005, he wrote a letter seeking voluntary retirement. There he also stated that if his request for voluntary retirement is not granted, that letter be treated as his resignation from service with immediate effect. However, on 8.11.2005, the petitioner was informed that the competent authority had considered his request and had refused the same due to administrative reasons. The letter stated as follows:In th...

Bharati Vidyapeeth and ors. Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha Univers ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT176

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this common judgment I propose to dispose off the aforesaid two writ petitions.2. The petitioners state that petitioner No. 1, Bharti Vidyapeeth, is a registered trust and is involved in promoting education throughout the country. It is stated that petitioner No. 2 Bhartiya Vidyapeeth is a deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956. It is situated at Pune, having various constituent institutions in the country. Petitioner No. 3, Bhartiya Vidyapeeth College of Engineering, is an engineering college set up by the petitioner No. 1 trust having its campus in New Delhi. Petitioner No. 3 institute imparts courses leading to the grant of B. Tech. degree in engineering. Petitioner No. 4, Bhartiya Vidyapeeth Institute of Computer Applications and Management, New Delhi is an institute imparting education in the field of computer education and management. It has been set up by petitioner No. 1 and has its campus at the same location...

Major General A.K. Kapur, Vsm Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(2)SLJ365(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner joined the Army on 14.11.1971 and has had a successful career reaching up to the level of a Major General. The petitioner was considered for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army Ordinance Corps (AOC) as per a Special Selection Board (SSB) held on 5.11.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that the result of this SSB has been delayed and withheld despite a lapse of ten (10) months time.2. The aforesaid was a peculiar situation and thus we called for the records of the SSB in a sealed cover and opened the same. It was found that the petitioner had been recommended for selection and his name forwarded to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), which was the competent authority. The competent authority conveyed the decision of the Central Government to hold in abeyance the approval of the recommendations of the SSB qua the petitioner and that the case of the petitioner be treated as a case barred on vigilance considerat...

Sonia Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commr., Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT503; 2009(163)LC4(Delhi); 2009(244)ELT30(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The present Petition invokes the writ jurisdiction of this Court to direct the Respondents, viz., the Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Deputy Director of Income-Tax to pay compensation to the Petitioner for the cost incurred by it by way of demurrage due to delay occasioned in the grant of a Clearance Certificate. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner imported six consignments from Australia between October, 1995 to January, 1996 on which Petitioner No. 1 paid the Custom Duty. Later, the Petitioners were informed by their Clearing Agents that clearance of consignments had been stopped by the Respondents who had referred the case to Special Investigation Bureau for investigation as a precautionary measure. The goods were eventually granted clearance on 30.1.1996 by which time the Petitioner incurred a total sum of Rupees 7,14,043/- on account of Detention and Demurrage charges. It is this sum which is claimed by the Petitioner from the Respondents...

Khanna Nursing Home and Others Vs. Radha Krishna and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On the allegations of medical negligence for leaving part of the placenta in the body of the woman due to which she died leaving behind small children, the appellants have been vide impugned order dated 18.5.2005, directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation to the respondents being the legal heirs of the woman. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. Allegations of the respondents leading to the impugned order in brief are that the deceased Smt. Manju Sharma was the second wife of the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had two daughters from the earlier marriage. The deceased had earlier given birth to two daughters and was pregnant for the third time The respondent No. 1 had got admitted the wife with the appellant No. 1 nursing home which was being run by appellant No. 3. Appellant No. 2 was obstetrician and gynaecologist and was the wife of appellant No. 3. Wife of the respondent No. 1 was on the verge of her thi...

State Vs. Anil Kumar Sodhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2556

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The present appeal was filed by Delhi (Administration) under Section 378(4) of C.r.P.C against the judgement dated 6.03.1997 passed in appeal by Ld. ASJ acquitting the respondent of the charges under Section 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act) by reversing the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi dated 13.3.96 whereby the respondent was convicted for having sold 600 Grams of Atta which as per the report of Public Analyst was found to have contained some living and dead insects though it met the standards fixed by the rules for ATTA. Leave to file appeal was granted on 07.10.1998. Arguments were heard on 10.02.2009 and the appeal was dismissed. Now I supply the reasons.2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are; that on 20.02.1987 a team of food inspectors visited M/s. Sodhi Flour Mill, at C-35, Okhla Industrial Area New Delhi and purchased 600 gms of Atta on paym...

Ravi Raj Gupta and ors. Vs. Hans Raj Gupta and Co. (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]151CompCas502(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking a declaration that the Board resolution dated 12.1.2002 passed by the Board of Directors of defendant No. 1 Company was null and void. Plaintiff also sought permanent injunction that defendants be restrained from acting on above resolution of the Board of Directors and Court should restrain defendant No. 5 from taking any steps pursuant to directions issued by other defendants in accordance to the Board's resolution. Prayer is also made that defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the premises.2. On the very day of presentation of this suit on 12.11.2003 the Court had asked the plaintiffs to address the arguments on the maintainability of the suit however, the matter remained pending for considering the maintainability of the suit for such a long time.3. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue are that the defendant No. 1 company was a tenant in property No. 3 Amrita Shergil...