Delhi Court February 2009 Judgments

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. R.S. Khatri

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 24.4.2008 passed by the District Forum, whereby the appellant University has been directed to refund Rs. 23,000, charges towards admission from the respondent with compensation of Rs. 5,000, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant has assailed the impugned order on the basis of Clause 13.6 of the admission brochure, which were duly agreed by the respondent. 2. Admittedly the respondent was granted admission in Double Degree Course on 13.7.2006 by the appellant for which she deposited Rs. 33,000 in favour of appellant. On 21.8.2006 a request to the appellant for withdrawing admission and to refund fee was made but the fees was not refunded. 3. While justifying the non-refund of the fee, the version of the appellant was that the last date of submission of application for withdrawal was upto 11.8.2006 as per Clause 13.6 of Admission Brochure, which reads as under: 13.06 Withdrawal of admission a...

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Naresh Dubey

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 8.5.2008 passed by the District Forum, whereby the appellant University has been directed to refund Rs. 28,000 charges towards admission from the respondent, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant has assailed the impugned order on the basis of Clauses 12.5 and 12.6 of the admission brochure, which were duly agreed by the respondent. 2. Admittedly the respondent was granted admission in B.B.A. course on 13.6.2006 by the appellant in Ideal Institute of Management for which she deposited Rs. 38,000 in favour of appellant. On 21.7.2006, the respondent applied for withdrawal of admission but the fees was not refunded. 3. While justifying the non-refund of the fee, the version of the appellant was that the respondent was not entitled for refund of the fee because she withdrew from admission on 21.7.2006 whereas last date prescribed for withdrawal vide Clause 12.5 of Admission Brochure was 12.7.20...

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Mira

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral); 1. Aforesaid two appeals arise from the order dated 19.4.2008 whereby the appellant University has been directed to refund Rs. 28,000 against Rs. 63,000 fees charged towards admission, as the respondent withdrew from the admission on the premise that he was misled that C-DAC was Government institute whereas it was a private institute, whereas the appellant complainant has sought refund of the entire fees besides compensation and cost of litigation. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer, the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University as the appellant and Ms. Mira as the respondent. 3. The appellant Institute has assailed the impugned order on the basis of Clauses 12.5 and 12.6 of the admission brochure, which were duly agreed by the respondent. 4. Admittedly it is common case of the parties that the respondents son Yogesh took admission in MCA course on 5.6.2006 in C-DAC (Electronics Research and Development Centre of India), Noida by participating...

Smt. Shobha David Vs. Sh. Om Prakash Gulati and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT611

Manmohan, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 30th August, 2008 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner/tenant's appeal against an eviction order dated 22nd December, 2007 by denying petitioner/tenant the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Mr. Manoj K. Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner/tenant submitted that the initial default having been condoned by rejection of respondents/landlords' application under Section 15(7) of the Act, the petitioner/tenant could have been evicted only if she made a subsequent default in payment of rent for three consecutive months. Mr. Manoj K. Singh stated that it was not even the respondents/landlords' case that the petitioner/tenant had committed a second default of non-payment of rent for three consecutive months. He clarified that even accordi...

Dayanand Dec. thr. Lr's Vs. Union of India (UOi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT210

Manmohan, J.1. Admit. 2. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.3. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 19th May, 2007, whereby the legal heirs of deceased petitioner Dayanand have been held as not entitled to statutory interest of 15% per annum from 16th March, 2003 to 31st October, 2006 on the ground that their application for impleading legal heirs was filed on 31st October, 2006, even when the deceased had passed away on 16th December, 2002.4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of this case are that a reference petition was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Land Acquisition Collector (in short 'Collector') on 22nd November, 2002. The Collector, in turn, only on 20th October, 2005, referred the matter to Court in accordance with Section 19 of the Act. On the s...

Babu Ram Sagar Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. Vii and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 164(2009)DLT691; (2009)IIILLJ128Del

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. This appeal under the Letters Patent has been filed by the workman, - Shri Babu Ram Sagar, impugning the decision of a Single Judge of this Court whereby that Court has declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to interfere with the order of the labour court in I.D. No. 328 of 1992 decided on 29th August, 1995. By that order, the learned labour court had concluded that even though the Management had failed to prove the allegations against Shri Babu Ram Sagar, nevertheless, it was clear that the Management had lost confidence in him. Under the circumstances, the labour court felt that since Shri Babu Ram Sagar was employed as a chowkidar of the office, it would not be conducive to the proper functioning of the Management to direct his reinstatement. Another reason for declining the request to direct reinstatement was that more than three years had elapsed since the termination of the appellant's services. Upto the time ...

Arraycom (India) Ltd. Through Its Company Secretary, Shri L.P. Sanghvi ... Overruled

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT659

Madan B. Lokur, J.The two questions posed for an answer relate to the interpretation of the price bid made by the Petitioner (Arraycom) and the extent of judicial review in the event of a misinterpretation of its bid. We agree with Arraycom that its bid placed a ceiling on the price quoted and that a contrary interpretation by Prasar Bharati could invite judicial review.2. Respondent No. 2 (Prasar Bharati) issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 20th October, 2006 for the supply of two transmitters of 1000 KW (or 1 MW) each. The bidding was a two-stage process involving a technical bid and a financial bid. There is no dispute that the Petitioner (Arraycom) and Respondent No. 3 (BECIL) were both technically qualified.3. In respect of the financial bid which was opened on 30th July, 2007, the quotation given by Arraycom was for a sum of Rs. 51.57 crores and it was stated that:1. Prices in INR including Custom Duty, Packaging, Forwarding, Freight and Insurance.2. CST (Central Sales Tax) ...

Sh. Harjinder Pal Vs. Sh. Harmesh Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT151

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this common order and judgment, it is proposed to decide two petitions, being OMP No. 105/2005 titled Sh. Harjinder Pal v. Sh. Harmesh Kumar under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and OMP No. 34/2005 titled Harmesh Kumar v. Sh. Harjinder Pal under Section 9 of the said Act.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are within a narrow compass and are as follows.3. The petitioner and the respondent are real brothers, who were carrying on the business of timber traders jointly from a shop bearing No. 456-C, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi. On 31st May, 2000, a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as 'MOU') was signed between the petitioner and the respondent whereunder they came to the following understanding (Annexure-P1):Re: Residential property bearing No. C-3/19, Janakpuri, New Delhi(i) The petitioner will get the said property converted into freehold.(ii) Once it is converted into freehold, the entire first flo...

Mr. Ethan SteIn and anr. Vs. Mr. Balkrishna V. Doshi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT180

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of OMP 115/2008 which is a petition under Section 14(2) read with Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) and Section 15(2) read with Section 15(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Arbitration Petition No. 376/2008 under Sections 11(6), 15(1)(a) and 15(2) of the said Act. While OMP No. 115/2008 was filed in February, 2008 for substitution of Mr. Vijay S.T. Shankardass, an Arbitrator (also a Barrister, practicing mostly in London and occasionally visiting India), since he had withdrawn from the proceedings, the Arbitration Petition No. 376/2008 was filed on 23.09.2008 for substitution of Mr. Prag P. Tripathi as an Arbitrator from the Tribunal of three Arbitrators on account of the fact that vide his letter dated 28.08.2008, Mr. Prag P. Tripathi resigned from the arbitral tribunal in view of a long time having elapsed without any proceedings and also in view of his present ...

J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. Vs. Amit Plastic (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT340

Anil Kumar, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 31,42,825/- as due on 30th November, 2002 plus interest at 21% per annum filed by the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff company had sold and delivered goods to M/s. Namit Plastics Pvt. Ltd, defendant No. 1 through defendants No. 2 & 3. 3. It is asserted that from time to time the plaintiff company as per the requirements of defendants No. 2 & 3 sold and supplied to them goods in the name of M/s Namit Plastics Pvt Ltd, defendant No. 1 and raised the bills. 4. The plaintiff is seeking recovery of the price of goods sold by invoices as detailed in para 11 of the plaint which are from 15th December, 2001 till 24th September, 2002. According to the plaintiff he had been maintaining running accounts and as on 31st July, 2002 the balance in the name of the defendant was Rs. 32,94,502/- whereas the balance in the name of defendant as per the account books of defendants was Rs. 31,40,321/-. Therefore, the defendant h...