Delhi Court March 2009 Judgments

Amar Nath Vs. Post Master, Post Office, Roshan Ara Road.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs 3,000 and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000 awarded by District Forum for misplacement or loss of the cheque,vide order dated 22.1.2009, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. According to the appellant he suffered a loss of Rs. 32,550 towardsincome tax due to the misplacement or loss of the cheque. It is not a case of encashment of cheque by unauthorized person. In this case the official of the respondent Post Office misplaced or handed over the cheque to some other person which caused unnecessary delay in issuing NSC to the appellant. 3. The cheque for Rs. 1 lakh was handed over by the appellant on 28.3.2006 through its agent to respondent Post Office, Roshan Ara Road whereas the NSC were to be issued by GPO Kashmere Gate. However, NSC were issued by the respondent Post Office from the date appearing on the cheque which was 29.3.2007 and the date of maturity has been shown as 29.3.2012. D...

Ms. Renu Judge Vs. Mr. Nanik Tirath Mulchandani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT208

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.I.A. No. 2466/20091. By this application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the applicant/plaintiff has sought an interim injunction that defendant No. 1 be restrained from filing any legal and custody proceedings against the plaintiff in Singapore and from prosecuting any proceedings already filed there.2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this application are that the plaintiff, a U.K. Citizen, was married to defendant, an Indian citizen having resident status in U.K, in 1994. To the parties, a son named Nikhil was born on 9th September, 1997. The parties could not live together for long and plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings against the defendant in U.K. court in 2003 and a decree nisi was granted in this divorce matter on 26.9.2003 by U.K. court. The U.K. Court also passed an order in respect of the custody and visitation rights of defendant in respect of child Nikhil. The plaintiff, thereafter, secured employment in Singapore and appli...

Poonam Chawla Vs. Niranjan Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT68

ORDER XIIIPRODUCTION, IMPOUNDING AND RETURN OF DOCUMENTSxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx7. recording of admitted and return or rejected documents(1)...(2) Documents not admitted in evidence shall not form part of the record and shall be returned to the persons respectively producing them.8. According to Mr. Oberoi, Section 73 of IE Act has no applicability or relevance to the facts and circumstances involved in present case. He submitted that when defence of defendant has been ordered to be struck off, defendant according to well settled principles is not permitted to lead any evidence of his own and can cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses only to a permitted extent. He further submitted that it is not open to respondent/defendant to seek to establish his defence and test the veracity of plaintiff's witnesses. According to him, in allowing the application under Section 73 of IE Act, Additional District Judge has acted in disregard of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Modula India v. Kamaksh...

Amit Kumar Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, Northern Railwa ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Order (Oral) Applicant has challenged orders dated 19.11.2008 and 26.3.2008 whereby his request for compassionate appointment has been rejected. He has further sought direction to the respondents to give appointment on compassionate ground. 2. It is submitted by the applicant that his father, namely, Shri Jagdish @ Jissa was working as Gangman ROK with the respondents. Unfortunately, he died on 14.7.1993 while in service. After his death, his elder son, namely, Subhash had applied for compassionate appointment but he also expired in 1996 while his case for compassionate appointment was being processed. Accordingly, the applicant requested for compassionate appointment but till date it was delayed on one ground or the other. Being aggrieved, applicant filed this OA on 6.8.07 for a direction to decide the representation of the applicant on merit. However, his request has been rejected by the respondents on 26.3.08 without giving any opportunity to the applicant of being heard. The reques...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhai Sardar Singh and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT8

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The aforesaid execution appeal, namely, EFA(OS) 9/2007 has been preferred by the appellant DDA to impugn the judgment dated 20th March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Execution Application No. 81/2006 in Execution Petition No. 168/2005, whereby the said application preferred by the appellant herein, who was the judgment debtor in the execution petition, has been dismissed. EA No. 81/2006 had been preferred by the appellant to seek a direction that the amount of Rs. 19,95,291/- be refunded to the appellant/judgment debtor.2. So far as FAO(OS) 93/2002 is concerned, the same was disposed of by this Court on 20th April, 2004. However, the respondent/decree holder thereafter moved CM No. 5462/2007 to permit the withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 12,88,770/- lying deposited in this Court. On this application, the Court on 23rd April, 2008 passed an order that the same would be considered at the time of disposal of EFA(OS) 9/2007.3. We may give a brief factual back...

Arjun Amla Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]91SCL267(Delhi)

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. In this case the petitioner is aggrieved from an order passed by the Learned ACMM dated 05.03.2007 passed in CC No. 763/01 which is a complaint filed by the respondent against Esam Trading Company Limited and three others i.e. Abhishek Verma, Sandeep Puri and M.A. Khan on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant that those persons had violated provisions of Section 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(4), 9(1)(a), 9(1)(I)(i), 18(2), 18(3) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 49 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.2. The name of the present petitioner was not added as an accused in the complaint though his name appeared in paragraph 23 & 35 of the complaint where some allegations are made against the petitioner in helping Abhishek Verma in procuring some foreign exchange on a premium. However, the fact remains that he was not implicated as an accused.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submits that in fact a notice was issued to the petitio...

Gurcharan Singh Vs. Saraswati Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT743

Manmohan, J.Caveat No. 203/20081. Since the caveator has put in appearance, caveat petition stands disposed of.C.M. No. 15667/2008 (for exemption)2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed of.RC.REV. 92/2008 & CM No. 15668/083. Present revision petition has been filed for setting aside eviction order dated 12th September, 2008 passed in a petition filed under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') whereby petitioner's application for leave to defend has been dismissed.4. Learned Counsel for petitioner urged that adoption of daughter by respondent-landlord was not in accord with law and, therefore, respondent daughter's and son-in-law's requirement could not be considered as respondent's requirement. However, on a perusal of leave to defend application, I find that this ground has not been taken by petitioner-tenant before the Additional Rent Controller. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'J. Ch...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ogilvy and Mather Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2009Delhi179

Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order, I shall dispose of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. No. 6734/08 for condonation of delay in re-filing of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award dated 2nd June, 2007 passed by the learned arbitrator.2. It is contended by the applicant that the impugned award was passed on 2nd June, 2007 by the learned sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Application No. 241/03 wherein the learned Arbitrator passed an award of Rs. 52,05,367/- with interest @ 12% p.a. thereon from 2nd June, 2007 till date of payment as per terms of the award.3. The petition under Section 34 of the Act was initially filed in the court on 9th August, 2007 vide diary No. 103209 which is within the time period prescribed under the Act. The Dealing Assistant on 13th August, 2007 raised certain objections:(a) Caveat report be obtained;(b) Memo of Party be filed ; and(c) Urgent appl...

S.K. Bahadur Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]91SCL432(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The prayer in this petition by the Petitioner No. 1 Shri S.K. Bahadur and his wife Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Asha Bhatnagar is for the quashing of Complaint Cases titled J.C. Makhija, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate v. S.K. Bahadur and J.C. Makhija, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate v. Asha Bhatnagar both pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ('ACMM'), New Delhi under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA).2. The aforementioned complaints state that on 4-12-1984 the premises at D-1/153, Satya Marg, Chanakaya Puri, New Delhi under occupation of the Petitioners was searched by the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') and foreign currency of US $ 2,596 and U.K. Sterling pounds 1,220 and certain other incriminating documents were found and seized. It was alleged that Petitioner No. 1 who was at the relevant time working as Joint Secretary and Legal Adviser, Ministry of Commerce, Udyog Bhaw...

Shri Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(243)ELT672(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directions to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (APL (India) Pvt. Ltd. -hereafter called 'APL'- and the Container Corporation of India -hereafter called CCI) to waive detention and demurrage charges in respect of goods imported by Bill of Entry Number 429285 dated 30th May, 2005 are sought. Another direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to bear demurrage charges has also been sought.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in import of power tools such as Angel grinder, circular saw blade, drill bits, cutter machines etc from China. Such goods, on their importation are cleared after payment of customs duty. The petitioner contends that the fourth respondent's officers visited its premises and seized certain goods on 07-06-2005. The petitioner contends having made several representations for the release of goods on provisional basis, in order to save them fro...