Delhi Court March 2009 Judgments

Marble Art Vs. China Shipping Container Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 161(2009)DLT229

Manmohan Singh, J.1. The Plaintiff had filed the above mentioned suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and the same is pending before this Court.2. By way of present application being IA No. 8440/2003 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff is seeking to amend its claim in the main suit and include the prayer for damages also. The Plaintiff claims that it has suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 27,07,618/- on account of non-delivery of goods to it by the Defendants. Due to the said non-delivery, the Plaintiff avers that it has been unable to execute orders received by its customers, which has resulted in the above stated losses.3. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant No. 1 has no lien on the said goods and that its refusal to delivery the same amounts to unlawful withholding of consignment.4. The Plaintiff avers that para 19 of the Plaint relating to valuation may also be allowed to be amended and confines the relief of damages to Rs. 20,00,000/- on which the requisi...

Rakesh Kumar Gaur and ors. Vs. VipIn Gaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT769

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 06.01.2005 of the learned Single Judge entitling the petitioner, Mr. Vipin Gaur to grant of Letters of Administration in PR No. 59/1983.2. Smt. Bhagwati Devi Gaur died on 17.1.1981. She was survived by two sons, namely, Satpal and Davinder Pal and two daughters, namely, Radha Rani and Satyawati. Her husband, Jagan Nath Gaur and the third son, Rajwant Pal, who was unmarried, had predeceased her. The disputes relating to the estate left by the deceased, Smt. Bhagwati Devi Gaur, were between the son, Davinder Pal, her grandson Harmesh Pal, s/o Satpal and daughter Radha Rani. During the pendency of the proceedings, Satpal expired on 2.3.1982, Davinder Pal expired on 6.11.1999 and Radha Rani expired on 1.1.1992.3. On the death of Smt. Bhagwati Devi, a probate petition was filed in the court of the District Judge Delhi, which was registered as Probate Case No. 115/81. The said petition was filed by Shri Sri Ram Sh...

Anand Pershad Jaiswal Vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Delhi

Reported in: 2010(1)Comp.LJ509(CLB-NewDelhi)

S. Balasubramanian, Chairman. 1. The petitioners representing 11.5% of the issued share capital of the company filed a petition under section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, aggrieved on account of certain alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company (Jagatjit Industries Limited (JIL), wherein they, inter alia, sought the following reliefs: (a) That the Hon'ble Company Law Board be pleased to order that the present board of respondent No. 1 stands superseded and appoint an administrator to take charge of the management and affair of the company and its books, papers, records and documents. Further, being in-charge of the management of the respondent No. 1 company for ensuring smooth and proper functioning of the company. (b) Remove and issue a permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 2 from acting as representing himself or holding himself out to be the managing director or a director of the company in any manner whatsoever; (c) Frame a sch...

Karan Pal Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of IndiA.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1.Appellants son Jagpal Singh took an LIC policy of the respondent known as Jeevan Mitra Triple Cover and Endowment Plan for the period from 28.4.2001 to 28.4.2022. During the lifetime he became blind due to some illness and at the time of his death, the policy had already lapsed. Though the appellant claimed three times of the sum assured which was Rs. 1 lac on account of blindness, the District Forum hasvide impugned order dated 25.4.2006 directed the respondent to consider paying ex gratia payment to the appellant as the appellant had suffered near blindness during his lifetime. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset it may be stated that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 33,786 which includes the basic amount of Rs. 14,286 and Rs. 19,500 vested bonus towards settlement of the claim in respect of the policy. 3. It is admitted case of the appellant that the next date of premium due was...

Raghubir Singh Rana Vs. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. The grievance of the appellant who had applied for allotment of built-up shops meant for wholesalers in Ch. Chet Ram Wholesale Vegetable Market, Keshopur, New Delhi pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent is that he was not informed about the change in the policy for inviting the fresh applications for allotting shops to agriculturists as defined under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1998 and therefore rejection of his application was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. 2. Vide impugned order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the District Forum, the complaint of the appellant seeking allotment of the shops was dismissed on the ground that he does not come within the definition of consumer as he has neither purchased any goods from respondent Marketing Board nor has hired any services of the respondent which is a statutory body. 3. Admittedly the Marketing Board published advertisement in Nav Bharat Ti...

Malhotra Heart Institute and Another. Vs. C.P. Gupta and Another.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 5.3.2007, passed by the District Forum, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 47,766 towards medical expenses incurred by respondent No. 1 against the claimed amount of Rs. 60,000 as the appellant has been held guilty for deficiency in service in not submitting the original bill of respondent No. 2, CGHS from whom respondent No. l was entitled for reimbursement. 2. Respondent No. l being a Central Government employee was beneficiary of the CGHS. The appellant was on the panel of respondent No. 2 and therefore respondent No. l was entitled for receiving the treatment from the appellant. Admittedly late Sh. B.L. Gupta husband of the respondent No. l was treated at the appellant hospital from 23.12.2001 to 31.12.2001. During the treatment some medicines had been prescribed by the CMO Incharge of the appellant hospital on emergent basis the value of which was Rs. 60,000. Hence the respon...

Ester Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Del)112; [2009]316ITR260(Delhi); [2009]185TAXMAN266(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. These are appeals preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against a common judgment dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3655/Del/2000, ITA No. 3657/Del/2000 and ITA No. 3656/Del/2000 in respect of assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1994-95 respectively.2. In an earlier round the assessee had filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act against a common judgment of the Tribunal dated 31.01.2005. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 19.01.2006 had set aside the judgment of the Tribunal dated 31.01.2005 based on a concession that the Tribunal had disposed of the appeal without affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard.3. In the present appeal, the assessee is principally aggrieved on account of the fact that the Tribunal has once again failed to apply its mind to the issues raised and t...

RoshIn Lal Gupta and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportati ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT781

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J. 1. The plaintiff/appellant - Roshin Lal Gupta & Sons Pvt. Ltd. owns a shop-cum-office at the ground floor, Tribhuvan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi. It let out the said premises to the respondents - Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation (DTDC) on 2nd March, 2005 for two years. The appellant claims that the monthly rent agreed between the parties was fixed @ 12.5% of the gross profit arising from the sales carried out by the respondents from the said premises. The appellant also contends that at the time when the premises were let out, the respondents assured them that the monthly rent would work out to more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. The terms and conditions of the contract between the parties were reduced to writing by a 'Deed of Agreement' executed on 1st June, 2005 between the parties. That agreement also contained the following arbitration clause:That if any dispute or difference arises between the parties here or their r...

Asia Pacific Breweries Vs. Superior Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT670; (2009)155PLR57; 2009(40)PTC108(Del)

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.IA No. 5990/20071. This application under Order 7 Rule 14 and Section 151 of the CPC has been made by the plaintiff seeking to file around 70 additional documents along with affidavit of the witnesses. 2. The present suit is at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. It is submitted by plaintiff that the plaintiff was in the process of filing affidavit of his witnesses Mr. Raymond Anthony Poletti, Ms. Shini John and Mr. Ashok Chadha and in the process of filing affidavits he proposes to file certain original/ certified /notarized copies of documents along with the said affidavits which were not filed along with the plaint. He had given details of these documents in a chart and in the chart in Column No. 3; the plaintiff has given remarks about the documents. The remarks are in the nature of 'to support oral evidence of witnesses', 'certified copies obtained after framing issues', 'the documents could be traced only recently', 'the documents acquired by the plain...

Koxan India Vs. Ramesh Mardia and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(40)PTC72(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These applications have been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, CPC by the plaintiffs in the said two suits which are in the nature of cross-suits. By an order dated 20.08.2007, the suits were directed to be consolidated. In the said suits, the opposite parties claim exclusive rights in the trademark /label 'MARDIA CABLES? in respect of electrical cables, electrical wires and accessories. IA 1941/2006 is by Koxan India, who is the plaintiff in CS(OS) 328/2006. IA 7308/2006 has been filed by Mr Ramesh Mardia proprietor of Mardia Cables and who is the plaintiff in CS(OS) 1352/2006. It may also be noted that in the suit filed by M/s Koxan India, Ramesh Mardia has been arrayed as defendant No. 1, M/s Mardia Cables as defendant No. 2 and one Shree Raj Ventech Power Cab Limited as defendant No. 3. In the suit filed by Mr Ramesh Mardia as proprietor of Mardia Cables, Mr Kamlesh Jain and Mrs Lalita Jain, who are the partners in M/s Koxan India, hav...