Delhi Court March 2009 Judgments

indira Vs. Eureka Forbes Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Videimpugned order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the District Forum, the complaint of the appellant seeking compensation from the respondent against non-supply of security system along with video door bell system despite booking was dismissed at the stage of admission itself on the ground that the goods were booked from the area outside the area of that District Forum. 2.Through this appeal the impugned order has been assailed firstly on the factual error and secondly on the premise of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, governing the jurisdiction of the District Forum. 3.Case of the appellant is that agent of the respondent came to her residence at Shakti Nagar, which is well within the jurisdiction of the District Forum (North) and merely because office of the respondent is at difference place, which falls within the jurisdiction of New Delhi does not oust the jurisdiction of District Forum (North) as the respondent is carrying door to door busine...

Jafar Malik Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT224

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the judgment of the conviction and the order of sentence in Sessions Case No. 29/2006 passed by the learned ASJ, New Delhi in case FIR No. 562/2005 registered at P.S. Hauz Khas under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC against the appellant and three others on the basis of the statement vide exhibit PW-3/A made by P.W.-3, Sh. Bharat Singh whereby he stated to the police that: on 06.10.2005 the complainant along with his colleague Mahesh, accounts officer had come to ICICI Bank, Green Park Extension at about 1/1.15 pm to withdraw case. They had left the bank about 2 pm. They withdrew cash of Rs. 1,90,000/- kept it in a bag of black colour. They reached at Karnataka Restaurant, Yusuf Sarai and took lunch there. At about 3.15 pm when the TSR in which they were travelling reached near Laxman Public School, all of a sudden a motor cycle of red colour came there. ...

Abhay Tyagi Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009LC(DEL)32

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR No. 235/2004 registered at P.S. Seema Puri, at the instance of the 2nd respondent, on the allegations that on an inspection conducted at the premises of the petitioner it was found that the petitioner indulged in the theft of electricity and, therefore, he was liable to be punished under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 (now, Section 135 of the New Act) read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The inspection was carried on 21.04.2004 and on the same day the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint which resulted in registration of the FIR.2. After conducting investigation the Police filed a report before the Special Judge and summons were issued to the appellant. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition and made the following prayers: i) To quash the FIR No. 235/2004, P.S. Seema Puri, Delhi under Section 39 of Indian Electricity Act, 19...

Rohit Dhupar and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT193

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The five petitioners are residents of New Friends Colony and have filed the present Public Interest Litigation for quashing and setting aside allotment of 500 sq. mts. of land to the New Friends Colony Temple Society (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 5, for short) by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA, for short). It is alleged in the Petition that this 500 sq.mts. is part of a land earmarked for a park and the allotment, therefore, is contrary to the Master Plan of Delhi, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as MPD 2001, for short). It was submitted that land use from park to any other use cannot be changed without complying with the provisions of Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as DD Act, for short).2. DDA has filed two reply affidavits. In the first affidavit filed on 12th March, 2001, it is stated that the respondent No. 5-Society had made a request for allotment of 500 sq.mts. of land for re...

Peoples Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Dr. M. Khalilullah and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009(121)FLR865]; (2009)IVLLJ904Del

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties has filed the present Public Interest Writ Petition seeking issue of Mandamus to direct Union of India, respondent No. 2, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Dr. M. Khalilullah, respondent No. 1.2. This is the second round of litigation as a public interest writ petition filed by the petitioner praying for similar reliefs. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition Civil No. 3032/1994, which was disposed of by judgment dated 26th May, 1995 reported in 1995 III AD (Delhi) 173. The relief prayed for in that petition and directions issued by the Court have been referred to in detail in subsequent portion of this judgment. However, at this stage, it will be suffice to notice that in the said judgment the Court had interdicted respondent No. 1, Dr. M. Khalilullah from functioning as a Director of G.B. Pant Hospital. Union of India was also called upon to take a decision whether or not to initiate disciplinary action against ...

Shri G.R. Chawla and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 158(2009)DLT39

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present intra Court Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by four employees (hereinafter referred to as the appellants, for short) of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as respondent, for short) against the judgment dated 5th October, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1768/88. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that the initial pay fixation of the appellants shall be under Fundamental Rule 22-B and thereafter their pay would be fixed under the normal Rules.2. The appellants were earlier working as Junior Engineers in Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as CPWD, for short). They applied through proper channel for appointment as Junior Engineers in the respondent-DDA. After selection the appellants were appointed as Junior Engineers with the respondent but were asked to give an undertaking that they shall not claim benefit of past service in ...

izhar Ahmad and anr. Vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 157(2009)DLT777; 2009LC(DEL)310

Manmohan, J.CM No. 2876/20091. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. The application stands disposed of.CM(M) 155/2009 & CM No. 2875/20091. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC against order dated 05th November, 2008 whereby Additional District Judge has upheld an order dated 05th November, 2008 passed by Civil Judge whereby petitioners' application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC has been dismissed. Both the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge have primarily dismissed the petitioners' application on the ground that as no injunction was operating, petitioners' application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was not maintainable and by virtue of said application, petitioners cannot seek a review of an earlier order disposing of their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Both the Courts below were also of the view that in view of Regulations 15(ii) and (iv), petitioners would not be entitled for a new electrici...

Mohd. Rafiq Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT551

G.S. Sistani, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, Cr.P.C.) directed against the judgment dated 27.4.2004 and order on sentence dated 27.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Session's Case No. 275/2002, FIR No. 630/2001 under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), P.S. Sangam Vihar, Delhi. By virtue of which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for twelve (12) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC, and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 506, Indian Penal Code, without further sentencing him to pay a fine for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurr...

Pylon Engineers (India) Private Limited Vs. R.S. Infraprojects Private ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]93SCL229(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. In these petitions arguments were initially heard and judgment reserved on 06.02.2009. However, during the course of preparation of judgment it was noticed that the report of Shri Anil Sapra, Advocate, the Chairperson appointed by the Court to conduct the meetings of the secured and unsecured creditors of the transferor company was not accompanied by his affidavit, and there were certain discrepancies in the figures noted in the report filed by Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate who acted as the Chairperson of the meetings of secured and unsecured creditors of the transferee company. Therefore, the matter was listed for directions and notices were issued to the two Chairpersons, who have filed their respective affidavits. After further hearing the parties the judgment was again reserved. 2. These are petitions under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation of Pylon Engineers (India) Private Limited (Transferor Company) wi...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Del)79; [2009]316ITR46(Delhi)

ORDER1. Three questions have been canvassed before us by learned Counsel for the Revenue. The first is with regard to the deletion by the Tribunal of an addition of Rs. 1,79,435, allegedly being unexplained deposits in the accounts of the assessee/respondent. According to the assessee, she had purchased two plots of land, one of which was sold in the year 1989 and the second in January, 1991. It is the second plot with which we are concerned; the sale consideration of Rs. 1,80,000 was received by cheque and after deduction of bank commission the aforementioned sum of Rs. 1,79,435 was credited to the assessee's account. The Tribunal has noted that declaration for the purpose of capital account, in Form 2B, has been made by the assessee on this transaction. The Tribunal was satisfied since the transaction was through banking channels. There was no justification for the said addition. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has laboured upon the fact that the documents of conveyance were not foun...