Delhi Court May 2009 Judgments

Mohd. Shakir Vs. Sunder Lal JaIn Hospital

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ245Del

ORDERNeeraj Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated March 30, 2009. The narrow factual matrix of the matter is as follows:2. The services of the appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) were terminated by the respondent hospital (original respondent in the writ petition). The Labour Court held that the termination order was illegal and unjustified. However, instead of granting reinstatement to the appellant it granted to the appellant one time compensation. The appellant challenged the impugned award on this limited question of grant of one time compensation in lieu of reinstatement.3. The learned single Judge rightly held, relying on decisions of the Apex Court, that merely because the termination/dismissal of a workman is held to be illegal and unjustified that in itself ipso facto does not result in reinstatement of the workman. The learned single Judge correctly came to the conclusion that the Labour Court, in...

Ram Kishan Meena and Another Vs. the Commissioner of Police and Anothe ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(ORAL): Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: After arguing for some time, counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw this Original Application to file fresh one after the applicant obtains the requisite information under Right to Information Act, with regard to the following points:- How many posts, out of advertised posts, have been filed? As to whether the merit position of the applicant is within the advertised posts in the quota of the applicant? What is the reason for not filling all the advertised posts, if that be the case? Whether any one below merit of the applicant has been finally selected? 2. With leave and liberty, as asked for, this Original Application is dismissed as withdrawn....

Nanak Chand Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (M.C.D.)through the Com ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(Oral) : Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: After arguing for some time, counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this Original Application to file fresh one with same cause of action, where order of appointment/re-engaging the applicant in 1986 shall be placed on record. 2. With leave and liberty, as asked for, the Original Application is dismissed as withdrawn....

K.T. Corporation and ors. Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 165(2009)DLT65

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. This common judgment will dispose of the present intra court appeals filed by occupants of shops/office spaces in Hotel Ashoka, Hotel Janpath and Hotel Samrat allotted to them by the respondent-India Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ITDC, for short). By the impugned judgment under appeal dated 1st July, 2008, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the action of ITDC to initiate proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short) and for direction to ITDC to renew the license arrangement with them.2. The appellants herein have been in occupation of shops/office spaces as per details set out in para 4 of the impugned judgment, which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.3. The case made out by the appellants before us and the learned single Judge was that ITDC has been renewing license deeds from time to time o...

Mtnl Vs. S.P.S. Rana

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT390

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has filed objections against an award dated 9.8.2007 passed by the learned Arbitrator in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 14,14,261/-.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner was a lessee in respect of premises No. GN-4, Vishal Enclave New Delhi and respondent was the lessor. The premises was leased out to the petitioner vide a registered lease deed dated 18.8.1999 at rent for a period of three years with a stipulation for renewal. It was stipulated in this lease deed of 18.8.1999 that after three years if the lease is renewed the rent will be increased by 15%. In terms of clause 3 of the lease deed, it was respondent/lessor, who was to pay the house tax/property tax to MCD. The lessor did not pay house tax as a result, MCD attached the rent. After issuance of attachment orders under...

S.J. Chaudhary Vs. Cbi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 159(2009)DLT673

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. In a nutshell, case of the prosecution is, that having lost in his endeavour to win back his wife Rani Chaudhary, decree for divorce in whose favour attained finality when Petition For Special Leave to Appeal filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 24.8.1982, the appellant made up his mind to murder Kishan Sikand, with whom Rani Chaudhary was residing and had decided to get married to. Being an ex-serviceman; having knowledge of ammunition, the appellant procured the raw ingredients to manufacture a bobby trap bomb, and using parts of a hand-grenade, managed to manufacture a bobby trap bomb, which was converted into a parcel, and on 25.9.1982, at around 7.30 - 7.45 PM, the appellant left the parcel containing the bomb at the staircase leading to the first floor of 98, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, in the rear portion whereof the deceased Kishan Sikand was residing along with Rani Chaudhary. The bomb reached the deceased on 2.10.1982 and since...

Narender, Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3613

Aruna Suresh, J.1. The appellants have assailed the judgment and order on conviction dated 29th January, 2001 whereby appellants Navin Kumar and Satish Kumar have been convicted for offence under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment (SI). Appellants Narender Kumar and Usha Sikka have been convicted for offence under Section 368/34 IPC and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months SI. Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been given to the appellants.2. As per the prosecution case, a seven years old child named Pankhil was kidnapped on 23.1.1999 at about 6.30 P.M. from Rajouri Garden in front of House No. S-37, in a white Maruti car. The child had left his house to buy some samosa and did not return home thereafter.3. The fat...

icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chand Bansal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT379; (2009)156PLR28

Sunil Gaur, J. 1. The question involved in the above-captioned eight petitions is of territorial jurisdiction. Petitioner had filed eight complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before a Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, against the Respondents regarding bouncing of cheques.2. Vide impugned orders of 12th January, 2009 and 25th February, 2009, trial court has dismissed Petitioners aforesaid complaints on the ground of territorial jurisdiction by relying upon a recent verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Ltd. reported in : 2009CriLJ1109 .3. In the above-captioned first six petitions, Petitioners complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have not been entertained vide impugned order of 12th January, 2009, and have been returned to the Petitioner at the very first hearing, for being presented before the competent court having territorial jurisdiction over the s...

Goverdhan @ Amit Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3349

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The appellant was charged for the offence of having murdered Gopal, his brother-in-law, at around 10:00 PM on 15.3.2000 in house No. B-474, Aman Vihar Delhi, as also for the offence of causing destruction of evidence with the intention of screening the offender. Appellant's sister Saroj, the wife of the deceased, was charged for the offence of causing destruction of evidence with the intention of screening the offender.2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.11.2004, the appellant and Saroj have been convicted for having committed the respective offences they were charged of. Probably, for the reason, Saroj has undergone the sentence imposed, she has not filed any appeal against the impugned order convicting her for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC. The appellant has filed the above captioned appeal challenging the impugned order.3. After noting the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has discussed the evidence and concluded the findi...

The Commissioner of Income Tax-xiii Vs. Shri Ashish Rajpal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]320ITR674(Delhi); [2009]180TAXMAN623(Delhi)

Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 16.11.2007 passed in ITA No. 759/Del/2007.2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Tribunal by which it has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner') dated 18/19.01.2007 whereby he in turn cancelled the assessment order dated 24.03.2005 and directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment after considering all the aspects of the case including various discrepancies pointed out by him in his order.3. In order to adjudicate upon this appeal the following facts require to be noticed:4. The assessee is a builder engaged in the business of construction of properties on a collaboration basis with the owners of the properties. The assessee filed a retu...