Delhi Court July 2009 Judgments

Poonam Khattar Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT238

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Ms. Poonam Khattar, the petitioner and Ms. Swati Chopra, the respondent No. 6 are agents of Life Insurance Corporation of India, the respondent No. 1. The petitioner by way of the present writ petition has challenged order dated 18th February, 2008 passed by the Executive Director (Marketing) of the respondent No. 1 directing withdrawal of credit of business in respect of policy Nos. 113781187, 113781188 and 113781819 from the petitioner and granting the same to the respondent No. 6. The aforesaid policies are keyman policies, which were obtained by M/s Addi Industries Limited, the respondent No. 7 in favour of Mr. C.L. Jain, Mr. Hari B. Bansal and Mr. Abhishek Bansal (beneficiaries for short) on payment of premium of Rs. 19,03,370/-, Rs. 9,22,805/- and Rs. 9,15,530/- respectively.2. Respondent No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition relying upon Regulation 20 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations...

Rama Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT202

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner, Ms. Rama Pandey, sole proprietor of Montage Films has challenged the blacklisting order dated 15th April, 2009 passed by Director General, Doordarshan, Prasar Bharti in the present writ petition.2. Prasar Bharti in the year 2006 had invited proposals from television producers for short term acquisition of programs in different categories as specified. A television producer desirous of submitting a proposal was required to furnish details with documents along with non-refundable process fee of Rs. 10,000/-. The note to the said advertisement reads as under:Note:Since this is a requirement for ready programmes any/all tapes may be required at any stage of processing at short notice. Failure to submit tapes within specified time will lead to disqualification/rejection of the proposal without any further correspondence.Proposals incomplete in any respect, or submitted with any incorrect information will be liable for disqualification.Only proposals final...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Agencies (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]186TAXMAN155(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The assessee had entered into a settlement with its workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per the settlement, lump sum payment was made to the workers. The assessee/ respondent herein had filed return of income for the assessment year 2001-02 declaring a loss of Rs. 44,37,666. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) were issued on 29-10-2002 by the Assessing Officer.2. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer, inter alia, found that the assessee-company had claimed deduction of Rs. 39,92,189 representing payment to permanent workmen/staff members at Dalmia Puram, legal as well as ex-gratia compensation. The aforesaid amount of compensation was paid by the assessee in terms of Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the assessee and its workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Assessing Officer was of ...

Sanjeev Nanda Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT775

Kailash Gambhir, J.The miracle is not to fly in air or to travel to the moon, but to walk on the earth', says a Chinese proverb.1. The increase in vehicular traffic alongwith the population of Delhi has grown much faster since the time Maruti Company has flooded the market with their brand of cars for the middle class of the society. Although the capital of the country is dominated by the middle and lower class, but the presence of rich and affluent is no less visible when one looks at the roads of Delhi to find large number of high class luxurious cars, including the Mercedes and BMWs. The traditional mode of travelling by tangas, bicycles, rickshaws, two wheelers is coming to gradual extinct except in the interiors of some localities.2. Except for a few hours between midnight to dawn, one cannot see even a patch of earth but vehicles and vehicles either running or stranded in traffic jams on Delhi roads. This ever increasing vehicular explosion in traffic is due to the rapid increase...

Shanti Lakara Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4589

Indermeet Kaur, J.1. House No. B-25, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi was the residence of Sh. R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate. On 01.12.1989, the family of Sh. R.K. Jain noted foul smell emanating from the water supply in their house. A plumber Phagu Ram PW-5, was called. On checking the water line he detected that the foul smell was emanating from the underground water tank, which on being opened, was found to contain the dead body of a male person.2. The information of a dead body being in the underground water tank was conveyed to the police. D.D.No.9A was recorded by PW-7 ASI Ram Kumar on this information being furnished to him in Police Station Malviya Nagar by PW-22, lady Ct.Pushpa who had made a telephonic call from the Police Control Room and had relayed the information given to her by Phagu Ram. The said D.D. was handed over to PW-32 Inspector B.L. Meena, who accompanied by PW-27 Hukum Singh and PW-14 Ct. Rohtas Singh reached the spot.3. Sh. R.K. Jain, occupant of the house reached the s...

Mr. Rakesh Bhhatia and ors. Vs. Mr. Pramod Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT452

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The application for review entails inter-aila the question of very maintainability of review after unconditional withdrawal of an appeal preferred against the order sought to be reviewed.2. Review is sought of certain portions of the Order dated 21st April, 2009 disposing of the application of the plaintiffs/applicants under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The plaintiffs/applicants instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling certain shares of the plaintiff No. 6 company. It is the case of the plaintiffs/applicants that the said shares were pledged/placed as security with the defendants for the loan advanced by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The defendants claim to be the purchaser of the shares. Interim relief of restraining the defendants from dealing with the shares was claimed. Vide order dated 21st April, 2009 the said application of the plaintiffs for interim relief was allowed, subject to the condition of the pl...

Contempt Proceedings Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini Overruled

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 161(2009)DLT466

ORDERP.K. Bhasin, J.1. A Reference was made to this Court by a Civil Judge for initiation of contempt proceedings against one Kanwar Singh Saini, who was the sole defendant in a Civil Suit for injunction (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant/contemner') which had been disposed of on 12/05/03. On a preliminary examination of the Reference and the records forwarded alongwith it by the learned Civil Judge on the administrative side of the High Court by a Single Judge Committee constituted for examining contempt applications/References it was found to be a case of 'criminal contempt' and Hon'ble the Chief Justice concurring with the view of the learned Single Judge directed the Reference to be placed before a Division Bench since cognizance of 'criminal contempt' of a Subordinate Court could be taken only by a Division Bench as provided under Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971'). Accordingly the Reference was placed before the D...

Jai Bhagwan Goel Dal Mill and ors. Vs. D.S.i.i.D.C. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 162(2009)DLT328

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner, M/s Jai Bhagwan Goel Dal Mills, a partnership firm, claims that they had two separate industrial units located at khasra No. 570, village Bakoli, Delhi and khasra No. 544/1, village Bakoli, Delhi. The petitioner claims that the industrial unit at khasra No. 570 was for processing of 'mansoor pulse. while the unit at khasra No. 544/1 was for processing of 'moong pulse..2. It is stated by the petitioner that the two units were located in non- conforming/residential areas and were asked to be removed/relocated in terms of directions issued by the Supreme Court in order dated 30th October, 1991. Consequent thereupon, Government of NCT of Delhi issued public notice dated 27th November, 1996 inviting applications for allotment of industrial plots/flats for relocation of industries from residential or non-conforming areas to conforming use areas.3. The petitioner filed two applications for allotment of two separate industrial plots being application Nos. 17...

Sh. Dashrath Singh Chauhan Vs. C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 165(2009)DLT24

G.S. Sistani, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order on conviction dated 31.05.2001 passed in C.C. No. 53/95 and R.C. No. 25(A)/ 95-DLI/ CBI/ ACB/ New Delhi, convicting the appellant to Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as, 'R.I') for two years and a fine of Rs. 40,000/- under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of the payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo a further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The facts of this case briefly stated are that as per the complainant/PW-1, in January, 1995, he was running the business of manufacturing Hosiery items under the name and style of M/s Garg Hosiery Works at premises No. A-309, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. In January, 1995, he applied for an electricity connection for the aforesaid factory in the DESU Office at Nangia Park. Inspector D.S. Chauhan (appellant herein), from DESU, visited the factory of Arun Kumar, PW-1, for i...

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited Vs. Leela Hotels Ltd ... Overruled

Court: Delhi

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.1. Leave granted.2. Being aggrieved by the steps taken by the Respondent Corporation, the Appellant filed a Petition before the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause, which was registered as Arbitration Application No.193 of 1999. On 23rd June, 1999, an Arbitrator was appointed by the Delhi High Court before whom the Appellant herein claimed a sum of Rs.142,16,08,896/- from the Respondent Corporation along with interest at the rate of 20% per annum along with a further sum of Rs.19,24,45,800/- comprising the ground rent paid along with interest thereon at the rate of 25% per annum along with a sum of Rs.5,98,22,058/- towards refund of property tax. A sum of Rs.5,62,27,715/- was also claimed by way of damages.3. The learned Arbitrator allowed the claims of Leela Hotels and rejected the counter-claim made by HUDCO. In his Award, the learned Arbitrator held that Leela Hotels was entitled to recover and HUDCO was ...