Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 5 of about 197 results (0.021 seconds)Pawan Sagar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are recorded owners and bhumidars in possession of land comprised in different khasra numbers situated in Village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.2. The petitioners purchased a land through separate sale deeds and necessary mutations were effected in the land revenue records.3. It is the case of the petitioners that farm houses have been built on the land after due sanction and even completion certificates have been issued in a number of cases, However, it is the stand of the petitioners in three of these cases that the farm houses were constructed as early as in 1967 when no such sanction was required.4. A notification dated 04.01.2004 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the said Act' for short) for acquisition of land for public purpose namely Dwarka Phase-II under planned development of Delhi. The land of the petitioners was notified under the said notification. The land owners filed objections under Section 5A...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Jal Board and ors. Vs. Attar Singh
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') dated 27.11.2009 in T.A. No. 387/2009 setting aside the order dated 11.12.07 retiring the respondent from their services w.e.f. 31.10.2005 by taking his date of birth as 22.12.1945 instead of 10.08.1951 which was disclosed by the respondent on affidavit when he was initially appointed as a beldar/daily wager.2. The order passed by the petitioner retiring the respondent has been taken note of by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The said order is Annexure P-1 annexed with TA No. 387/2009 and reads as under:The service of Shri Attar Singh S/o Shri Surat Singh, Fitter-1st class (Mech.) working with EE(SW)II who was due for retirement on superannuation on 31.10.2005 but could not be retired that day due to oversight is hereby retired from DJB services with immediate effect. However, the pensionary & terminal benefits wil...
Tag this Judgment!L and T Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ministry of Shipping Ro ...
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. By this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner who is a concessionaire entitled to collect toll for a project which for the sake of convenience is called 'Coimbatore Bypass' and 'Athupalam Bridge' seeks urgent interim relief for status quo for the BOT Project which was completed by it pursuant to the Concession Agreement dated 3rd October, 1997. It is not a disputed fact that the petitioner after completing the BOT Project was collecting toll from the users of the road/bridge since 1998. There are no complaints as against the petitioner with respect to any defalcation during the performance of the contract.2. Disputes arose between the parties on account of the stand taken by the respondent for terminating the Concession Agreement, which is to be in operation till the year 2029 in case of the Coimbatore Bypass and 2018 in case of Athupalam Bridge, for the reason that there had to be four lanning of the By pass.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!C.G. Khanna Vs. Rajinder Kumar
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 27.2.2001 of learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal, whereby the learned ARCT reversed the judgment of Additional Rent Controller and set aside the eviction order passed in favour of the petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The respondent was tenant in respect of a shop (though situated in residential area) under the previous owner since 1971 and the premises was let out for commercial purpose. The respondent was initially running a bakery/general store in the shop then he started a printing press. The previous owner sold the entire premises to present petitioner who was another tenant in the premises. The present petitioner filed an eviction petition against respondent on the ground of change of user. He alleged that the premises was let out for residential purpose and was being used by respondent for running a pr...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Allianz Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gouri and ors.
Court: Delhi
J.R. Midha, J.CM No. 4625/20101. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.2. The application stands disposed of.CM No. 4624/20103. Allowed, subject to order under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act being filed within two weeks.4. The application stands disposed of.MAC. APP. No. 150/2010 & CM No. 4623/20105. The appellants have challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 9,22,200/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4.6. The accident dated 8th April, 2008 resulted in the death of Shambhu. The deceased was survived by his widow, one minor son and parents who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.7. The deceased was working as a driver. His driving licence was proved as Ex.PW-3/E. According to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4, the deceased was earning Rs. 8,400/- per month. In the absence of any documentary proof of the salary of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of Rs. 4107/- in respect of a skilled worker...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Faridabad Vs. M/S. Friends Auto (India) Ltd. and Others
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: The three appeals filed by the Department and Cross Objection filed by M/s. Dee Ess Buhin (P) Ltd. relating to Appeal No. E/1092/2008 involve the same issue and therefore, they are being disposed off by this common order. 2. None appears for the respondent M/s. Xpro India Ltd. inspite of notice. 3. Heard the learned Consultant on behalf of respondents M/s. Friends Auto (India) Ltd. and M/s. Dee Ess Buhin (P) Ltd. 4. Both sides agree that the issue relating to chargeability of interest on differential duty payable on amount collected by issue of supplementary invoices after clearance of goods stand settled by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE Pune vs. SKF India Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC) and the demand of interest would be subject to bar of limitation. It is also held in the said decision that no penalty is imposable. 5. In view of the above, the appeals by the Department are allowed on merits holding that interest shall be liable on differential d...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Fatehpuria Transformer and Switchgear (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner No. 12/2008 dated 15.4.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the issue is settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune vs. SKF Ltd. reported in [2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC)] holding that interest is liable to be paid on differential duty paid on additional amount collected consequent to raising of supplementary invoices. He also submits that in their own case relating to earlier period, the Tribunal rejected their appeal on merits but remanded the matter to the original authority for considering the aspect of limitation by order No. 97-99/2010 SM(BR) dated 14.1.2010 in Appeal No. 3145/07-SM(BR). 4. Learned SDR agrees with the above submission. 5. In view of the above, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and that of original authority and remand the matter to the original authority to consider the applicability of bar of limitation in determini...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: R.P. Sharma Versus the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had submitted a writ petition (civil) No. 5255 of 2000 before the Honble Delhi High Court for quashing and setting aside order dated 4.11.1999 (Annexure P-10) by which he has been declared as deserter and discharged. He has also challenged the order dated 21.3.2000 (Annexure P-13) by which his appeal against the order of 4.11.1999 was rejected. He made further prayer for reinstatement with consequential benefits. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 15.10.2009. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Navy as SA-I on 4.1.1991. In December 1995 the applicant developed some psychiatric problems and was admitted in INHS Kalyani on 24.2.1996. On clinical examination he was medically downgraded to S4A4 Psychiatric (Neurosis). He was discharged from hospital and granted leave for 36 days from 8.3.1996 to 13.4.1996. It is stated that the applicant left home in the second week of April 1996 to rejoin duty ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Bharat Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. In this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner challenges the Award only as regards Claim Nos. 5 and 7.2. Claim No. 5 was the claim for enhancement of cost of labour and material under Clause 10CC of the contract. It is an undisputed fact that the stipulated date of completion was 19.5.1993 but the actual date of completion was 24.6.1996. There is therefore an admitted delay which was caused in the completion of the work. The Arbitrator while dealing with this claim, on the one hand gives a finding that the petitioner did not produce any document to show that the competent authority has granted extension without levy of compensation, but in the same breath, he has given a finding that the respondent did not levy any compensation/liquidated damages under Clause 2 of the Agreement. These are clearly mutually inconsistent findings. Once the Arbitrator has found as a fact that no compensation/liquidated damages were im...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Vs. K.S. Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has alleged deliberate violation of order dated 19th July, 2007 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 219 of 1999. The operative part of the order reads as under:In the absence of any plausible explanation from the side of the respondent for not completing the enquiry proceedings for a period of about 20 years, this Court has no option but to quash the charge-sheet and further proceedings which have taken place against the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner in the petition has also claimed for the release of post retirement benefits to the petitioner with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date when the same became due with special costs/damages. Counsel for the respondent submits that the post retirement benefits have already been allowed to him in terms of his entitlement. In case, the post retiral benefits have not been paid to the petitioner till date then the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner within a period ...
Tag this Judgment!