Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 7 of about 223 results (0.020 seconds)Savitri Devi and ors. Vs. Ram Kishan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By present appeal, the appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased have assailed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and have prayed for enhancement of compensation.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that deceased Jai Ram Subhani aged around 28 years died in an accident on 23rd October, 1983. At the time of accident, he was unmarried and was a partner of M/s. Relu Ram Sons, Katra Rathi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The compensation claim was filed under Section 110A of Motor Vehicle Act by Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased and brothers and sisters of the deceased. It is undisputed fact that all brothers and sisters of the deceased were major and were independently working. The leaned Tribunal in the award observed that since nothing has come on record to establish that other legal heirs were dependent on the deceased, he, therefore, considered that except mother none else was a necessary party to the procee...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Process of criminal law was set into motion when at around 11.20 P.M. on 19.04.1999 ASI Dani Ram PW-4, noted vide daily diary entry Ex.PW-4/A, that one Anil Garg r/o A-24, Adarsh Nagar, Rama Road, Delhi has informed over telephone that his daughter Priyanka (herein after referred to as the 'Deceased') has been forcibly confined in a bathroom by her tutor; that the door of the said bathroom is bolted from inside and that said person is not opening the door of the bathroom inspite of repeated knocking at the door.2. Inspector Jeewan Singh Gill PW-18, was handed over a copy of the afore-noted DD entry. Accompanied by Const. Bhura Singh PW-13, Const. Giri Kumar PW-14, Const. Mukesh PW-15 and SI Mukesh Kumar PW-17, Inspector Jeewan Singh Gill reached the house in question and what happened thereafter is recorded in the endorsement (tehrir) Ex.PW-16/A made by Inspector Jeewan Singh Gill PW-18, which reads as under:Respected Duty Officer Police Station Adarsh Nagar it ...
Tag this Judgment!National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribun ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This writ petition impugns the award dated 10th July, 1996 of the Industrial Tribunal on the following reference:Whether the withdrawal of scheme for Grant of one/two advance increments to the employee by the management is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what directions are necessary in this respect?2. The Industrial Tribunal has in the order impugned in this petition held withdrawal of the scheme by the petitioner to be not in accordance with the provision of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus not in accordance with law. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law.3. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 Employees' Union appeared and also filed a reply. This Court subsequently vide order dated 12th February, 1998 stayed the proceedings of implementation of the award aforesaid. Rule was issued in the writ petition on 24th April, 1998 and the interim order was made absolute. However ...
Tag this Judgment!Tirlok Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner was employed and working as a Senior Gestetner Operator, Grade-I in this Court. The petitioner was allotted and occupying the official accommodation at Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner met with an accident which seriously injured him. The petitioner as such sought voluntary retirement and also sought compassionate appointment in this Court for his son. The said request of the petitioner was accepted and while granting compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner, the petitioner was voluntarily retired from service. The son of the petitioner immediately on joining applied for allotment of Government accommodation/regularization of the allotment of the aforesaid house in Sadiq Nagar earlier allotted in the name of the petitioner, in his own name. Though the Directorate of Estates sanctioned ad hoc allotment of government accommodation to the son of the petitioner but no actual allotment was made. In the circumstances, the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Ram @ Parse Vs. Sheoji Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner (defendant No. 1 in the court below) has laid challenge to an order dated 01.12.1999 passed by the Civil Judge, by which two preliminary issues framed with regard to maintainability of the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in the court below) on the ground of limitation and on the ground of suit being improperly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, were decided against him.2. The facts relevant to decide the present petition are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant No. 1 and respondents No. 2 to 4 (defendants No. 2 to 4 in the court below), praying inter alia for a decree of declaration that he is entitled to reconstruct an intervening wall of House No. 254, Village Jharoda Kalan, Delhi, constructed pursuant to a judgment dated 26.03.1993 passed in an earlier suit instituted by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff, registered as S...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jacksons House
Court: Delhi
V.K. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11.9.2009 in ITA No. 1817/Del/2009 pertaining to the A.Y. 2003-2004, whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) was dismissed.2. The assessee firm, which is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments filed return for the Assessment Year 2003-2004 declaring gross profit ratio of 18% as compared to gross profit ratio of 27% shown in the immediate preceding year. A notice under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the assessee, which produced its accounts books as well as stock register and also furnished the information sought by the Assessing Officer from time to time. The drop in gross profit ratio was attributed to increase in fabric consumption, increase in processing cost such as fabrication, embroidery, dyeing and bleaching and comparatively low increase in the average sale price. Th...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bali Ram Bansal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant/insurance company has primarily assailed grant of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the claimant as compensation by the Tribunal for loss of love and affected due to death of the deceased. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- granted in all to six claimants was exorbitant and contrary to the facts and evidence on record.2. No amount of money can compensate love and affection which the dependents of a deceased, his brothers, sisters and other relatives, who were not even dependent get deprived of on untimely accidental deaths. However, while granting compensation for loss of life, the courts have been granting token amount under different heads like loss of consortium, loss of estate and loss of love and affection apart from loss of dependency. Such amounts are granted by the Tribunals at their own discretion considering several aspects connected with the family and death of the person. No doubt eac...
Tag this Judgment!Dhawan Engineering Works Vs. P. Balkrishna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner employer impugns the order dated 25th July, 2002 of the Labour Court holding the enquiry conducted by the petitioner employer prior to removal of the respondents No. 1 & 2 workmen from employment to be bad only for the reason of the petitioner employer having not made payment of subsistence allowance month wise to the respondents workmen. The petitioner employer in this petition sought the interim relief of stay of further proceedings before the Labour Court. On 1st February, 2005, the counsel for the respondents workmen agreed that further proceedings before the Labour Court shall be got adjourned. Though there are no further orders in this regard but both counsels inform that the proceedings before the Labour Court remain stayed.2. Though the respondents workmen had before the Labour Court challenged the enquiry preceding their dismissal on other grounds also but the Labour Court has held against the respondents workmen on all the other grounds...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Rahi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In these writ petitions, which raise common issues, the petitioners seek the quashing of the orders-in-original dated 18.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) insofar as it operates against them. A prayer has also been made seeking a direction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders-in-original dated 18.12.2009 and 29.12.2009.2. The sequence of events leading up to the filing of the writ petitions began with the issuance of show cause notices to several exporters as well as to the present petitioners, who are officers of the Central Excise and Customs Departments. Certain other officials of the said departments were also issued show cause notices and they have also filed writ petitions but their case is somewhat different and, therefore, we are only dealing with the present two officials, namely, Mr. S.C. Rahi and Mr. S.L. Bansal. The former ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Tangri Vs. Pankaj Khetan and anr.
Court: Delhi
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) for quashing of summoning order dated 10th June, 2005 by which the learned trial court has pleased to take cognizance of offence under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short). The impugned order itself records that the complainant had not made any allegation against Mr. Rohit Tangri and no cognizance and summon has been issued against him.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also examined the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1. In the complaint, it is stated that the respondent No. 1 has entered into an agreement to sell dated 21st October, 2003 with the petitioner for purchase of property No. C-205, Ground Floor, Anand Vihar, Delhi-92 for Rs. 30,50,000/- and an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid in cash as advance. It is alleged in the compla...
Tag this Judgment!