Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lukni Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2010)BC65,166(2010)DLT462

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by insurance company against an award passed by the Tribunal on 19th March, 2001 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1 ,77,060/- to the claimants and held that it was the liability of the insurance company to pay the entire claim. It is submitted that the Tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited because of non-proving of the insurance policy whereas there was sufficient material before the Tribunal to show that premium of Rs. 240/- only was charged and the liability of insurance company was, therefore, limited to Rs. 50,000/-.2. I find that the insurance company has even not cared to read the provisions of even 1939 Act as amended in October, 1982 when the Legislature amended the limits of minimum liability from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. However in any case, the plea taken by the insurance company that since the premium was Rs. 240/-, the liability of the insurance compan...

Vidya Devi and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred by dependents of deceased Sh. Ravi Shankar Updahyay against award dated 14th September, 1984 assailing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal with a prayer that the compensation should be enhanced. In response, counter objections have been filed by the owner that the Tribunal wrongly held that liability of the insurance company was limited only to Rs. 50,000/- and rest of the amount was recoverable from the owner. The owner has also assailed the order of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence and quantum of compensation. The appeal has been contested by the insurance company and the stand of insurance company has been that its liability was limited to Rs. 50,000/-.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that on 5th June, 1979 Sh. Ravi Shankar Upadhyay was going on his motorcycle bearing No. DEW 7217 from Connaught Place office of DESU to other office of DESU situated at Nizamudd...

The Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shri Bhanwar Sing ...

Court: Delhi

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The question falling for adjudication in this application under Section 17B of the ID Act is, as to the date from which payment is to be directed, when the application is filed long after the institution and service of the notice of the writ petition, whether from the date of the award or from the date of the application.2. The present writ petition impugns the award dated 1st February, 1991 directing inter alia the reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 workman. The writ petition was filed after 7 years from the date of the award, in or about October, 1998. The writ petition came up first before this Court on 5th October, 1998 when the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit explaining the delay. Subsequently, on 10th March, 1999 Rule was issued in the writ petition. The counsel for the respondent workman appeared in the writ petition first on 11th February, 2002, on which date it was directed that no coercive action be taken by the respondent workman to r...

S.R. Batliboi and Associates Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

V.K. Jain, J.1. These writ petitions are taken up for disposal together because they raise common issues.2. The petitioners urged that prior to 18.04.2006, that is, the date on which Section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994, cross-border services provided by a foreign service provider could not be taxed at the hands of resident recipients, such as the petitioners. However, after 18.04.2006, by virtue of the introduction of Section 66A, if any service specified in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, is provided or to be provided by a person, who has established a business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is provided or to be provided or has his permanent address or usual place of residence, in a country other than India, and such service is received by a person, who has his place of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or usual place of residence in India, then, such service shall, for the purposes of the said section, be the taxable servi...

Mohd. Jabbar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. At 9:40 PM on 13.10.2004, information was received at PS Kapashera which was noted vide DD No. 14A, Ex.PW-13/A. Information noted was that a light as also a computer was on at a flat in Himhit Apartments, Pocket-8, Sector-22 Dwarka, but a lock was noted on the main door.2. It is apparent that it was an unnatural event for somebody to be inside the flat with a computer on and the flat being locked from outside.3. SI Jagpal Singh PW-18 left the police station and took along with him Ct. Prithi Singh. On reaching flat No. B-605 Plot No. 18, Himhit Apartments, Sector-22 Dwarka, which happened to be on the 6th floor, the door was found locked with some foul smell detected outside the flat.4. As deposed to by SI Jagpal Singh, repeated knocks on the flat got no response and he peeped from the window and saw a computer inside the flat. Detecting foul smell, he broke open the door and preserved the broken lock Ex.P-3 and on making entry, saw the dead body of a male on th...

Smt. Kanta Rani Vs. the District and Sessions Judge

Court: Delhi

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Sh. M.R. Ghai and Smt. Kanta Rani, petitioner herein, were charged for financial irregularities detected during the period they worked as Readers in the Court of S.K. Gautam, MM, Tis Hazari Courts. Sh. M.R. Ghai was working as a Reader in that Court while the petitioner herein was posted as a Reader in place of Sh. M.R. Ghai vide office order dated 20.05.1998 and she joined duties with effect from 22.05.1998. Sh. M.C. Aggarwal, an Officer on Special Duty, on checking found various discrepancies in the accounts which resulted in further inquiry into the matter followed by issuance of Statement of Articles of Charges as the explanation given by the delinquent officials i.e. Sh. M.R. Ghai and the petitioner was not found satisfactory. It may be noticed that the petitioner claimed that the records were being managed by Sh. M.R. Ghai and whatever was available with him was taken over by her.2. The Department led its evidence and the petitioner also led defence evide...

Naresh Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Ncb and ors.

Court: Delhi

A.K. Sikri, J.1. On 24th September, 2009 a search operation was launched in the residential premises of the petitioner by the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement under the supervision of its Deputy Director. During this search, Indian currency in the sum of Rs. 12,50,000/-and some foreign currency was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was also taken to the office of Directorate of Enforcement where he was interrogated about the seized money and his statements were also recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') on 5th December 2009 and 6th December 2009.2. It is the allegation of the petitioner in this writ petition that since officials of the Directorate of Enforcement could not find any incriminating material against him, they felt defeated and, therefore, started searching a trap to implicate the petitioner or to bring him within the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act,...

Daya Kishan and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. For the third time in succession within a span of 15 days, once again we find that the same Trial Judge has ignored relevant and material evidence. Gullibly, the eye witness account has been accepted. More than 30 citations have been noted, but the ratio of none has been culled out. Why have they been noted has not even been brought out. If the decisions were indeed cited, and if none was relevant, we expect brief reasons to be brought on record for ignoring the citations as being irrelevant.2. We have repeatedly highlighted the uselessness of simply noting the decisions cited by learned Counsel. With reference to appreciation of the testimony of eye witnesses we have highlighted that firstly, with reference to their statements recorded during investigation, improvements, improbability, exaggerations or embellishments projected, have to be noted and then to see whether the same pertains to an important aspect of a fact in issue and then the objection has to be d...

Bhagat Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. Above referred appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 22nd August 2009 in Sessions Case No. 7/2000, FIR No. 489/1984 Police Station Sarai Rohilla convicting the appellants Mangal Sain @ Billa, Bhagat Singh and Brij Mohan Verma for the offences punishable under Section 148 IPC, Section 395 IPC, Section 435 IPC as also Section 307 IPC all read with Section 149 IPC and the consequent order on sentence dated 29th August 2009.2. Briefly put, case of the prosecution is that in the aftermath of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, late Prime Minister of India communal riots directed against the Sikh community erupted in Delhi.3. Shastri Nagar, Delhi also witnessed riots involving a series of attacks on Sikh population by non-Sikhs between 31st October 1984 and 3rd November 1984. On 1st November 1984, on the complaint of one Ajaib Singh regarding arson, looting, mischief , culpable homicide and attempt to commit murder which took place at B-1764, Shastri ...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Central Information Commission and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.PREFACE1. Information is power. This is truer now, in this information age, than ever before. In a democracy this power of information which the public authorities possess is to be shared with the people. But at the same time, not every piece of information is to be made public. There is the public interest and democratic purpose in dissemination of information on the one hand and the competing private rights and national interests in general non-disclosure, on the other. This is recognized in the preamble to the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') itself:And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the G...