Delhi Court May 2012 Judgments

Ved Nayar Vs. Mohit Chaudhary

Court: Delhi

VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No.2223/2010. The said writ petition had been preferred by the respondent herein, and the petitioner herein was respondent no.3 in those proceedings. 2. The writ petitioner, i.e. the respondent herein claimed to be the owner of third floor of House No.B-180, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065. He also claimed terrace rights above the third floor. 3. At this stage itself, I may note that according to the petitioner herein, the respondent herein does not have the entire terrace rights. However, this factual controversy is of no relevance for the present purpose and cannot be gone into in these proceedings. 4. The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of the basement and the ground floor of the aforesaid premises. The writ petition had been preferred, as disputes arose between the parties herein...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Munesh Devi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(2)TNMAC125

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.4,65,800/- has been awarded to the respondents. 2. The accident dated 5th December, 2004 resulted in the death of Sunil Singh Chauhan. The deceased was employed as a driver on tanker No.HR-55B-6161. On 5th December, 2004 at about 12:00 p.m., the deceased parked the tanker at Village Hempur, Ismail, District Udham Singh Nagar and climbed over the tanker to check the inside condition of the tanker when he came in contact with an over-head electric wire and died on the spot. The deceased was survived by his father, widow and minor son who filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted at the time of hearing of this appeal that the deceased has not died because of any accident arising out of the use of the insured vehicle and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. In the alternative, it is submi...

Ricoh India Limited Vs. Commissioner

Court: Delhi

SANJIV KHANNA, J. 1. Ricoh India Limited has preferred the present appeal under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (VAT, Act, for short) against the order dated 10th March, 2010 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax, New Delhi (for short, the tribunal) in Appeal No.319/ATVAT/07-08. By the impugned order, the tribunal has affirmed the order dated 13th December, 2007, passed by the Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes, disposing of the application for advance ruling filed by the appellant under Section 84 of the VAT Act. The tribunal has upheld the finding of the Commissioner that multi functional printers/copiers/scanners having HSN code No.8471.60.29 and sales of spares and consumables of the above products having HSN code No. 8473.30.99 during the period 1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2007 are taxable under the residuary head and, therefore, attract value added tax @ 12.5% and do not fall under Entry No. 41A of the third Schedule of the VAT Act and, ...

Giani Ram (Since Dead and Represented by Lrs) Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

P.K.BHASIN, J. 1. The appellant Giani Ram, who died after the filing of this appeal and now is being represented by his legal heirs, was the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction filed by him against the respondent herein and reference to him shall now be made as ‘the deceased plaintiff’. 2. The deceased plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction on 23.11.1979 against the respondent Delhi Development Authority(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the DDA’) for restraining it from recovering any amount of damages and dispossessing him from his house built on plot of land bearing khasra no. 23/23/1, measuring 11 biswas in village Najafgarh(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the suit property’). It was pleaded in the plaint by the deceased plaintiff that he was the owner in possession of the suit property for over 30 years. Since by some mistake the plot of land, on which the suit property had been constructed, came to be vested in t...

Sudhir Kumar Anand Vs. Dr. Vijay Kr. Anand and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012AIR(Del)97

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of two pending applications, being I.A. No.1536/2010 under Order IX, Rule 9 CPC alongwith I.A. No.1537/2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed by the plaintiff. 2. The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration, partition and possession against the defendants. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.05.2008. 3. It is submitted in the application that since the matter was being settled between the parties, therefore, on 05.12.2007 some more time was sought for compromise and the matter was renotified on 14.02.2008 for further proceedings. Later on, it was revealed from the record that the matter was listed on 08.05.2008, but no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and the same was adjourned to 15.05.2008. On 15.05.2008, again there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. It is alleged by the plaintiff in the application that in the se...

S.B. Arora Vs. Mrs. Avtar Kaur Cheema and Others

Court: Delhi

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. The matter was listed before the Court on 17.04.2012 for framing of issues, when the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 made the submission that the issues in the present case are not required to be framed and the suit itself can be disposed of in view of the facts stated by the defendants in the written statement and documents placed on record. After small hearing, the matter was adjourned to today. The direction was also issued that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 would remain present before the Court in person. 2. Today, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are present in Court. The plaintiff is a property dealer. Defendant No.1 (widow) is more than 80 years old lady. 3. Order XV CPC provides that, “Where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronouncement judgment.” The Rule of this Order set-out a procedure where the Court...

Smt. Kamlesh Sharma @ Kamleshkumari and Another Vs. Smt. Satya Devi an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012AIR(Del)102

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. Two sisters, namely, Smt. Kamlesh Sharma and Smt. Renu Rai, plaintiffs in the matter, have filed the present suit for partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing No.D-147, Block No. D at Surajmal Vihar, (also known as Teachers Colony), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) against their mother (defendant No.1), brother (defendant No.2) and two sisters (defendants No.3 and 4). 2. The facts of the case as per plaint are that their father, Late Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma died intestate on 27.12.1989, leaving behind his wife, Mrs Satya Devi, defendant No.1 herein, his son Mr. Satender Kumar Sharma, defendant No.2 herein, his four daughters, namely Ms. Sudesh Kumari, Ms. Anita Kumari who are defendant Nos. 3 and 4 respectively and plaintiffs. 3. It is stated in the petition that at the time of his death, deceased was the owner and in possession of the suit property and as the deceased died intestate without any Will o...

G. Karthik Vs. Consortium Finance Ltd. Now Magma Leasing Ltd.

Court: Delhi

M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. The petitioner assails the order of the learned MM dated 19.07.2011 dismissing his application under Section 256 CrPC, in complaint case bearing C.C No. 12040/2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. The brief facts necessitating the present petition are that between the period 06.10.1997 and 31.10.1997, the respondent/ complainant company had presented certain cheques issued by the petitioner, which were dishonored. The respondent/ complainant company, due to non-payment of the cheque amounts, preferred a complaint against the petitioner before the learned ACMM under Section 138 of the Act which was subsequently renumbered and marked as CC No. 12040/09. In the process, the respondent/ complainant’s evidence was recorded and also the petitioner’s statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded by the learned MM. Thereafter, between 23.08.2010 to 19.07.2011, for 6 consecutive hearings, no...

Abdul Rahim Alias Indori Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. The appellant challenges an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dated 20.05.2009 in S.C. 172/2004 vide which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life besides payment of fine and in default sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution alleged that on 13.07.2004, one Akram (the complainant, PW-12, who was also the deceased’s son) reported to Police Station Sriniwaspuri that his father was missing since the previous evening. This intimation was taken on record (Ex.PW B-6). PW-12 stated that his father, Phundan, used to stay at Shop No. 24, Okhla Sabzi Mandi and sold vegetables. He used to consume liquor with Saleem and on the previous day, i.e. 12.07.2004, both of them left to have liquor. Phundan did not return during the night. Thus, the next morning, the complainant reported the matter to the police, which registered a case under Section 365, IPC. It w...

M/S. Devisons Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Umesh Salwan

Court: Delhi

MANMOHAN, J. (Oral) 1. This Court while issuing notice on 30th November, 2011, had passed the following order in the company appeal :- “CO.A(SB) 91/2011 After some arguments learned senior counsel for the appellants confines his prayer to Prayers 3 to 6 of CA 645/2010 at Page 68 of the paper book. Issue limited notice to respondent confined to the aforesaid prayers. Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent. He prays for and is granted four weeks time to file a reply-affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.. However, it is made clear that in the meantime the order passed by the Company Law Board shall be executed/implemented. List on 26th March, 2012. Order dasti.” (Emphasis supplied) 2. Prayers 3 to 6 of Co. Appl. 645/2010 filed before the Company Law Board (for short ‘CLB’) are reproduced hereinbelow:- “3. The Petitioner be directed to pay the arrears and future monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 2 lac...