Delhi Court August 2012 Judgments

Rama Construction Company Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Challenge in RFA(OS) No.16/2012 is to the judgment and decree dated December 20, 2011 dismissing suit filed by the appellant in which the appellant had challenged compensation in sum of Rs.19,04,703/- levied upon it and contract being cancelled by the respondent followed by the respondent proceeding to complete the balance work at the risk and cost of the appellant by inviting fresh tenders for the balance works. 2. The challenge in FAO(OS) No.336/2012 is to the order dated May 31, 2012 dismissing objections filed by the appellant to an award dated January 17, 2012 as per which appellant’s claim No.1, 2, 3 and 6 have been allowed in sum of Rs.1,41,000/-, Rs.5,24,214/-, Rs.1,14,888/- and Rs.1,45,428/- respectively and counter claim filed by the respondent has been allowed in sum of Rs.44,20,271/- i.e. net award is in favour of the respondent. 3. Suffice would it be to state that the claims of the appellant allowed as per the award pertained to amount due f...

Ex Const. Umesh Prasad Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The petitioner joined BSF as a constable in the year 1990, and was attached to the 79th Bn. as on January 9, 1999. He was a part of “C”Coy of the battalion, which was posted at Border Out Post (BOP) Chainagar. 2. It is not in dispute that on January 9, 1999, the petitioner was assigned sentry duty at gate No.2 of the BOP from 06:30 hours to 12:00 hours. Insp.Mukund Singh, along with Ct.Ashok Kumar was patrolling the area from gate No.5 to gate No.2. The two claim that as they approached gate No.2, they took a hidden position in a nearby bamboo grove in order to detect any suspicious movement. That at around 07:30 hours, a man entered gate No.2 bringing along some goods. He was followed by another man carrying a net. A few other persons also entered. Insp.Mukund Singh and Ct.Ashok Kumar claim that they emerged from the hidden spot and started shouting “Pakro, Pakro”, whereupon the said persons, whom Insp.Mukund Singh and Ct.Ashok Kumar cl...

Vinod Krishna Kaul and Others Vs. the Lt. Governor N.C.T. of Delhi and ...

Court: Delhi

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. In all these petitions (26 in number), there is a challenge to the unit area method of levying property axes in Delhi introduced by virtue of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003. It is prayed that the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003 and the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Tax) Bye-laws, 2004 be declared as unconstitutional and as being void ab initio. The challenge, which is common to all the petitions, is founded on the following pleas: (I) The Legislative Assembly for the National Capital Territory lacked the legislative competence to enact the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003; (II) The Presidential Assent in the manner stipulated in Article 239AA(3)(c) was not there; (III) the unit area method is not a recognised system of valuation; (IV) There are no guidelines for the exercise of power under the new Section 116A and for classification; and (V) A flat rate of taxation under the unit area method is a...

Ex L/Nk Rakesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. The petitioner vide this petition has prayed that respondents be directed to grant him disability pension from 01.08.1995 to 25.08.2009. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army as a regular combatant on 04.05.1979. In August 1984, he was posted in Kupuwara Sector and assigned night duty on Balbir Post. During patrolling, the petitioner had fell down after slipping from the ice and became unconscious and one of the guard found the petitioner lying unconsciously and took him in the bunker. He was admitted in 92, Base Hospital for his medical treatment. Since he was not responded to the treatment, the petitioner was referred to Command Hospital, Udhampur and thereafter he was discharged from the Command Hospital with down category CEE (Temporary) for six months and was sent to Jabalpur Centre with remarks Not fit for Hills and Cold Area. After a period of two months the petitioner was called back to his unit and again after six months, the petitioner had undergone a check up ...

Shabbir @ Neha Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

SANJIV KHANNA, J. 1. Shabbir @ Neha impugns his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟, for short) for murder of Atiq, vide judgment dated 19th February, 2009. By order of sentence dated 21st February, 2009 the appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life, to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 26/27th April, 2004, the deceased Atiq and Babbu at about 10.30 PM had gone for a walk and had met two eunuchs at the gate of Woodland Park. Atiq went inside the park with the smaller eunuch and the taller eunuch followed them. Thereafter there was a quarrel. Babbu saw the quarrel and called others. Atiq was stabbed. The two eunuchs were apprehended by the public and Atiq was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. The names of the said two eunuchs were disclosed as Shabbir @ Neha...

Subhash Chand Bansal Vs. Khadimand#8217;s and Another

Court: Delhi

V.K. JAIN, J. 1. The plaintiff before this Court is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of boots, shoes and slippers, which he is selling under the trademark “KHAZANA”. The plaintiff claimed to be using the aforesaid mark since 1.1.1990 and also claims that his products are well known for their intrinsic quality and enjoy tremendous goodwill and reputation in the market. The plaintiff is also the proprietor of the registered trademark KHAZANA, registered vide registration number 1070231 in Class: 25 in respect of boots, shoes and slippers. The defendants applied for trademarks “Khadim”s Sriman KHAZANA (label), “Khadim”s Girls KHAZANA”(label), “Khadim”s Srimati KHAZANA”(label) and “Khadim”s Boy KHAZANA”(label) under applications numbers 1312611, 1312619, 1312623 and 1312621 respectively in class 25 for clothing, footwear and headgear which were opposed by the plaintiff. The defendants, while see...

Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. Vs. Kola Shipping Ltd and Another

Court: Delhi

1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) by the Petitioner, Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd., is to an Award dated 11th February 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator (Respondent No.2) in the dispute arising between the Petitioner and Kola Shipping Ltd., Respondent No.1, arising out of a voyage Charter Party (‘CP’) (fixture note) dated 18th July 2005, claimed by Respondent No.1 to have been executed between it and the Petitioner to load 13,500 metric tonnes (‘MT’) of bagged sorghum on board M.V. Kapitan Nazarev at the port of Kakinada, India. Background facts 2. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting food products, cereals, grains etc. It states that in the first week of July 2005 it was negotiating a deal with the Government of Niger for export of Sorghum (Jowar), which was to be shipped to the port of Cotonou in Benin in West Africa. The Petitioner states that it w...

Balbir Singh Uppal and Another Vs. Gurmeet Singh Uppal and Others

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. 1. We shall be referring to the parties as per their original nomenclature i.e. plaintiffs and defendants. 2. The ancestry of the litigating parties may be noted. The pedigree table is as under:- Hakim, Dewan Singh Uppal Hakim, Arjan Singh (son)  (Dft.No.4)Amar Singh (son)(1)Balbir Singh (son)Plaintiff No.1(2)Ranjeet Singh (son)Plaintiff No.2(3)Gurmeet Singh (son)Defendant No.1(4)Surjeet Singh (son)Defendant No.2(5)Rajinder Kaur (daughter)Defendant No.3In other words, the litigating parties are the two sons of Arjan Singh, who are the plaintiffs and are fighting with their father. Two other sons and the only daughter of Arjan Singh stand united behind their father. 3. In the year 2006 the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and partition on the original side of this Court in respect of 12 immovable properties, details whereof are as under:- S. No.Description of the PropertyRecorded Owner of the Property1.House bearing Municipal No.8756-58, Rahag Gunj Rosh...

India Tv Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Yashraj Fil ...

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Application(s) seeking interim injunction pending disposal of the suit(s) have been decided by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated November 11, 2011. In the two appeals we are concerned with only two suits. 2. Eschewing reference to the facts of CS(OS) No.2282/2006 filed by Super Cassette Industries vs. Mr.Chintamani Rao and Ors., for the reason no appeal has been filed before us pertaining to the impugned order insofar the defendants of said suit have been injuncted in terms of the interim relief prayed for, the facts pertaining to the other two suits i.e. CS(OS) No.2283/2006 and CS(OS) No.1706/2006 are that the defendants, in one suit had used the first line of the lyrics of a hit song in the cinematographic film „Bunty Aur Babli‟: „Kajra Re Kajra Re Tere Kare Kare Naina‟in an advertisement broadcasted during a TV programme and in the other programme, during a chat show: INDIA BEATS, a budding singer, on the threshold of...

Container Corporation of India Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(4)LLN175

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The intra-court appeal being LPA No.943/2011 impugns the judgment dated 10.10.2011 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.7387/2011 preferred by the appellant Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CCIL). The said writ petition was preferred by CCIL against the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Industrial Adjudicator allowing the complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the respondent Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and declaring the order dated 26.03.2004 of the Disciplinary Authority of CCIL removing Sh. Sanjeev Kumar from service to be null and void and directing CCIL to pay all dues of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar deeming him to have continued in the service of CCIL. 2. LPA No.943/2011 came before this Bench first on 16.11.2011 when after hearing the counsels for sometime, the file of W.P.(C) No.3728/2011 was sent for. On the next date i.e. 17.11.2011, notice of the appeal was issued and the counsel for Sh. Sanjeev Kumar gave a statement that ...