Indian Law Reports Delhi Series 2013
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I.L.R. (2013) IV DELHI Part-I (July, 2013) P.S.D. 25.7.2013 (Pages 2455-2918) 600 Annual Subscription rate of I.L.R.(D.S.) 2013 INDIAN LAW REPORTS (for 6 volumes each volume consisting of 2 Parts) DELHI SERIES In Indian Rupees : 2500/- 2013 Single Part : 250/- (Containing cases determined by the High Court of Delhi) VOLUME-4, PART-I (CONTAINS GENERAL INDEX) EDITOR MS. R. KIRAN NATH for Subscription Please Contact : REGISTRAR VIGILANCE CO-EDITOR Controller of Publications MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA Department of Publication, Govt. of India, (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE) Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. REPORTERS Website: www.deptpub.nic.in Email:[email protected], [email protected] MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR MS. ANU BAGAI Tel.: 23817823/9689/3761/3762/3764/3765 (DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE) MR. SANJOY GHOSE Fax.: 23817876 MR. GIRISH KATHPALIA MR. ASHISH MAKHIJA MR. VINAY KUMAR GUPTA (ADVOCATES) MS. SHALINDER KAUR MR. LORREN BAMNIYAL MR. GURDEEP SINGH MR. KESHAV K. BHATI MS. ADITI CHAUDHARY JOINT REGISTRARS MR. ARUN BHARDWAJ MS. ANU GROVER BALIGA MR. DIG VINAY SINGH (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT PRINTED BY : J.R. COMPUTERS, 477/7, MOONGA NAGAR, & SESSIONS JUDGES) KARAWAL NAGAR ROAD DELHI-110094. AND PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI, PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI, BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054—2013. BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054. (i) (ii) NOMINAL-INDEX Head Hr, P & A Hamdard Building .............................................. 2801 VOLUME-4, PART-I Mumtaz v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ......................................... 2706 JULY, 2013 Musa Singh v. State............................................................................ 2833 NTPC Ltd. v. DCIT & Others ........................................................... 2455 Albert Ezung v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi .................................... 2746 Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kulwant Singh ...................................... 2732 Anil Kumar Rai v. Union of India and Ors. ........................................ 2887 Naresh & Anr. v. State of Delhi ......................................................... 2622 Arif v. UOI and Anr. .......................................................................... 2780 Krishna & Anr. v. State of Delhi ........................................................ 2607 Bhupinder Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. .......................... 2864 Purkha Ram v. UOI & Ors. ............................................................... 2619 Bimal Kishore Pandey v. C.B.I. .......................................................... 2785 Rajesh @ Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi) ............................................. 2855 C.D. Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. ........................................... 2582 Ram Pyare v. UOI & Ors. ................................................................. 2576 C.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. .............................................. 2859 Ramesh v. State (NCT) of Delhi ....................................................... 2597 Court On Its Own Motion in Re State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma & Ors. ............... 2627 Sant Ram @ Sadhu Ram v. The State ............................................... 2894 Delhi Chit Fund Association v. UOI & Anr. ...................................... 2542 UOI & Ors. v. Doly Loyi ................................................................... 2566 Delhi Development Authority v. Jagdish Chander UOI & Ors. v. Vijender Singh and Ors. ............................................. 2555 Khanna & Sons................................................................................... 2833 Vijay Kumar Kamat v. The State (NCT of Delhi) .............................. 2612 Devyani Phosphate Private Ltd. & Anr. v. UOI................................. 2518 Vijay Kumar v. UOI and Ors. ............................................................. 2875 Gulbir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. ............................................... 2868 Zoom-Toshali Sands Consortium v. Indian Railway Catering & J.P. Bhardwaj v. UOI and Ors. .......................................................... 2767 Tourism Corporation Ltd. ............................................................ 2758 Kamlesh Devi v. Union of India and Ors. .......................................... 2911 Kundan Ghosh v. Union of India & Ors. ........................................... 2873 Lalit Kr. Modi v. Union of India and Ors. .......................................... 2484 Manoj Kumar v. State (NCT) of Delhi ............................................... 2810 Mohd. Yusuf v. State .......................................................................... 2793 Mohd. Zulfikar Ali v. (Wakf) Hamdard Laboratories Thr. Its (iv) attributed to petitioner in Court of Inquiry do not even remotely SUBJECT-INDEX resemble his admitted signatures or signatures on Court VOLUME-4, PART-I Record—Court of Inquiry has in fact proceeded to return JULY, 2013 findings which effect character and reputation of petitioner and hold that petitioner was responsible for injuries sustained— Such Court of Inquiry could not have been legally held in ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996—Section 31, Sub-Section (7)(b)—Arbitrator awarded interest upto the date absence of petitioner who had to be given opportunity to of Award only—In Execution proceedings, future interest also challenge statement of witnesses, if any, against him as well as record of finding against him—Court of Inquiry conducted allowed in favour of the respondent—Held, in terms of Clause (b) of Section 31 of the Act, if the Award is silent in regard in this case, is contrary to provisions of Army Regulations to the interest from the date of Award, or does not specify Rule 520—Petitioner was discharging duty while participating in operation Rakshak in Kargil area which operation had been the rate of interest from the date of Award, then the party in whose favour Award is made, will be entitled to interest @ specially notified by GOI in terms of Clause (i) of Category 18% per annum from the date of Award and such party can E in para 4.1 of circular dated 31st January, 2001—This aspect has not been noted by Tribunal in its judgment—As a claim the said amount in execution proceedings also even though there is no reference to any post Award interest in result, it has to held that petitioner is entitled to all benefits the Award. including monetary benefits. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagdish Chander J.P. Bhardwaj v. UOI and Ors. ................................ 2767 Khanna & Sons. .......................................................... 2833 — Denial of appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Forces—Signatures in Capital letters in ARMED FORCES— Army Regulations—Rule 520—During operation Rakshak-III (so notified by Central Government) English—Petitioner’s entire signatures consists of the four while petitioner was driving vehicle for returning after letters which constitute his name “ARIF”. Petitioner writes the letter ‘A’ ‘R’ and ‘F’ in capital letters while the letter ‘I’ completion of certain local repair work of equipments and machinery, met with accident—Invalidating Medical Board is in running hands—A short issue which arises in this case evaluated 100 % disability and petitioner invalidated out of is as to whether the petitioner, whose signatures are entirely in capital letters in English can be denied appointment to the service—Respondent failed to treat petitioner’s injury as a battle casualty and treated it as a physical casualty—Armed post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Forces i.e. BSF, Forces Tribunal rejected petitioner’s challenge to action of CISF, CRPF, SSB etc. Held—This issue has been dealt with earlier vide a pronouncement dated 24th February, 2012 in respondent—Order of Tribunal challenged before HC—Plea taken, case is squarely covered under Category E Sub Clause W.P. (C) 1004/2012 titled as Delhi Subordinate Services (i) of Circular issued by Ministry of Defence dated 31st Selection Board and Another v. Neeraj Kumar and Another— A similar issue thereafter was decided in favour of the writ January, 2001 in respect of war injury pension payable to armed forces personnel who are invalidated from service on petitioner in W.P. (C). 6959/2012 vide an order dated 5th account of disability sustained during circumstances due to November, 2012 titled as Bittoo v. Union of India and Another—The order dated 4th December, 2012 in W.P. (C) attributable/aggravated causes—Held—Signatures on statement 7158/2012 titled AS Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and (iii) (v) (vi) Another deals with the same issue and was also decided in and corroborated with the oral of documentary evidence. Only favour of writ petitioner—It is well settled that there is no law when single eye witness is found to be wholly unreliable by which prohibits a person to sign in capital letters—It has been the Court, his testimony can be discarded in toto—Appeal held in the judgment of this Court in Pawan Kumar (Supra) dismissed due to lack merit of the case. that a signature is a trait which a person develops over a period Naresh & Anr. v. State of Delhi ............................... 2622 of time and these traits can develop even with reference to capital letters—Petitioner cannot be denied consideration for BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968—Section 19(a), 40, appointment if otherwise eligible for the appointment to the 46, 74(2) and 117—Border Security Force Rules,