Indian Law Reports Delhi Series 2011
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I.L.R. (2011) V DELHI Part-I (September, 2011) P.S.D. 25.9.2011 (Pages 1-452) 650 Annual Subscription rate of I.L.R.(D.S.) 2011 INDIAN LAW REPORTS (for 6 volumes each volume consisting of 2 Parts) DELHI SERIES In Indian Rupees : 2500/- 2011 Single Part : 250/- (Containing cases determined by the High Court of Delhi) VOLUME-5, PART-I (CONTAINS GENERAL INDEX) EDITOR for Subscription Please Contact : MR. A.S. YADAV REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE) Controller of Publications CO-EDITORS Department of Publication, Govt. of India, MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGES) Website: www.deptpub.nic.in Email:[email protected] (&) [email protected] REPORTERS Tel.: 23817823/9689/3761/3762/3764/3765 MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR MS. ANU BAGAI Fax.: 23817876 MR. TALWANT SINGH MR. SANJOY GHOSE MR. GIRISH KATHPALIA MR. K. PARMESHWAR MS. SHALINDER KAUR (ADVOCATES) MR. V.K. BANSAL MR. KESHAV K. BHATI MR. L.K. GAUR DEPUTY REGISTRAR MR. GURDEEP SINGH MS. ADITI CHAUDHARY MR. ARUN BHARDWAJ (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGES) PRINTED BY : J.R. COMPUTERS, 477/7, MOONGA NAGAR, KARAWAL NAGAR ROAD DELHI-110094. PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AND PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI, BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054. BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054—2011. (ii) NOMINAL-INDEX VOLUME-V, PART-I Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chelsford Club Ltd. ......................... 251 SEPTEMBER, 2011 Chirag Jain v. CBSE & Ors.................................................................. 267 AGR Investment LTD. v. ADDL. Commissioner of Gian Singh & Another v. High Court of Delhi & Ors.......................... 280 Income Tax and anr ........................................................................ 1 Harish Chander Malik v. Vivek Kumar Gupta & Others ...................... 293 Prem Prakash Chaudhary & ors. v. Rajinder Mohan Rana & ors. ......... 22 Suresh Batra & Ors. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India........... 334 Hindustan Vidyut Products LTD. v. Delhi Power Co. Ltd. & anr. ........ 36 Pratap Singh v. Chief of Army Staff And Ors. ................................... 339 Deepak Sharma v. State of Delhi ........................................................... 40 ITD Cementation India LTD v. National Thermal Power Sheikh Anis Ahmad v. State & Ors. ...................................................... 55 Corporation LTD. & Ors. .............................................................. 345 Mohd. Badal v. State .............................................................................. 82 Smt. Hanso Devi (Deceased) Through LRS. v. Sh. Chandru (Deceased) Through LRS.............................................................. 365 Prem Singh Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation ........................... 92 Advance Television Network Ltd. v. The Registrar of Companies ..... 380 Union of India & Ors. v. Jugeshwar Dhrva......................................... 107 United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals R.K. Arora v. Air Liquide India Holding Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ................... 121 Ltd. And Ors. ................................................................................. 388 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sh. Sultan Singh & Ors. ............... 128 Sh. Ripu Daman Haryal & Anr. v. Miss Geeta Chopra & Anr. ........... 406 National Council For Teacher Education & Anr. v. G.D. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Akram Hussain & Ors. ... 437 Memorial College of Education...................................................... 147 AK HAB Europe BV v. Whitefields International Private Limited Anr. ................................................................................... 162 K.L. Noatay v. UOI & Ors. ................................................................. 167 Shashi Kohli v. Director of Education and Anr. .................................. 196 United Brothers v. Aziz Ulghani & Anr. ............................................... 208 Shri Brij Pal Singh v. CBI ..................................................................... 220 (i) (iv) SUBJECT-INDEX Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. The plea VOLUME-V, PART-I of the respondents that they are performing the higher duties SEPTEMBER, 2011 for long years for want of a regular promotion on officiating basis, and having discharged the duties of higher post by ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985—The Petitioner, resorting to “quantum meruit rule”, held that they are entitled has challenged the order dated 29th January, 2010 passed by for emoluments of the higher post. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A No.1317/2009 titled “Sh’Sultan Singh & Ors v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sh. Sultan Singh Municipal Corporation of Delhi” directing the petitioner to & Ors. ............................................................................. 128 examine the claim of the respondents on the basis of the ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996—S.34— evidence produced before the Tribunal and thereafter process Arbitral Award—Non—Joinder of necessary party—An payment of difference of pay of the post held and duties application for appointment of Arbitrator was filed on the discharged by the respondents on the higher post of Garden failure of Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) to appoint an arbitrator— Chaudhary, if the claim of the respondents was found to be Arbitrator was appointed Arbitral award passed in favour of genuine and order dated 7th October, 2010 in review appellant—Award was challenged by two respondents—In application No.270/2010 dismissing the review application— appeal before the Division Bench only objectors were The respondents filed a writ petition being W.P(C) No.10158- impleaded—An application was filed by BSES Rajdhani Power 86/2005 praying for a direction to pay difference of wages Ltd. for impleadment—Opposed by appellant—Court of Malies/Chowkidars and that of Garden Chaudhary from the expressed opinion that appeal not maintainable in the absence date the respondents have been performing the duties and of all parties before Arbitral Tribunal—However, appellant responsibilities of Garden Chaudhary—They are entitled for continued to object to impleadment application—Held—An the difference in salaries between Malies/Chowkidars and order which may adversely affect a person should not be Garden Chaudharies—The writ petition filed by the respondent passed in their absence—Despite opportunity granted to was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and was appellant, appellant failed to implead all parties who may be registered as T.A No.1317/2009 titled “Sultan Singh & Ors affected by the outcome of the appeal—Appeal not v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi”—It is contended by the maintainable—Dismissed. petitioner that any appointment made without the recommendation of DPC is not valid and the appointment made Hindustan Vidyut Products LTD. v. Delhi Power Co. by Deputy Director (Horticulture) was not competent—The Ltd. .................................................................................... 36 claim of the respondents have always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the CENTRAL BOARD FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION Garden Chaudhary as they were made to work on the post EXAMINATION BYE-LAWS—Rule 69.2—Change/ of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied Correction in Birth Certificate—Petitioner’s request for change that they worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea of date of birth in his class 10th certificate was rejected by that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not competent CBSE-Date was from the previous school records—Petitioner to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and claimed that his parents had inadvertently furnished wrong that the respondents cannot be appointed to the post of Garden date—Correct date was mentioned in certificate issued by (iii) NDMC and passport—Respondent also contended that only (v) (vi) typographical errors are to corrected. Held—Petitioner cannot witness fails to prove the attestation or that propounder take be allowed to sleep over the mistake-repeating it throughout active part in execution of Will which confers substantial his academic career-period of limitation of two years provided benefit on him/her it would lead to suspicion which has to be in the bye law—Reasonable time-to take notice of a explained by satisfactory evidence—Even registration of Will discrepancy—Getting an entry corrected in the certificates is did not dispense with need of proving the execution and not a vested right and is subject to limitations—Hard to believe attestation—Respondent herself relied and based her case that the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner would keep upon Section 63 (c) of Indian Succession Act and Section committing the mistake in furnishing the date of birth. 68 of Indian Evidence Act which are mandatory for Will to be legally valid—Further held—The appellate court has no Chirag Jain v. CBSE & Ors. ....................................... 267 power to make out a new case not pleaded before the trial CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908—Order 14 Rule 2— Court—Decision of appellate court cannot be based on Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937—Letter grounds outside the plea taken before trial court—Trial Court of administration sought regarding Will dated 20.11.1984— pronounced judgment on only one issue; as per order 14 Rule Third respondent contested the