I.L.R. (2011) IV DELHI Part-I (July, 2011) P.S.D. 25.7.2011 (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-4, 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 Fax.: 23817876 MR. CHANDRA SHEKHAR MS. ANU BAGAI MR. GIRISH KATHPALIA MR. SANJOY GHOSE MS. SHALINDER KAUR (ADVOCATES) MR. L.K. GAUR MR. KESHAV K. BHATI MR. V.K. BANSAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR MS. ADITI CHAUDHARY MR. ARUN BHARDWAJ MR. GURDEEP SINGH (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGES) PRINTED BY : J.R. COMPUTERS, 477/7, MOONGA NAGAR, 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—2011. BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054. INDIAN LAW REPORTS (DELHI SERIES) NEW FEATURES 1. I.L.R. (D.S.) has now six volumes each part contains about 500 pages to cover more Judgments. 2. Statute section is also introduced in the I.L.R. (D.S.) to cover rules & regulation relating to Delhi High Court. 3. Annual Subscription rate for I.L.R.(D.S.) Rate for Single Part : Rs. 250/- Rate for Annual Subscription : Rs. 2500/- FOR SUBSCRIPTION PLEASE CONTACT : Controller of Publications Department of Publication, Govt. of India, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. Website: www.deptpub.nic.in Email:[email protected] (&) [email protected] Tel.: 23817823/9689/3761/3762/3764/3765 Fax.: 23817876 (ii) NOMINAL-INDEX M/s. Herbicides (India) Ltd. v. M/s. Shashank Pesticides P. VOLUME-4, PART-I Ltd. and Ors....................................................................................... 259 JULY, 2011 Progressive Career Academy Pvt. Ltd. v. Fiit Jee Ltd. ........................... 286 Pages Anupam Ranjan v. State (C.B.I.) ............................................................. 313 Shree Ram Sharma v. Mohd. Sabir.............................................................. 1 Bajaj Electrical Ltd. v. Dhruv Devansh Investment & Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K.S. Gaur & Ors. .............................. 8 Finance Pvt. Ltd. ............................................................................... 343 Mrs. Anil Nandwani v. Food Corporation of India & Ors. ....................... 22 Yudhvir Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector ........................................... 365 Smt. Gyan Devi Garg v. State & Ors. ....................................................... 32 Chandni Sharma v. Gopal Dutt Sharma ................................................... 373 Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. v. State....................................................................... 35 Shanti Bhushan v. Commissioner of Income Tax ................................... 385 M/s. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satyawati & Others ............. 53 Airport Authority of India v. Delhi Cantonment Board ............................ 409 Rajesh @ Rakesh v. The State ................................................................... 73 M/s. Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Sons v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr. ........................................................................................ 421 Ajay Goswami v. State ............................................................................... 90 Babli Brar v. Adesh Kanwarjit Singh Brar ................................................ 431 Kaushalender v. State ............................................................................... 109 S.K. Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors......................................................... 439 Colonel A.D. Nargolkar v. Union of India and Ors.................................. 114 Balwinder Singh v. Union of India & Anr. ............................................... 165 M/s. Texem Engineering v. M/s. Texcomash Export .............................. 176 Jasdev Singh & Ors. v. Unit Trust of India ............................................. 185 Dr. Prem Lata v. GNCT of Delhi and Ors............................................... 208 Vinod v. The State (NCT of Delhi) .......................................................... 230 Master Shikhar Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ........................ 241 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ramjas Foundation Charitable Trust ................................................................................. 247 (i) NOMINAL-INDEX (iv) VOLUME-IV, PART-I jure or de facto incompetence of Arbitral Tribunal must JULY, 2011 immediately be addressed by Court—Other view is statutorily provided procedure postulates immediate remonstration but a ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996—5, 8, 9, deferred assailment of Award by invocation of Section 34 of 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 36, 37 and 50—Section The Act—Held—Parliament did not want to clothe Courts with 39—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 136—International power to annul Arbitral Tribunal on ground of bias at Arbitration Act, 1974—Section 16(1), 18A—Uniform intermediate stage—Act enjoins immediate articulation of Arbitration Act, 1989—Section 12, 13, 14, 15—UNCITRAL challenge to authority of arbitrator on ground of bias before Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration—Article Tribunal itself and ordains adjudication of this challenge as 13(3)—Ld. Single Judge referred petition to Division Bench objection under Section 34 of A & C Act—Curial interference because of existence of two divergent conceptions—One view is not possible at Pre-Award stage on allegations of bias or is assertions as to de jure or de facto incompetence of Arbitral impartiality of Arbitral Tribunal—Referral order answered. Tribunal must immediately be addressed by Court—Other view is statutorily provided procedure postulates immediate Progressive Career Academy Pvt. Ltd. v. Fiit remonstration but a deferred assailment of Award by Jee Ltd. ............................................................................ 286 invocation of Section 34 of The Act—Held—Parliament did not want to clothe Courts with power to annul Arbitral Tribunal — Section 9, 34, 37—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226— on ground of bias at intermediate stage—Act enjoins immediate Legal propriety of judicial directions for removal of Arbitrators articulation of challenge to authority of arbitrator on ground even before publishing of Award challenged in appeals before of bias before Tribunal itself and ordains adjudication of this Division Bench—Objection lodged to maintainability of appeals challenge as objection under Section 34 of A & C Act—Curial on ground that such remedy of appeal provided only against interference is not possible at Pre-Award stage on allegations granting or refusing to grant interim measures or setting aside of bias or impartiality of Arbitral Tribunal—Referral order or refusing to set aside arbitral award—Per contra plea taken answered. where order is passed de hors The Act, appeal assailing such order be entertained—Held—Aggrieved party could, in Progressive Career Academy Pvt. Ltd. v. Fiit deserving cases, approach Supreme Court under plenary Jee Ltd. ............................................................................ 286 powers contained in Article 136 of Constitution of India— Present appeals are incompetent. — Arbitration Act, 1940—Section 39—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 136—International Arbitration Act, 1974— Progressive Career Academy Pvt. Ltd. v. Fiit Section 16(1), 18A—Uniform Arbitration Act, 1989—Section Jee Ltd. ............................................................................ 286 12, 13, 14, 15—UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration—Article 13(3)—Ld. Single Judge ARMS ACT, 1959—Section 27—Case of prosecution that when referred petition to Division Bench because of existence of PW2 and deceased were together, appellant along with one two divergent conceptions—One view is assertions as to de (iii) (v) (vi) Om Pal, Bijender and Kirpal went and demanded Rs.25/- for sharp edged weapon, one of which was sufficient in the liquor from PW2 and the deceased—On being refused, they ordinary course of nature to cause death—Contradictions in left saying that they would see them—Later in the day, evidence of recovery witnesses very insignificant, considering deceased and PW2 went to Om Pal's house to complain about that same were recorded after more than 13 years—Non- this to his father but Om Pal's father told them he had turned recovery of any incriminating material from an accused cannot him out of the house—When PW2 and deceased returned be taken as ground to exonerate the accused when his home, Kirpal met them and called appellant, Bijender and Om participation in the crime is unfolded in ocular account of the Pal saying that they wanted to talk to PW2 and the deceased— occurrence given by the witnesses whose evidence is found When Kirpal returned there with the said three persons, all of un-impeachable—Merely because arrest of accused persons them were armed with lathies—Om Pal exhorted his took place after a couple of days would not benefit the companions to teach the deceased and PW2 a lesson for defence—Question