Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments

Smt. Preeti Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant challenges an order dated 7.1.1998 (Annexure A-1) rejecting the applicant's request for cancellation of her posting at Doordarshan Kendra (in short DDK) Bareilly, and seeks a direction to adjust her as Programme Executive against one of the vacant posts available at DDK Delhi.2. The grounds taken by her are as follows-- other lady officers were retained at the same station after promotion there are four vacancies of Programme Executives at DDK Delhi and her case has been recommended by her immediate superior. She says that one Shri Amar Nath Amar promoted along with her has been retained at Delhi and the same consideration had not been extended to her. She has cited the latest instructions of the Ministry of Personnel dated 12th June, 1997 (Annexure A-6) under which wife and husband are to be kept at the same place unless the exigencies of service demand otherwise. It is stated that in Bareilly there are four posts of Programme Executive and the contention that her po...

V.C. Ramulu Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd and Irs.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)357; 72(1998)DLT626; 1998(45)DRJ172

JudgmentDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3.2.1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service of the Company with immediate effect as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 6.5.1997. 2. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, I am of the opinion, that this writ petition could be disposed of on a very short point raised by the petitioner that disposal of his appeal by the Appellate Authority is not in accordance with law and vocative of the specific Rules and also the principles of natural justice.3. My attention has been drawn to the order dated 6.5.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority. The relevant portion of the said order being paragraph 2 is extracted below :'As the Appellate Authority, I had called for and seen all the papers and records of the case including the proceedings of the enquiry. I have given a very careful thought to the case and particularly t...

Sikander Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)450; 1998CriLJ3026; 1998(3)Crimes69; 72(1998)DLT547; 1998(45)DRJ360

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Session Judge, Delhi dated 10.11.1976 convicting the appellant under sections 392/397/34, IPC, and sentencing the appellant to undergo seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, a further R.I. for six months.2. Brief facts are recapitulated as under:-A three-wheeler scooter (for short scooter) having registration no.DHB 526 stood registered in the name of Harnam Dass. He was having a permit from the authority for plying the scooter on hire and was later on purchased by Hari Kishan, PW-6, who in turn had given the scooter for plying to Parshotam Lal, complainant, PW-5.3. In the intervening night of September 12/13, 1972 at about 11.30 P.M. Parshotam Lal's scooter was hired by two boys. According to the description as given by the complainant, one of them was quite tell and was about 26-27 years of age and had a thin physique, dark whitish complexion wearing a pant and...

Jai Kishan Vs. Sh. Mehar Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)730; 73(1998)DLT269

K.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of IAs 6424/97 & 9492/97 both filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff filed suit inter-alia alleging that under an agreement to sell dated 10.7.96 defendants agreed to sell their land comprised in Khasra No.59/22 (4-16), (234-16) & 24/1 (0-12), total measuring 10 bighas and 4 bids was situated in village Nangal Thakaran valued at the rate of Rs. 9, 30,000/- per acre. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants by way of advance/earnest money. As per the said agreement to sell the defendant were to obtain on objection certificate under the Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 and Income Tax Clearance certificate for the purpose of executing sale deed of the land contracted to besold to the plaintiff. Sale deed was to be executed within a year from thedate of the execution of the said agreement to sell. It is further alleged that after repeated repr...

Dinesh Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998CriLJ4546; 1998(45)DRJ73

N.G. Nandi, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is directed against the conviction recorded and sentence imposed for the offence under Section 302 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in FIR No.253/89 Police Station Okhla Industrial Area-II whereby the appellant convict Dinesh Kumar has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for committing the murder of his minor son Sanket in the incident which took place between 6 PM of 1.12.1989 and 10 AM of 2.12.1989.2. The prosecution case, as revealed from the record, is that the appellant/convict Dinesh Kumar lived with his wife Saroj Bala and two sons Sanket (since deceased) and Ankit at House No.581, Gali No.6, Gobind Puri, New Delhi; that Saroj Bala on 10.5.1986 married with Dinesh mar; that two sons Sanket @ Ginny on 16.3.1987; and Ankit on 12.10.1988 were born from the said wedlock; that since some time prior to 1.12.1989, Saroj Bala and Dinesh...

Ranvir Saran Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)897; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)4; 1999CriLJ1082; 72(1998)DLT576; 1998(45)DRJ262

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1997. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this revision petition are recapitulated as under: 2. On 20.5.1987 a team of Food Inspectors visited the Kirana Shop of the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the petitioner purchased 550 gms of Anardana whole for analysis. The sample was divided into three parts after mixing properly the food article in accordance with the PFA Act and Rules. In accordance with the PFA Act and Rules, the process of packing, marking, fastening, sealing, etc. was also completed. The report of the Public Analyst stated that sample does not conform to the standard as per Section 2(ix) as the food article has been kept in insanitary condition as sample contained large number of Rodent Excreta (361/Kg and hair 13 per Kg.). Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Section 2(ia...

Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT798

C.M. Nayar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the objections filed by the respondent Union of India under Sections 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Award dated August 11, 1995.2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants entered into an Agreement with the respondent Union of India for construction of Main Athletic Stadium at Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi-SH: Structural RCC Framework Group-I vide Agreement No. EE/CI/AG/80-81/I. The disputes and differences arose between the parties and Mr. S.S. Juneja, Arbitrator in the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment New Delhi was appointed by the Chief Engineer (NDZ) I CPWD, New Delhi under his letter No. 4(32)83-A&C;(NDZ) dated July 15, 1991 as Sole Arbitrator to decide and make the Award regarding the disputes falling within the purview of Clause 25 of the Agreement executed between the parties. The claimants filed the statement of claims containing 14 claims and the respondents filed the counter statement of...

Lt. Col. B.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 73(1998)DLT181

K. Ramamoorty, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in not permitting him to proceed on voluntary retirement from Army service towards the end of 1998 or early 1999 and the action of the respondents in shifting him from Delhi to outside. The petitioner wants to be in Delhi till he is permitted voluntary retirement from service. The main grounds on which the petitioner seeks relief are that he comes under low medical category, that he was already superseded because of his being a low medical category, that he had already worked in Wireless Experimental Centre from November, 1989 to March, 1992 and he is entitled to continue in Delhi in Wireless Experimental Centre which, according to him, is the Headquarters of the entire department. 2. The Petitioner has filed Annexure P-1 which is the proceedings of the Medical Board. In this the percentage of disability is shown as composite 40%. His condition is to be reviewed on 24.7.1996. The ...

Shree Durga Construction Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 72(1998)DLT794; 1998(45)DRJ291

C.M. Nayar, J. 1. This petition will dispose of the objections filed by the respondents-DDA in respect of the Award dated June 28, 1993.2. The petitioner-claimant was granted the contract for construction 1200 MIG DU's (New Pattern) at Vikaspuri Bodella Pkt. DG II(i) 304 MIG Gr.II and IV (ii) 336 MIG Gr.IV SH: Building work including Earth work, B risk work, C.C.work, Steel work, RCC work finishing sanitary installation and water supply (Balance work), vide Agreement No. 33/EE/HDXIII/86-87. Disputes arose between the claimant and the Respondent Authority which were referred to arbitration by Engineer Member, Delhi Development Authority vide his No. EM2 (116)90/Arbn/517-21 dated 11.1.91.3. The following claims were referred tc the Arbitrator for adjudication:'Claim No. 1 Claim for a sum of Rs. 20,654/- on account of recovery of rebate which respondents deducted for payment of monthly bills required for availing of rebate but which condition was not adhered to by respondents. Claim No. 2...

Avon Services Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT144TriDel

1. The single issue for consideration in this case is whether "fire fighting foam compound, manufactured from horn and hoof meal of animals" merits classification under Chapter 5 as products of animal origin not elsewhere specified or under chapter sub-heading 3801.90 (as it then stood) as other miscellaneous products of the chemical or allied industries.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Advocate arguing the case for the appellants first argued the miscellaneous application for admission of additional evidence in the form of various certificates from persons concerned with the activity of fire fighting as also the buyers of the appellants' products. The various certificates state that the subject goods are carried in fire tenders and not used in fire extinguishers.After hearing both sides, the certificates were taken on record.3. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR for the Revenue.4. Shri Gopal Prasad referring to the additi...