Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments

Hari Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this application, the applicant has challenged the validity of the order passed by the respondents dated 30.6.1994 removing him from service and the order dated 16.1.1995 passed by the appellate authority rejecting his appeal.2. The above impugned orders have been passed by the respondents after holding a disciplinary proceeding against the applicant based on the charge-sheet issued to him dated 5.12.1987. Mr. S.L. Hans, learned Counsel for the applicant, has challenged the validity of the charge-sheet on a number of grounds. One of the grounds taken by the learned Counsel is that it is not only vague but it is a second charge-sheet or rather a third charge-sheet issued to the applicant after cancelling the earlier two charge-sheets issued to him by order dated 26.11.1979 and 21.2.1983. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the article of charge as well as the statement of imputations of misconduct for both the charged memorandum are identical and there was no just...

Hindustan Trading Corpn. and M/S. United Engineers Vs. Mtnl and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT399; 1998(47)DRJ485

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Suit Nos. 2822/A/95, 2905/95 and CCP 1/96. The petitioner Hindustan Trading Corporation and M/s. United Engineers, have filed these petitions under Section 20 read with sections 5 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in which the petitioners have prayed that the respondent Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, (for short, MTNL), be directed to file the arbitration agreement dated 21st December, 1995. It is further submitted that the disputes and differences, have arisen between the parties and be referred to the arbitration by appointing an arbitrator. The disputes enumerated are set out as under:-'(i) Whether the defendant can terminate the contract and declare the plaintiff firm black-listed and their further business be banned with MTNL, in view of the said Show Cause Notice dated 13.9.1995? (ii) Whether defendant No. 2 can terminate the contract of the plaintiff by only giving Show Cause Notice as contained in letter dated 13.9.1995...

Baleshwar Dass Raizada Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ493; (1998)120PLR52

M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 filed by the petitioner praying for appointment of an impartial and independent arbitrator by the court to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes arising between the parties and as set out under paragraph 'K' of the petition.2. A contract agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 for providing external electrification work for multistoreyed building of respondent No. 1 at Kanpur (UP). It is stated in the application that the aforesaid work was to be executed at Kanpur (UP) and the same was awarded to the petitioner by the Chief Engineer, Lucknow at Delhi by a Regd.A.D. letter dated 22nd January,1996. It is also stated that in respect of the aforesaid contract agreement executed by the petitioner certain disputes, as enumerated under paragraph 'K' of the petition, have arisen and, thereforee, the same are to be adjudicated upon and deeded by the ar...

Kishan Chand, Engineers and Contractors Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ391

M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent No.1 for 'Construction of bridge at Trunk Drain No.1 at RD 3890 M'. In respect of the aforesaid work contract, disputes arose between the parties and accordingly the appropriate authority under the contract appointed the respondent No.2 as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes.2. Parties filed their respective claims and documents in support of their claims and counter claims and the arbitrator made and published his award on 28.8.1985. In pursuance of an application filed in this Court under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitrator has filed the award in this Court as against which an objection was filed by the respondent No.1 namely, LA. No. 7908/1987. The petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid objection and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:1. Whether the award dated 19.1.1985 rendered by the sole arbitrator, respondent No.2, is liable...