Delhi Court July 1999 Judgments

Union of India Vs. M/S. K.D. Krishan Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001ACJ1748; 1999IVAD(Delhi)740; AIR1999Delhi349; 80(1999)DLT412; 1999(50)DRJ446; ILR1999Delhi38

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Union of India against an order dated 18.5.1992 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi Bench allowing an application of the respondent/claimant M/s. K.D. Krishan Lal and directing the Union of India to pay a sum of Rs. 17,111.71 to the respondent/claimant with pendente lite and future interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realisation. CM 632/93 is an application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condensation of the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. 2. First I shall consider and dispose of CM 632/93. The application is supported by an affidavit dated 1.2.1993 and an additional affidavit dated 2.2.1995 of Shri K.N. Srivastava, Assistant Commercial Manager (Courts), Northern Railway. According to the appellant/application the impugned order of the Railway Claims Tribunal was passed on 18.5.1992. The applicant applied for the c...

Kailash Chand Solanki Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)762; 1999CriLJ3813; 80(1999)DLT509; 1999(66)ECC72

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This Petition challenges the detention order dated 1st September, 1998 passed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the 'Act'). 2. It is alleged that on the intervening night of 3rd/4th April, 1998 at about 9.30 PM truck bearing No. MP-23 D/7893 driven by Sher Singh was intercepted by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Jaipur Delhi National Highway near Rajokari and the petitioner was seated in the truck at that time. 273 packages were loaded in the truck and detailed examination of those packages resulted in the recovery of bearings, cosmetics, rechargeable Ni-Cd (Nickel Cadmium) Pencil batteries, glass wares, torch-cum-key rings and microwave oven wares etc., all of foreign origin and collectively valued at Rs. 82,96,900/-. On demand neither said Sher Singh nor petitioner could produce any document for legal importat...

J.R. Jindal Vs. Family Planning Association of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)747; 2000CriLJ287; 80(1999)DLT464; 1999(50)DRJ451; ILR1999Delhi49

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner was elected President of the Family Planning Association of India, New Delhi Branch (respondent No. 1) in the elections held on 30.12.1994. Respondents 2 to 8 were elected Members of the Executive Committee. Pursuant to certain allegations against the petitioner, the Executive Committee of respondent No. 1 constituted a three members committee to enquire into the allegations and the said committee on 8.1.1996 submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of nine charges. In the Extraordinary meeting of the Executive Committee held on 9.1.1996 the report of the three members committee was considered and a resolution was passed to take action against the petitioner under Rules of the Association. A 'No Confidence Resolution' also was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injuction (S. No. 219/96) in the High Court of Delhi praying for a decree declaring that the Extraordinary Meeting of the Executive Committee ...

Ramesh Chand Sahni Vs. Mrs. Geeta Madhok and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)878; 82(1999)DLT485

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Applicants/respondents are seeking review of the order of this Court in C.M.(M) No.108/96 decided on 19th February, 1997. 2. The main grievance against the said order as expressed by the applicants are that non-applicant, petitioner in Civil Misc. (Main), concealed important and material facts from this Court. The present applicants were not aware of those facts which as concealed by the respondents herein because the applicants were not party to the recovery of rent suit. The facts which have been concealed by the respondents herein according to the applicants are that Smt. Bimla Rani owner of the property bearing No.113, Shankar Road Main Market, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, in the rent recovery suit proved through the hand-writing expert that documents had been forged by the present respondent. Report of the hand-writing expert was in favor of Smt. Bimla Rani and against the respondent herein. By the said report the hand-writing expert proved that signature and i...

Aasim Khan Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)581; 86(2000)DLT378

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by denial of admission to M.B.A. course for the session 1998-99 in the respondent University - Jamia Millia Islamia and he seeks a direction to the respondent University to admit him to the said course. 2. According to the averments in the petition the petitioner took the degree of B.Sc. (physics) from the respondent University in the year 1992. He took M.Sc. degree in physics from the respondent University in the year 1994. He did the B.Ed. course in the respondent University in the year 1997. Thereafter the petitioner applied for admission to the M.B.A. course for the session 1998-99. He appeared in the written test conducted on 22.11.1997. Having qualified in the written test the petitioner was called for interview on 2.1.1998. The first list of 60 selected candidates was published on 12.1.1998. A waiting list also was published by the respondent University. The candidates included in the waiting list were to be considered for adm...

Kanwar Chand Saboo Vs. Prem Kutir Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)833; AIR1999Delhi353; 80(1999)DLT521; 1999(50)DRJ471

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner was a member of respondent No. 1 - Prem Kutir Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited. He challenges the order dated 15.4.1994 passed by respondents No. 2 - the Registrar Co-operative Societies - in exercise of his powers under Rule 25(4) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') holding that the petitioner is disqualified to be a member of respondent No. 1 society and that the petitioner's membership of the said society has ceased.2. The petitioner was a member of respondent No. 1 society. His membership number was 58. It was brought to the notice of the second respondent that the petitioner owned a residential house bearing No. 148, Block-A, Sector-2, Rohini, Delhi and thereby incurred a disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c) of the Rules. Thereupon respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice dated 15.2.1994 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his membership of respondent No. 1 soc...

K.N. Sharma Vs. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 85(2000)DLT269; 2000(54)DRJ777

K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 'It is, thereforee, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to - (a) issue writ of mandamus and certiorari or any other writ; (b) direct the respondent to grant pension benefits to the petitioner from the date of his retirement; (c) to grant interim pension to the petitioner till the disposal of the present petition; 2. The facts of the case have to be recounted in some detail and they are as follows: The petitioner, who died during the pendency of the writ petition, was working in National Bank of Lahore Limited, Delhi. On the 20th of February, 1970, a notification was issued in the Gazette of India, Ministry of Finance, by which the National Bank of Lahore Limited was amalgamated with the State Bank of India. The Scheme for amalgamation provided for, inter alia, absorbing all employees working in National Bank of Lahore. We are not very much concerned with the terms of amalgama...

Sh. Krishan Lal Srivastava and Vs. I.C.A.R. and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants are security guards in National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Pusa Campus, New Delhi. A tender was given to one M/s. Ultra Security Services in 1996 to supply trained security personnel for the security of the building and area under the respondents. According to the applicants, this appointment through a middleman is a form of exploitation and violates Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting employment through contractor of middleman in Govt. Departments. They rely on the following decisions :Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Unions and Ors.,R.K. Panda v. Steel Authority of India, 1995(6) SLR 665 = 1994(3) SLJ 227 (SC). (iv) Satyajit Majumdar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1995(8) SLR 258 = 1996 (1) SLJ 259 (Calcutta--CAT).2. Learned Counsel for the applicants argues that the work in the National Bureau is of perennial nature and satisfies all the tests of Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour Act. He urges that the ...

C.P. Malik and Others Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)1; 1999CriLJ4525; 81(1999)DLT92; II(1999)DMC470; 1999(50)DRJ812; ILR1999Delhi27

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. In this revision the petitioners who have been charged for offences under Sections 306/34 IPC and 498A/34 IPC vide order dated 24-3-98 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, (ASJ) New Delhi have challenged the correctness and legality of the order and the charges framed against them.2. Briefly the facts as appear from the material on record are that Usha Malik (for short Usha), elder sister of the deceased Vaishali, was married to Sanjeev Malik (Petitioner No.3) on 30.1.1990. Petitioners No.1, 2, 4 & 5 are her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth), and sister-in-law (Jethani). Usha has alleged that after her marriage for sometime she lived without trouble in the matrimonial home, but afterwards has been maltreated, beaten and harassed by the petitioners on account of inadequate dowry and demand of money which remained unfulfilled; she was being maltreated to compel her to bring money from her parents; against their demand of Rs.1,00,000/- to ...

Nestle India Ltd. (M/S.) and Others Vs. State and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)9; [2000]101CompCas263(Delhi); 81(1999)DLT283; 1999(50)DRJ846; ILR1999Delhi386

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. The three petitioners have been summoned by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) in a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 for an offence under section 113 of the Companies Act ( for short the Act). In this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code'), they are seeking quashing of the said complaint and the summoning order. The petitioner No. 1 is a company, petitioners No. 2 and 3 are its Managing Director and the Company Secretary respectively. 2. M/s. Food Specialities Limited who was incorporated on 28.3.1959 changed the name of the present petitioner No. 1 which was registered on 29.3.1990. 3. Briefly, the facts as alleged in the complaint are that the Asstt. Registrar of Companies (Delhi & Harayana) had carried out inspection of the records of the petitioner company on 22/23.7.1992 and found the following irregularities/breaches i.e. delay in registering the shares/debentures and remitting to the transferee...