Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

Diwaker Sharma Vs. University of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)184

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This is the second round of litigation preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner was engaged as a Clerk with Respondent No. 2, namely, Deshbandhu College, on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 4.9.1992. Thereafter, he was given ad hoc appointment as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist (JACT) on 5.1.1993. This ad hoc appointment was for limited period of four months, which was extended from time to time. This extension continued for few years presumably for the reason that no steps were taken to fill-up the post on regular basis. During this period a number of representations were made by Karamchari Union of the College requesting that petitioner be regularised. However, on 1.9.98 petitioner received a letter dated 17.8.98 whereby he was called for test/interview on 4.9.98 along with about 700 persons. This step was taken to fill-up the post for regular post. On 3.9.98 petitioner filed CWP No. 4497/98 in this Court which was disposed of on 16.9.98 when following order was passed :'Counsel ...

India Tourism Development Centre Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court X ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)10; 2000(53)DRJ10; [2000(85)FLR244]; (2000)IILLJ152Del

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as workman, for short) was employed as Masalchi in the Kitchen of Ashoka Hotel (hereinafter referred to as Management, for short) which is managed by the petitioner -ITDC. Chargesheet was issued to the workman in March 1984 alleging that workman remained absent unauthorisedly. Departmental enquiry was held as per which he was found guilty of the charges framed against him and resultantly his services were terminated by the management vide order dated 13th June, 1984. Workman raised industrial dispute challenging his termination which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court (respondent No. 1) with the following terms of reference:'Whether the termination of services of Shri Boman is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'2. On receipt of reference the Labour Court registered it as ID No. 275/96 (later re-numbered as ID 1614/95). The wo...

Ramesh and ors. Vs. M.C.D.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)261; 83(2000)DLT682

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. All the petitioners are working as Safai Karamcharis with respondent MCD. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are brothers, petitioner No.3 is the wife of petitioner No.2, petitioner No.4 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.5 is the: sister-in-law of petitioner No. 1. They are aggrieved against order dated 25.5.1998 transferring them to different places. There is no dispute that the services of the petitioners can be transferred from one place to another place as per their service condition. However transfer order is challenged on the ground that the same is passed in a malafide manner. The petitioners were posted at village Chattarpur Delhi which is their place of residents also. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner No. 1 made a complaint to Anti-corruption Branch of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi that his senior Shri Sriniwas Sharma, Assistant Sanitary Inspector is demanding a bribe from him. On 9.12.1997, the police laid a ...

Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar Garg.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)284; 2000(2)ARBLR227(Delhi); 85(2000)DLT567

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. By this judgment/order I shall dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 109(2) of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act as against the order dated 30.12.1997 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks. By the aforesaid order the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dismissed the opposition filed by the petitioner herein and accepted the application of the respondent for registration.2. On 22.6.1979, Shri Pramod Kumar Garg trading as M/s. Prakash Agricultural Industries (India), Agra, U.P. filed an application before the Trade Mark Registry seeking for registration of the trade mark 'SWARAJ' (word per se) in respect of Diesel Oil Engines (not for land vehicles), hand water pumps and parts thereof included in clause 7 for sale in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar and Haryana. In the said application the respondent claimed the user of the mark applied for since 1.6.1975. The said application was ordered to be advert...

Workman Suraj Bhan, Sumitra Devi and ors. Vs. D.T.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 83(2000)DLT443; [2000(85)FLR361]; (2000)IILLJ1590Del

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner Sumitra Devi is the Legal Representative of Shri Suraj Bhan who was working with Delhi Transport Corporation (D.T.C.). On 19.6.1990 he was relieved of his services by DTC as he was continuously absent and maximum sanction able leave had also elapsed. Shri Suraj Bhan protested against his removal from service in the aforesaid manner and when DTC did not accede to his request for reinstating him, he raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication with the following terms.'Whether Sh. Suraj Bhan himself abandoned his job on his services were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management and if so what relief is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regards ?'2. On receipt of the reference, Labour Court proceeded to adjudicate upon the matter. After the pleadings were over and issues were framed, matter was fixed for evidence of Shri Suraj Bhan on 29.6.94. However, Shri Suraj Bhan or his authorised representative did...

Air India Vs. M/S. R.K. Tours and Travels P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 85(2000)DLT843; (2000)126PLR17

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J. 1. This is an application filed by the defendant seeking leave to defend in a summary suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for recovery of Rs. 21,12,384/-. The suit is based on an acknowledgement-cum-promise made in letter dated August 16, 1991 given by the defendant to the plaintiff when a sum of Rs. 6,46,404/- was paid as part payment and another sum of Rs. 20,46,992/- was to be paid in two installments which it is alleged was not paid.2. Plaintiff is engaged in the business as carrier by air of passengers and is a member of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). At the request of the defendant and with the approval of the IATA, the defendant was appointed as an approved sale agent w.e.f. 30.9.1990. As such agent and in accordance with IATA rules, plaintiff had given stocks of tickets for sale to the defendant. The defendant was required to furnish fortnightly statements of accounts of the sale made along with a che...

Sumedha Nagpal Vs. State of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2001)DMC491

Devinder Gupta, J.1. Preliminary objection as regards territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus has been raised by learned Counsel for the respondents.2. On 24.8.1999 the petitioner approached this Court seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus for production and restoration of her 20 months old child. It was alleged that her marriage with respondent No. 2 took place on 15.10.1996 at Delhi. A male child was born on 15.11.1997 in Mool Chand Hospital at New Delhi. Parties had been residing at Delhi. Relations between the petitioner and the respondent became strained because of alleged cruel behavior of respondent No. 2 towards petitioner. On 7.4.1999 petitioner was severely thrashed by respondent No. 2 and turned out of the house. Petitioner had to take shelter at her parents' house at Delhi. On 20.5.1999 she had to lodge a complaint at Police Station Sarai Rohilla of the repeated threats of abduction of her child by respondent No. 2. On 6.6.1999...

Ramesh and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ78

A.K. Sikri, J.1. All the petitioners are working as Safai Karamcharis with respondent MCD. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers, petitioner No. 3 is the wife of petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 4 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 5 is the sister-in-law of petitioner No. 1. They are aggrieved against order dated 25.5.1998 transferring them to different places. There is no dispute that the services of the petitioners can be transferred from one place to another place as per their service condition. However transfer order is challenged on the ground that the same is passed in a mala fide manner. The petitioners were posted at village Chattarpur Delhi which is their place of residence also. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner No. 1 made a complaint to Anti-corruption Branch of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi that his senior Shri Sriniwas Sharma, Assistant Sanitary Inspector is demanding a bribe from him. On 9.12.1997, the police laid a t...

Z.U. Alvi Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT69TriDel

1. For a proper understanding of the facts and circumstances of this case we feel that some background history has to be stated. M/s. BHEL is a Government of India Undertaking. They are engaged in the manufacture of heavy and sophisticated electrical and electronic equipment and machinery. Virtually in all the contracts entered into between BHEL and the Customers a Clause is included indicating the liability to make goods by replacement or repair the goods that suffer loss or damage. This Clause is called Warranty Clause in the contract.This Clause is operational for a period of 12 months from the date of commissioning of the equipment or 18 months from the date of despatch whichever is earlier. In terms of the pricing policy a sum equal to 2.5% of the estimated factory cost are reserved for Warranty obligations. BHEL was paying duty on the contractual value of the machinery at the time of clearance. In other words duty was also paid on 2.5% set apart for warranty replacements, even t...

Dr. D. Bora and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This OA has been filed by the Central Health Service Regularly Appointed Doctors' Forum (hereinafter) referred to as to 'the regular doctors') impugning the order passed by respondents dated 8.12.1998 granting non-functional selection grade (hereinafter referred to as 'the selection grade') to the Central Health Service doctors who though initially appointed on adhoc basis were regularised on the basis of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. P.P. C. Rawani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1992) 1 SCJ 221=(1992) I SC331=1992(1) SLJ 69 (SC) (hereinafter referred to as 'the regularised doctors').2. The main contention of the applicants is that respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 8.12.1998 has violated the directions given by the Apex Court in Dr. Rawani's case (supra). The case of the applicants is that they are doctors who had been selected and appointed through the UPSC in accordance with the relevant rules. As per the Supreme Court's orders in Rawani...