Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 3 of about 254 results (0.022 seconds)Nova Steels (India) Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)238; 86(2000)DLT159
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from the complaint filed by the respondent Punjab National Bank under Sections 206/403/406/421 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are: The respondent bank filed a complaint under Sections 206/403/406/421 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC against the petitioner and others on the allegations that the petitioner company had been enjoying cash credit facilities against hypothecation of stock from the respondent bank. Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs . Union of India and others : AIR1996SC2231 , the petitioner had to close down its industrial unit at Shahdara (Delhi). It is alleged that the officials of the petitioner company hatched a criminal conspiracy to defraud the respondent bank and nullify the assurance given to the bank for r...
Tag this Judgment!Surjit Singh Chowdhry Ex-major Vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ749
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The question of law which arises in these two petitions is common. Dispute is not about the validity of the suspension order when passed. However, in both these petitions, petitioners state that suspension is unduly prolonged and thereforee continuation of such a suspension order is challenged as unjustified and illegal. Before delving into this aspect it would be necessary to know the facts of each case. 2. Civil Writ Petition No.3598 of 1998 Petitioner in this case was appointed as Security Officer with the MCD on 18th August, 1983. He was confirmed as Security Officer on 1st January, 1987. However, petitioner was arrested on 24th November, 1993 in a corruption case. F.I.R. 53/93 was registered with Anti Corruption Department u/S. 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the FIR, petitioner had demanded, accepted and obtained Rs. 5000/- as part payment of illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from Shri Jeet Lal Sharma, Security Supervisor, MCD, I. S. Hospital...
Tag this Judgment!V.J. Mohan Rao and Others Vs. U.O.i. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)259; 2000(56)DRJ262
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.CWP BO: 1112-981. Petitioner joined Border Road Development Board (BRDB for short) on 21.4.1969, now a department under the Ministry of Surface & Transport, as Assistant Executive Engineer in the General Engineering Reserve Force (GERF for short). He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 4.7.1983. Central Pay Commission had recommended periodical cadre review of various staff cadres at an interval of 5 years with a view to ensuring reasonable career progression to the employees and at the same time ensure operational efficiency through comprehensive manpower planning. On this basis Border Road Organisations conducted cadre review in Civil Engineering cadre in the GERF on 21.5.1987 and orders were issued for revising the cadre strength vide office order dated 24.5.1987 which were implemented by the Government granting promotion to the various concerned officers. However no such cadre review was conducted in respect of electrical and mechanical cadre of GER...
Tag this Judgment!New Delhi General Mazdoor Union Vs. Government of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ274; [2000(86)FLR352]; (2000)IILLJ1191Del
ORDERA.K.Sikri, J.1. Petition-union has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 13th May, 1998 passed by respondent no.1 whereby it has refused to make reference of the dispute raised by petitioner-union on behalf of its members. Petitioner-union is employee of respondent no.2 namely M/s. Management Development Institute. The petitioner-union raised industrial dispute on behalf of the workers of respondent no.2 seeking their regularisation. The reasons given by respondent No. 1 in its order dared 13th May, 91, refusing to make reference are as under:- 'The establishment against which the statement of claims for regularisation of workmen has been filed is situated in Haryana State and thereforee matter can not be referred for adjudication for want of jurisdiction.'Factual background which led to passing of the aforesaid order by the appropriate Govt. is narrated hereunder:- 2. Respondent no.2 is stated to be the instrumentality of State, had employed several workers thr...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Hindustan Engineering and Gen. Mazdoor Union (Regd) and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)349; (2001)ILLJ27Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. Petitioner No.1 is the registered union and petitioners 2 to 23 claim to be its members. Petitioners 2 to 23 are contract workers engaged by respondent No.3, contractor. Their principle employer is respondent No.2 namely International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Bio-technology. In this petition, petitioners are seeking, interalia, relief to the effect that they be absorbed and regularised by respondent No.2 from the date of their employment as mentioned in Annexure-A to the writ petition. The main contention of the petitioners is that these petitioners are doing the job of sweeping, cleaning etc. in the establishment of respondent No.2 and are engaged on contract basis for this job although it is prohibited by notification dated 9.12.1976 issued by Central Government. Relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation Etc. Vs . United Labour Union & Ors., : (1997)ILLJ1113SC , it is contended that they entitled to be a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajender Lal and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ738; (2001)ILLJ435Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. All these writ petition are filed by contract workers who are engaged by different contractors and all these contractors are/were awarded work by CPWD. All these contract workers in these writ petitions are claiming regular appointment/direct absorption by CPWD as their principle employer. It is not necessary to state facts in each case for the purpose of disposing of these writ petitions. It would be sufficient to mention that these contract workers have been working for varying periods which is as less as 1-2 years and as long as 18-20 years in certain cases. Admittedly every contract worker has worked for more than 240 days. Further, admittedly, no notification has been issued by the 'appropriate Government' u/S. 10 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) for abolishing the contract labour system in the CPWD in respect of the nature of work being undertaken by these contract workers. These writ petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. M/S. Hindustan Super Lights and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)361; 83(2000)DLT284
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. The Decree Holder, Bank of India, had filed this execution petition against the judgment debtors for recovery of the sum of Rs. 2,49,296.96 together with interest @ 9% from 29.10.1976 till realisation. This was pursuant to the compromise decree passed on 17.8.1977, providing for payment of the decretal amount in monthly installments of Rs. 5,000/- each. In case of default in payment of any three installments, the balance decretal amount was recoverable at once. 2. The Execution Petition was filed on 21.5.1980. Appearance was entered on behalf of the judgment debtors by Shri S.P. Manga and Shri P.R. Monga. Warrants of attachment had been issued. Bailable warrants to ensure presence of the judgment debtors were also issued. Initially the warrants of attachment were not effected due to change of residence and of the factory. The proceedings in the execution continued with some payments being made from time to time. 3. On 15.7.1985, the statement of Shri Narender...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. U.O.i. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)397; 86(2000)DLT562; 2000(56)DRJ743
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. In this petition, petitioners are demanding revision in pay scales from retrospective date i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Revision in pay scales have been given to the petitioners but prospectively only i.e. w.e.f. 10.10.1997 when the orders to this effect were issued. 2. Petitioners in this case are working in various ranks namely Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Constable in Para Military Organisations like ITBP, CRPF & BSF as non-gazetted combative cadre of the Central Police Organisations (CPOs in short) being the armed forces of UOI. ITBP, CRPF & BSF are CPOs under the Ministry of Home Affairs, other two being Assam Rifles and CISF. All these 5 CPOs are declared armed forces of the Union by Acts of Parliament. According to the petitioners, IV Central Pay Commission in its recommendations to the Government had suggested that there should be uniformity in the pay scales of the personnel in all these 5 CPOs and it recommended same scale for Delhi Police & CPOs. However while...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Kalra (Major) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)569; 2000(56)DRJ528
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was commanding 203 Army Engineer Regiment as a Lt.Col. in 1972. On 14.11.1972 he was tried and convicted by GCM under sections 47 & 63 of Army Act and was sentenced to forfeiture of seniority of substantive rank of Major for two years and severe reprimand by the GCM vide order dated 22.11.1972. Petitioner was tried on two counts:- (a) That on 26.2.1972 while commanding 203 Army Engineer Regi- ment, petitioner improperly exposed Capt. A.K. Mathur to hazards of sailing knowing well that he had no previous experience of sailing, he was a nonewimmer and was not equipped with life jacket. (b) That on 5.5.1972 petitioner used Criminal Force to Lt. R.K. Sharma of the same regiment by hitting him on the face with a rolled up file. 2. This sentence dated 22.11.1972 was confirmed by respondent No.3 on 3.4.1973. Petitioner preferred an appeal under section 164 of the Army Act to the Chief of Army Staff namely respondent No.2. This was however rejected by responden...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Devi Yadav and anr. Vs. Lt. Col. Gaj Singh Yadav (Retd.) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi424; 2000(56)DRJ734
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is an appeal under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated September 17, 1999 whereby the application of the appellants being I.A.No. 1328/97 in Suit No. 562/75, under Order 23 Rule 3 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for redetermination of the shares of the appellants in property No. 727-737, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi, filed after passing of the Preliminary consent decree dated April 19, 1989, was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows :- 2. Late Shib Sahai, the ancestor of the parties, had three sons, namely, Surat Singh, Nawal Singh and Narain Singh. Shib Sahai died in the year 1938. Naval Singh predeceased him in the 1937. Shib Sahai had only one son Jaswant Singh who married Kamla Devi Yadav. They had a son Tarun Yadav. Jaswant Singh is also not alive and died in the year 1965. Narain Singh died on December 18, 1961. He had four daughters - ...
Tag this Judgment!