Delhi Court August 2001 Judgments

Shri Chander Mohan Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT379; 2001(60)DRJ159

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. In the present writ petition, the dismissal of the petitioner's OA.No.1390/93 vide orders dated 19th March, 1999 by Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) is under challenge.2. The petitioner, a Constable in Delhi Police was posted as PSO at the residence of a Supreme Court Judge. On 11th May, 1991, while he was on duty, at about 5.00 PM he stopped an escort car near Kothi No.10, Krishna Menon Lane, New Delhi which was returning from 'E' Block, Security Lines at Krishna Menon Marg. He asked the two Constables in the car as to from where they were coming and when he was told that they were coming after collecting their meals, he took and opened the tiffin and finding Dal therein, questioned as to why they did not bring Paneer and fired one round from his service revolver on the tiffin. The bullet pierced the tiffin and went in air. The petitioner thereafter escaped. A preliminary enquiry was held. He was also not found on duty on that evening ...

Shri Surinder Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT542; 2002(62)DRJ58; 2001(78)ECC49; 2002(139)ELT24(Del)

ORDERKhan, (J)1. There is much ado about nothing. Petitioner wants copies of pre-recorded statements of enlisted witnesses under Section 108 of the Customs Act to prepare his reply to the charge sheet issued to him but respondents are resisting his demand. As a result, he has failed to file his written statement and respondents have proceeded to appoint Enquiry and Presentation Officers. 2. Petitioner was working as Additional Commissioner (Customs) at relevant time in 1989-90 but was issued charge-sheet dated 5.11.1999 allegedly after 10 years or so charging him of some misconduct and requiring him to submit his written statement within 10 days. He made representations requesting for supply of copies of previously recorded statements of enlisted witnesses which was turned down by respondents. He felt aggrieved and filed OA No.906/01 seeking quashment of the charge-sheet and filed MA No.1190/2001 also along with for direction to respondents to supply him these copies and not to appoint...

Union of India Vs. Mr. Suresh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT594; 2001(60)DRJ368; (2002)ILLJ323Del

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CW.No. 375/99 and CW.No.419/99 directed against two separate orders dated 4th December, 1998 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal) by which the orders of the Disciplinary Authority followed by the order of the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority imposing a penalty of removal from service of Suresh and Chatra Pal were set aside in two writ petitioners.2. Respondent No.1 was a casual labour working under I.O.2./BALMAU, Moradabad Division of Indian Railways (in short as IOW/BLM). Suresh claimed to be engaged as such from 1st April,1978 up to 28th February,1982. Whereas Chatra Pal claimed to be engaged as such from 4th October, 1977 to 30th March,1982. The Divisional Railway Manager, respondent No.2 invited applications for the post of substitute Loco Cleaner, the pre-condition of which was that the applicant should have been working prio...

Shri Daya Nand and Another Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT563; 2002(61)DRJ583

ORDERKhan, (J)1. Petitioners, Constable in Delhi Police, were dismissed from service on a charge of gang raping a woman by order dated 19.7.1993 after dispensing with the enquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. FIR No. 289/93 was also registered against them under Sections 366/376/506. One of the petitioners (petitioner No.2) challenged his dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) in OA No.1729/94 but failed on 15.3.1995. Meanwhile, both petitioners were discharged by Trial Magistrate vide order dated 4.10.1996 as no prima facie incriminating evidence was found against them. Encouraged by this, they filed OA No.568/97 and sought quashment of their dismissal order dated 19.7.1993 and their reinstatement in service on the strength of their order of discharge in the criminal case, invoking Rule 12 of Delhi Police (P & A) Rules, 1980 in the process.2. Tribunal dismissed their OA by impugned order dated 21.9.2000, holding that Rule 12 had no application in the matter. They have now fi...

Ms. Geeta Mahadevan Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT102; 2002(61)DRJ540

ORDERKhan, (J)1. Respondents issued advertisement dated 28.4.1995 inviting applications for two posts of Scientist-B presenting the following essential qualifications to be possessed by the candidates:-(i) First Class (with not less than 65% marks) M.Sc. in Chemistry with Associateship in Information Science or M.Phil/Ph.D. in Science Communication with basic Master's degree in Chemistry.(ii) Two years of experience in editing of scientific and technical literature.(iii) Candidate should be able to work with computers using word processing and editing softwares.2. It also provided that candidates would be short-listed by a duly constituted Screening Committee and that their applications complete in all respects received latest by 8.6.1995.3. Petitioner, a Senior Technical Assistant, working with R-3 responded to this and applied for the post also allegedly informing respondents that she was shortly to complete M.Phil. in Science Communication which would make her eligible for the post....

Shri Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT788; 2001(60)DRJ708

ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Plaintiffs are the sons of Shri Bahadur. They have filed the present suit for a declaration that details and order of Shri G S Dhaka, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 16th May, 1986 so far as it holds that bhoomidari rights granted to Shri Bahadur are incorrect and plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation, should be declared to be null and void. A consequential relief is prayed to pay to the plaintiffs the compensation of the land to the plaintiffs.2. The facts alleged are that plaintiffs claimed they are the heirs of Shri Bahadur while defendants 4 to 8 are the heirs of Prem Chand. Earlier there was a joint khatta of 314 bighas 6 bids was which constituted 72 parts. Prem Raj was adopted by Hira Singh. Prem Chand filed a civil suit and in appeal it was held that Prem Chand was not the adopted son of Shri Rugan. On basis of a will he was declared to be the successor of Shri Rugan. It was thereforee held that sons of Shri Bahadur had been declared to be ...

M/S Indo Canadian Transport Co. Vs. Airports Authority of India and Ot ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(1)CTLJ76(Del); 98(2002)DLT618

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. Pursuant to a notice of May, 2000 inviting tender the petitioner was awarded a license on 5th July 2000 (valid for 3 years) after an advance deposit of RS.9,06,000/- (six months license fees) and a payment of monthly license fees of Rs.1,51,000/- for the first year, Rs.66,100/- for the second year and Rs.1,82,710/- for the third year for running a luxury bus service form the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi to Amritsar and vice cersa. The petitionr's grievance arises from what is averred to be unauthorised and unlicensed operation by respondent No.4 whose agents solicit business by entering into the arrival lounge of the airport and entice away the petitioners's prospective customers. This has caused heavy losses to the petitioner. The entire operations of respondents No.4 have been termed to be illegal and contrary to several regulations of the Airport Authority of India (Management of Airport) Regulations 1992. The petitioner has unsuccessfully ...

Sudhir Batra Trading as Mech (India) Vs. Arjies Aluminum Udyog

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT876

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Sudhir Batra Trading as Mech (India) has filed a suit against the defendant/respondent (Arjies Aluminum Udyog) seeking to restrain the defendant from selling or offering from sale or advertising the aluminum door and widow fittings or any other goods made of ferrous/non ferrous metal under the trade mark ARJIES. According to the plaintiff it amounts to infringement of his trade mark No. 479648 ARCHIS. It also seeks to restrain the defendant from selling the aluminum doors or other goods as builder's hardware under the trade mark ARJIES.2. The facts alleged are that plaintiff is using the distinctive mark ARCHIS. It was adopted by him in the year 1981 and has been used continuously since then. He is the proprietor of the trade mark ARCHIS. In order to protect the rights in the aforesaid distinctive trade mark the plaintiff filed an application for registration. The said application was advertised in the trade mark general of 1st June, 1990. There was no objection wit...

Greater Ashoka Land and Dev. Co. (P) Ltd Vs. Asst. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]79ITD595(Delhi)

ORDERSinghal, J.M. The first and the main issue arising out of this appeal relates to the computation of profits in the case of the assessed engaged in the development of land and sale of plots.2. Brief facts of the case are these. A proprietary concern namely M/s Ashoka Land & Development Corporation was engaged in the business of development of land and sale of plots. This business was being carried on since 1963. The assessed-company came into existence on 20-4-1984 with a view to take over the business of the aforesaid proprietary concern. The said business was taken over by the assessed and since then the same is being continued. During the year under consideration, the assessed had sold 49 plots measuring total area of 10489 sq. yards against total consideration of Rs. 23,88,127. Since the assessed had been following the project completion method/Single venture method, it credited the aforesaid consideration to the accounts of the customers and the same was shown as liability in ...

United Enterprises Vs. Special Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. These three appeals arise from a common adjudication order No. SDE (K)/T/1-4/84 dated 25-1-1984 of Special Director of Enforcement Directorate and as such are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellant in Appeal No. 640 of 1986 died on 3-9-1987 as per the certificate of death No. 6688 dated 14-9-1987 issued by Municipal Corporation of greater Bombay. Since the legal representatives of the appellant were not brought on record, this appeal abated in terms of the order of Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board dated 12-7-1989. 3. It is further noted that the respondent initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants herein under section 56, read with section 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d) and 9(1)(e) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (the Act), 1973 vide case Nos. 65, 66/CW of 1985. In both these cases, appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 3 were acquitted vide judgment of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay dated 19-1-1988 and 1-2-1988 r...