Delhi Court September 2001 Judgments

Dr. Y.R. Midha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service has assailed a memorandum issued to him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 21.7.2000 as well as an order passed on 1.9.2000 wherein his request for quashing the chargesheet has been rejected as well as an order passed on 5.10.2000 whereby the disciplinary authority has appointed an inquiring authority to enquire into the charges framed against the applicant.2. Briefly stated the applicant has joined Indian Audit and Accounts Service in 1977 and was promoted as a Director of Audit at Washington and had dealt with sensitive matters and was promoted in the Senior Administrative Grade in 1993. He was posted as Principal Director, Commercial Audit in 1997 and was holding the status of an Ex-Officio Member of Audit Board IV, where physical verification of stocks held in the Godowns of the Food Corporation of India were being conducted under the directions of the respondent No. 3. On 4.7.97 through a Note of the C...

All India Bank of Baroda Officers' Federation and ors. Vs. Bank of Bar ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT345; [2002(92)FLR1128]

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. Appellants 2 and 3, are members of the All India Bank of Baroda Officers Federation (Appellant No.1). They are aggrieved by transfers effected by the Bank of Baroda (Respondent No.1) on 2/3 July, 1999. The transfer were impugned in CW No. 3990/99 and CW No. 3989/99, but the challenge was rejected, resulting in the present Letters Patent Appeal.2. The Bank of Baroda effects transfers of its employees on the basis of Regulation 47 of the Bank of Baroda (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. This reads as under:'Every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the bank or to any place in India.'3. Pursuant to this power of transfer, the Bank of Baroda framed a general policy for transfer of its employees. This is reproduced on page 67 of the appeal paper book and reads as under:-'In Bank of Baroda officers are transferred normally: 1) On Promotion 2) Under Job Rotation 3) For providing Rural/Semi-urban branch experience as required under Regulation ...

Lata Ambwani Vs. Sangeeta Kalra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT541

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Smt. Lata Ambwani (herein after describe as the plaintiff) has filed the present suit for specific performance of the contract for damages and injunction.2. The facts alleged are that plaintiff agreed to purchase the second floor of house No. L-68-B, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi comprising of two bed rooms, bath room, drawing dining, store, kitchen from the defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 16 lakhs. The plaintiff paid the earnest money of Rs. 3 lakhs in cash and Rs. 1 lakh by cheque dated 15th April, 1996. The defendant had acknowledged the receipt of the money of 15th April, 1996 and agreed to complete the sale and execute the sale deed within 32 days after obtaining the necessary permission from the concerned authorities. The defendant also agreed to pay all the dues of the concerned authorities and assured the plaintiff that the property is free from encumbrances and agreed that if she failed to complete the sale deed within 31 days plaintiff would be ...

Ex. Constable Jal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(63)DRJ198

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) (in short the Tribunal) dated 14th July, 1999 in OA.No.1529/93 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the OA upholding the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority.2. The petitioner was a Constable in Delhi Police. he fell sick and applied for leave with medical rest from 26th March, 1991 to 8th April, 1991. He was advised medical rest for 14 days. he failed to report for duty on 9th April, 1991, but he sent telephonic information through his brother for extension of his medical rest for 15 more days on 9th April, 1991. He did not again report on 23rd April 1991, but again an information though his brother was received for further extension of 15 days's medical rest which was also recorded vide DD.No.14/PAP/Line on 23rd April, 1991. After expiry of further 15 days, he neither repo...

S.C. Bajpai Vs. Shahid Bhagat Singh (Evening) College and ors

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT336

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. The pleadings are complete. Since the matter has been argued in detail and at length, I propose to dispose off the Writ Petition by this Order.3. The contention of the Petitioner is that up to 1995 all his dues had been paid by the Respondent College. He was re-employed in 1995 itself and continued up to 31.5.2000. Thereafter, Dr. Satvir Singh succeeded him as the Principal, and as the ex-officio Chairman of the Provident Fund Committee. However, the Provident Fund dues as well as the Leave Encashment benefits for the period of re-employment (1995-2000) have not been released to the Petitioner despite several requests and reminders. Reliance is placed on a meeting of the Government Body of the College held on 5th July, 2000 in which it was resolved as follows:-'Some members raised the issue with regard to release of final dues in respect of Dr. S.C. Bajpai who retired on 31st May, 2000. In this connection, some members objected to the release of P.F. etc. o...

Alice Baldev Singh Vs. Baldev Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT755; I(2002)DMC357; 2002(62)DRJ112

Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against an order of an Additional District Judge dated 29.7.2000 by which an application filed by the petitioner wife for enhancement of the pendente lite alimony was dismissed.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent husband had filed a suit against the petitioner under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act for grant of a decree of judicial separation. It is pending. On the application of the petitioner the court fixed on 27.3.1999 her pendente lite alimony at Rs. 500/- per month. Thereafter on 23.5.2000 she submitted an application for enhancement of her pendente lite alimony on the ground that alimony fixed at Rs. 500/- per month is very low as compared to the monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/- which the respondent is getting. Besides she has to pay electricity bill of Rs. 15000/-, water bill for Rs. 2100/- and incur Rs. 1000/- on maintenance of flat payable to the locality management. She has also to meet house tax liability...

Pradeep Prasad Vs. Canara Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This is an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of the required deposit under that section. The grounds taken, inter alia, are that the respondent Bank's recovery applicatioin was not maintainable against the applicant; that the applicant had retired from the borrower firm in the year 1979; that before his retirement from the borrowing firm there was only one account of M/s. Ventura with Canara Bank, South Extension Branch; that after the applicant's retirement he neither represented M/s. Ventura nor had signed any paper or document of any type regarding the loan, that the applicant had no privity of contract with the respondent Bank; that the claim of the respondent Bank is time-barred as the applicant signed neither any acknowledgement nor documents whatsoever after his retirement from the borrowing firm; that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had already decreed the claim of the Bank against the respondent ...

Surendra Singh Vs. the Manager, Haryana Shakti Sr. Sec. School, Kanjha ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT135; 2002(64)DRJ355

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. Rule.2. An adjournment is prayed for on behalf of Respondent-School on the grounds that Mr. R.S. Tomar is out of station. I have perused the previous proceedings and find that Mr. Tomar has not appeared in this case at all. The prayer for adjournment is declined. In any event since the Selection was carried out by the Selection Committee under Rule 96(3)(b) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), it seems paradoxical for its Management to resist the writ petition. The adversaries in reality are the Petitioner and the School on the side and the Department of Education on the other. If this is not so there appears to be good reason to maintain that all recruitment is aided schools should be through the aegis of the Education Department which pays 95 per cent of the salaries.3. There is much wisdom in the proverb that the person who pays the piper calls the tune. In aided school since the Government defrays 95 percent ...

Dolf Leading Ltd. Vs. Vijay Cable Industries and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ616

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. is 7966/2001 is an application under Order 37 rule 2 sub-rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for decreeing the suit.2. This is a suit filed under the summary procedure of Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs.53,08,359.72/-.3. A perusal of the report on he summons for entrance issued under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3 CPC show that the process server made a report dated 23.2.2001 that he reached the addressed place and met a lady, who disclosed herself to be the wife of the proprietor of the plaintiff firm and that the lady told that the proprietor is out of station and refused to take summons. Again the process server went to the premises on 25.4.2001 and reported that he reached the addressed placed and met a man who disclosed himself to be son of the proprietor of the plaintiff firm Mr. Vaibhav Bhatia and that the man told that the man told that the proprietor is out of station and refused to take summons and on 23.6.2001 a man who disclosed himself to be a servan...

Shri Virender Kumar Vs. Smt. Maya Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT848; 2001(60)DRJ434

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. By this Order I shall dispose off an application filed by the Petitioner under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The Civil Revision was dismissed for non-prosecution on 7.9.2000, since there was no appearance on behalf of Petitioner. It is averred that 'the non-appearance on behalf of the Petitioner is un-intentional and bona fide as the Counsel for the Petitioner could not check the Cause List of 7.9.2000 of the 'Regular Matters'.' This application has been supported by the affidavit of the Applicant in which he had deposed as follows: '1. That I am the petitioner in the above noted case, conversant with the facts of the case, am competent and authorized to swear this affidavit. 2. That the contents of the accompanying application under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 7.9.2000 has been drafted under my instruction and the same are true and correct to my knowledge and I stated that the same may be rea...