Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

international Airport A.i. Officers Asso. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi46; 123(2005)DLT713; 2005(84)DRJ357

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the constitutional validity of the Section 12(3)(r) of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the `AAI Act') as being inconsistent with the provisions of the Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the said AAI Act as well as on the ground of being ultra virus of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, International Airport Authority of India Officers Association through its General Secretary, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Association') is a registered association representing approximately 1000 officers of the International Airport Division of the Airport Authority of India whereas the entire strength of the Airport Authority of India is approximately 20,000 employees working under it. The respondent No.1 is the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Civil Avia...

Surender Vs. Commissioner and Secretary Nct and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1978; 123(2005)DLT517; 2005(84)DRJ350

R.S. Sodhi, J.CRL.M.A.7767/2005:1. Delay condoned. Application disposed of.W.P.(CRL) 1294/2004 & CRL.M.A.7463/2005:2. This petition has been filed with a prayer to issue directions to respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 not to register a criminal case against the petitioner and with a prayer that compensation be paid to the petitioner for serious injuries caused to him by the official of the State, on the petitioner being shot by him in his back resulting in the petitioner being incapacitated.3. The facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are as follows:-'4. That the petitioner is about 22 years old and is driver by profession.5. He has been in this avocation for the last more than five years. He has been driving maxi cabs (JEEP) for taking the passengers from one place to another.6. That on 9.8.2004 the petitioner was driving vehicle No. HR-4-26/7339. The petitioner had started journey from Bahadurgarh at about 8.15 a.m. There was nearly 13 passengers when the petitioner started jour...

Pramod Kumar and anr. Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT509; 2005(84)DRJ584

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The two appellants, Mr. Pramod Kumar and Mr. Ramamoorthy have preferred the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2002 in Civil Writ No. 1337/1996 passed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the two appellants, inter alia, holding that Section 25F read with Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, for short) was applicable to them and thereforee the termination of their services by the respondent- Municipal Corporation of Delhi, was illegal.2. The appellants are, however, aggrieved by the direction given by the learned single Judge that instead of reinstatement with back wages, the said appellants be paid compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each.3. The learned single Judge while awarding compensation in lieu of back wages and re-instatement referred to the fa...

Suraj Pal Singh Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT248; [2006(108)FLR865]; (2006)IILLJ335Del; 2006(3)SLJ344(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J.Facts and Judgment of the learned Single Judge:1.The appellant, a workman, has filed the present appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.5.2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by him, inter alia, holding that the appellant is not entitled to benefit and protection under Section 25F read with Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short).2. The brief facts are that the appellant was employed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi as a daily rated casual worker in the year 1984. Services of the appellant were terminated in September, 1986. He raised an industrial dispute leading to passing of an Award dated 1.11.1994. The Labour Court held that the appellant was not entitled to any relief as he had not been in 'continuous service for one year' under Section 25F read with Section 25B of the Act.3.Civil Writ Petition No.1337/1996 was filed by the appellant Along with two other workmen a...

Kanoria Chemicals and Inds. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard. The waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount has been sought by the appellants. The penalty has been imposed on them for late payment of the service tax. The perusal of the record shows that earlier provisions regarding the imposition of the service tax on the recipient of the service of the goods transport operators was held to be ultra-vires by the Apex Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti v.UOI, but thereafter the provision were amended by the enactment of Finance Act, 2000, on 12.05.2000 with retrospective effect. The appellants paid the service tax even before issuance of SCN. Thereafter SCN was issued to them for payment of the penalty. The question as to whether under such circumstances, penalty could be imposed on the appellants or not is debatable question. Ld Counsel has referred to the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Vidhyachal Air Products Pvt. Ltd. v.CCE, Raipur (2004 (174) ELT 326 wherein it has been observed that no penalty could be imposed on the bas...

Indian Institute of Public Opinion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Krishnan and an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT655; 2006(87)DRJ100; (2006)142PLR52

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The plaintiff, Indian Institute of Public Opinion Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against the defendant, who at one time was employed by the plaintiff. The defendant was under obligation for safety of the documentation, data of the plaintiff and their reputation, particularly in regard to loss in transit. The relationship between the parties remained reasonably workable till 1991, but thereafter due to sudden spurt in their bills for the above market price, they have restrained and the relationship between them came to an end in the year 1995. where after no assignment whatsoever of any data processing work was entrusted to the defendant.. The defendant was even not required to enter in the office of the plaintiff. The premises occupied by the defendant were not being vacated and for which earlier no rent or license fee was being charged, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the said premises as well as to pay damages and mesne profits to the plaintiff for the unau...

Pearson Education Inc. (Formerly Prentice Hall Inc.) Vs. Prentice Hall ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT450; 2005(84)DRJ455

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Prentice Hall Inc. (now merged with Pearson Education Inc.-appellant in Co. A. (SB) No. 20/2004), a well known publisher of international repute, wanted its foothold on Indian soil. Cerebrated move was to incorporated a company in India in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. The proposed company was intended to be its subsidiary in India with objective to print and publish Indian editions of its educational titles for sale in India and export to such countries as would be specfied. This idea struck Prentice Hall Inc. some time in the year 1962. There were stringent laws at that time for setting up a subsidiary company by a foreign company and prior permission of the Government of India was a requisite precondition for thisurpose. It, thereforee, sought approval of the Government of India for this purpose. This request of Prentice Hall Inc. was considered by the Government of India and it accorded approval for setting up a company for the aforesa...

Reserve Bank of India Vs. Appellate Authority for Nbfc Registration Ca ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC435; [2006]130CompCas304(Delhi); (2006)2CompLJ235(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Reserve Bank of India has filed this Petition assailing the Order of the First Appellate Authority for NBFC Registration Cases under Section 45-IA(7) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. In the impugned Order the Appellate Authority comprising two Members had briefly analysed and narrated the assailed Order dated 13.1.2004 passed by Ms. Shyamala Gopinath, Executive Director, RBI. The Order of the Appellate Authority is a short one, and is reproduced from paragraph 4 onwards in order to underscorethat the Appellate Authority has not found any error in the findings recorded in the first Order:-4. RBI submitted statement of facts before the Appellate Authority stating that the company's NOF was (-) Rs.136.90 crores. The CRAR of the company was also negative. The required level of SLR was also not maintained by the company. As against the deposit liabilities of Rs.135.73 crores it maintained only Rs.1.66 lakhs which was far below the required level of 15%. The r...

Dr. Kamal Gupta Vs. Smt. Uma Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi182; IV(2005)BC374; 123(2005)DLT146

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 6174/2004 IN CS (OS) No. 1027/20041. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the property bearing No. F-9, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. The plaintiff claims to be a joint owner of the said property to the extent of one-half share with defendant No. 1.2. The plaintiff is stated to be medical practitioner settled in United Kingdom for the last several years. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are stated to have purchased the property in question in pursuance to five Sale Deeds from the Vendors in respect ofone-fifth undivided share each. The sale consideration was paid both by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. In 1988, on one of the visits of the plaintiff to India, defendant No. 1 mentioned about certain financial matters to him and the plaintiff offeredto execute a Relinquishment Deed of his share in the said property. The plaintiff informed defendant No. 1 vide communication dated 16.03.1989. The said letter records tha...

Tushar Welfare Society Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi28; 123(2005)DLT449; 2005(84)DRJ450

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The grievance that has been ventilated by the Petitioners in these Writ Petitions is that the respondent Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), is not processing and deciding its application for being granted affiliate institution status. The stand of the CBSE is that unless the approval of the State Government concerned accompanies the application for affiliation, it would not be processed.2. The CBSE functions under its Constitution, Clause 9 (iv) of which empowers the Board to 'affiliate institutions for the purpose of its examinations provided that the Board shall not accord affiliation to any institution without the concurrence of the State Government concerned if such institution is in receipt of a regular maintenance grant-in-aid from the State Government.' Clause 16 vests jurisdiction in the Board to make Regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Constitution. Clause 21 of its Constitution deals with the powers to amend...