Delhi Court October 2006 Judgments

Karan Priya Gautam S/O Shri Attar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicants have challenged the order dated 7.5.2004 whereby they have been informed that they will not be entitled for the notional pay fixation since no such relief was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1900/1987). They have further sought a direction to the respondents to fix their pay from the date of grant of seniority i.e. 1994 and pay all consequential benefits, including arrears.2. It is submitted by the applicants that they had applied for the post of TGT in response to the advertisement issued in June, 1994. They were selected also but appointment letters were not issued. Being aggrieved, they filed OA No. 1238/96 and 1104/96, which were decided on 2.6.1997 as well as on 9.3.1999 (pages 21 and 17) whereby directions were given to the respondents to review the eligibility of the applicants for appointment to the posts of TGT (Natural Science), in accordance with the amend...

Sh. Mohinder Vs. Pranav Shekhar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(113)ECC31; 2006LC31(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. This was based on the allegations that while he was coming from Abu Dhabi via Askabad, he was intercepted at IGI Airport on 28.12.2001 and search was conducted as a result whereof his hand bag and three baggages, which were lying unclaimed near the baggage belt No. 6, containing 66 mobile phones, Sony Play Stations, synthetic stones/Chattons, 3 video cameras etc. were allegedly recovered from him. His passport was also seized. Those proceedings have resulted in conviction vide judgment dated 25.4.2005 passed by the learned ACMM and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 15 months. The petitioner has already undergone this imprisonment.2. Adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act were also initiated against the petitioner and penalty of Rs.7.5 lacs was imposed upon him. The petitioner, after undergoing the imprisonment, moved application for release of his passport, which i...

Hindustan Pencils Limited Vs. J.N. Ghosh and Bros. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(1)41; 2007(34)PTC49(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Plaintiff, a company registered under the Companies Act claims to be in the business of manufacture and sale of stationery items since 1957. It claims that with effect from the year 1961 it adopted the trade mark 'Nataraj' with device of Nataraj (idol) pertaining to stationery items sold by it. Claiming user with effect from 22.7.1961, vide registration No. 225923, 260466, 283730, 400868 and 400869 registration is claimed in respect of pencils, sharpeners, pens, erasers, clips, staples, wire staples, stapling presses, paint brushes, adhesive material etc. under class 16 of Trade and Merchandise Act 1958. Plaintiff claims that it has advertised its product through print and television media. It claims popularity of the trade mark and states that the trade mark and the device has attained distinctiveness vis-a-vis the goods manufactured by the plaintiff.2. In respect of the trade dress where idol of Nataraj is depicted, plaintiff claims copyright vide registration...

B.S. Bakshi Vs. State of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ525

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent herein has filed complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which summoning orders have been 'issued against the petitioner. Challenging those summoning orders, present petition is filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two submissions, namely, (i) respondent/complainant is a partnership firm and since it is an unregistered partnership firm, it could not have filed compliant under Section 138 of the said Act; and (ii) the petitioner had no dealings with the respondent, namely, M/s. Madan Brick & Co. (this point was taken during oral arguments and is not stated in the petition).2. Insofar as the non-maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a registered partnership firm is concerned, it is a misconceived argument inasmuch as Section 69 of the Partnership Act has no application to criminal cases. The Kerala High Court in the case of Abdul Gafoor v. Abdurrahiman 1999...

State (Through Cbi) Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ270

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. By our judgment dated 17th October, 2006 we had held Santosh Kumar Singh guilty under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. We had adjourned the case to give the convict an opportunity to be heard on the question of sentence. Today learned Counsel Mr. R.K. Naseem appearing for Santosh Kumar Singh has pleaded that this is not a case which falls within the ambit of rarest of rare' cases which should invite the death penalty. He submits that it cannot be ruled out that there is no possibility of the convict being reformed and rehabilitated. He also submits that there is nothing on record to show that the convict would commit any acts of violence which would constitute a continuing threat to the society. Regarding the mitigating circumstances, learned Counsel submits that the trial court acquitted the accused on the same set of evidence which has been reevaluated and found sufficient by this Court to convict the acquitted accused. This fact, according to counsel, must be taken into co...

Dr. Gurcharan Singh and ors. Vs. Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ480

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The writ petitioners in these two proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the appointment to the posts of Vaids by the Respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') pursuant to a Circular dated 9.2.1989. The selection/ recruitment process adopted by the MCD is attacked as malafide, illegal and unfair whereby ineligible candidates were allegedly appointed, contrary to the recruitment rules.2. All the Petitioners claim to have more than 5 years of experience, at the relevant time, in the beginning of 1989. They allege that after 1.1.1986, pursuant to the fourth Pay Commission Report Ayurvedic Physicians had to be treated at par with Allopathic Physicians. On 30.6.1988, MCD Respondent issued Circular for filling vacancies in the post of Vaids; however no public advertisement was issued, and requisitions were made from the Employment Exchange. It is alleged that one petitioner, Dr. Gursharan Singh, came to know on 29.7.1988 about the ...

Sh. Arun Mehra and anr. Vs. Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]138CompCas935(Delhi); (2007)6CompLJ465(Del); [2007]75SCL1(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The two appeals are directed against a common order dated 2.2.2006 passed by the Company Law Board disposing of CP No.54/2005 and CP No. 59/2005.2. Vide the CP No. 54/2005, Arun Mehra and his wife Ms. Seema Mehra invoked Sections 111, 235, 237, 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Company Act, 1956. Their grievance related to M/s Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. and the manner in which respondents 2 to 5 of the said petition were alleged to be conducting affairs of M/s Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd.3. Arun Mehra and his wife Seema Mehra were the petitioners in CP No. 59/2005. They invoked Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956. Grievance related to the affairs of Rajdhani Housing Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. It was alleged that respondents 2 to 5 were conducting business in a manner which was oppressive to the petitioners. M/s Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. was imp leaded as respondent no. 6 in said Company Petition.4. R.K. Nanda, his wife Promila Nanda, their friends Ram Gopal Sharma and h...

Sagar Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ470

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The writ petitioner claims a quashing order to set aside the rejection of its application, for conversion of its property into freehold, by the impugned letter dated 13.5.2002. It also seeks an order to set aside the demand raised by letters dated 7.7.2004, issued by the Respondent Land & Development Office, (hereafter 'L& DO').2. The petitioner acquired rights in respect of the suit property, Plot No. 3-D Block No. 88, known as 10 Lady Harding Road in May 1980. The sale deed, pursuant to permission granted by the L&DO; was executed on 30.6.1980. The suit property was mutated in favor of the petitioner, on 1.5.1981. It requested for permission to construct a group housing building on the suit property, by a letter dated 20.12.1985. The L&DO;, after almost two years demanded an amount of Rs. 18,46,098/- (of which Rs. 3,22,624/- were on account of additional premium) towards damages for unauthorized construction or misuse charges for using the suit property, lettin...

B.R. Goel and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT189; 2006(92)DRJ461

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The common claim in all these writ proceedings is for appropriate directions to the first respondent to fully reimburse the expenses incurred by the petitioners or their dependents, for medical treatment undergone by them through the second respondent the Escorts Heart Institute.2. The petitioners are members and card holders of (and thereforee are all beneficiaries of) the Central Government Health Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'CGHS') under which they are entitled to medical treatment. In terms of the Scheme, they, their spouses and dependents (a term defined under the Scheme) are entitled to medical treatment, which includes diagnosis, medication and if necessary, surgical intervention. As per the Scheme, members are in addition to treatment through CGHS dispensaries, also entitled to seek the facilities in private designated/notified hospitals.3. The Escorts Hospital and Research Centre, was included in the list of designated Medical Institutions by the ...

Cce Vs. Indore Sandal Oil Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC444

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 20th August 2004 vide which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order in original which confirmed the demand of the duty and also imposed penalty.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the factory of the respondent was visited by the officers on 10/02/98 and on checking of the records, officers found entry in RG 1 register on 16/08/97 indicating stock as nil while on the earlier date i.e. on 15/08/97 i.e.the stock was indicated as 99.50 kgs. of sandal oil. It was intimated to the officers that there was a theft in the factory of the appellant on 15/08/97 and this stock was stolen by the dacoits, who were armed with fire arms. It was also informed by the respondent this incident was intimated to the police officers as well as to the collector of Central Excise, Indore - 1 vide letter dated 17/08/97. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice proposing to demand duty on such...