Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Manju Devi W/O Late Sh. Prem Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A. applicant has challenged order dated 9.11.2005 whereby her request for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of, 'she failed in eye vision test'.2. It is submitted by the counsel for applicant that applicant's husband died on 11.5.1992 while in harness. She immediately applied for compassionate appointment. Even though she was found fit for compassionate appointment but her case was rejected on medical grounds.Counsel for the applicant submitted that twice she had given medical certificate to show that she was fit for class IV job but in spite of it, she is not being given the compassionate appointment, therefore, she had no other option but to file the present O.A.3. Respondents have taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of O.A. on the ground that O.A is barred by limitation because O.A has been filed after over a period of 13 years, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.4. On merits, they have submitted that app...

Shri O.N. Chhibber Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant in this OA seeks direction to respondents to reimburse balance amount of Rs. 1,40,687.70 on account of medical expenses incurred along with interest at the prevailing market rate with consequential benefits including costs.2. Admitted facts are that applicant retired as Section Officer from Department of Food and is presently 81 years old. Being a Central Government employee, he is covered by Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) and being a pensioner, he is holding life CGHS Card No.P-000407. He underwent by-pass surgery (4 grafts) at Apollo Hospital, Madras in the year 1986. He developed severe chest pain and was taken to Apollo Hospital, Delhi on 03.01.2001. He was admitted there for angiography and keeping in view past history as well as report of angiography, emergency operation for Redo Surgery for CABG was performed on 05.01.2001. During his hospitalization, he remained in a semi paid room of said hospital. He was discharged on 14.01.2001.During the course of tre...

Shri Ram Avtar, S/O Shri Dhani Ram Vs. the Commissioner of Police and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Communication dated 25.10.2005 rejecting applicant's request for grant of appointment in Delhi Police as Constable (Executive) on compassionate grounds has been challenged in present OA. A direction is also sought to respondents to appoint his younger son Shri Raj Kishore on such compassionate basis with consequential benefits.2. Applicant's son late Sh. Gokul Prasad joined as Constable, Delhi Police in the year 1993. It is stated that after availing leave, while he was proceeding to join his duties and had been traveling in train to Delhi on 10.6.1996, some miscreants tried to loot the passengers in train and his son being a disciplined and dutiful cop tried to prevent miscreants from committing the crime. They being more in number threw him out in moving train and, therefore, he laid down his life for the cause of society. His dead body was recovered on railway track near Hathras railway station. He was unmarried and the only bread earner of the family. In these circumstances, ap...

Suneet Varma Design Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mr. Jas Kirat Singh Narula ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(1)175; 2007(34)PTC81(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff No. 2 claims that he is a renowned designer of international repute, engaged in creation or fabrication of wearing apparels which are exclusive in shape, configuration and pattern. Over the years his designs have been acclaimed by people all over the world. He is the Managing Director of plaintiff No. 1, which is a private company. The plaintiffs are also having exclusive outlets in various cities from where their finished products are sold. It is also claimed that the garments designed by the plaintiffs are in great demand on account of their originality and quality and are considered as trend setters in the modern fashion industry. Owing to such large and enviable presence the products have acquired immense goodwill and reputation all over India. According to the plaintiffs, designing apparels and garments is a highly skilled activity requiring an ingenious mind and ever creative spirit, an unwavering focus and the ability to think beyond the existing n...

Mukesh Gupta Vs. P.K. Banaj and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ333

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. This is an action by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 15 lacs stated to have, been advanced by way of loan to the defendants together with accrued interest thereon.2. Case pleaded by the plaintiff is that defendants No. 1 and 2 who are father and son respectively approached him for a loan and agreed to pay interest @ 22% per annum. On 18.11.2000, loan in sum of Rs. 10 lacs was given to defendant No. 2. A promissory note was written by defendant No. 2 in his hand and was signed by both defendants acknowledging receipt of loan in sum of Rs. 10 lacs; further acknowledging that interest payable on the loan would be @22% per annum. Further, defendants requested for another loan of Rs. 5 lacs. Plaintiff advanced another sum of Rs. 5 lacs. It was agreed that this component of loan would carry interest @20% per month. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged receipt of the loan as also interest payable by executing a writing dated 4.3.2001. That on 1.12.2001 a cheque in sum of Rs....

Fmi Limited Vs. Ashok JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT668; LC2007(1)157; 2007(34)PTC66(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, passing off, damages and delivery up etc. In a suit of this nature, present application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking ad interim injunction. On the very first date, when the matter was listed, the defendants also appeared on caveat. The Court passed, after hearing the parties, order dated 14th February, 2005 restraining the defendants from launching in the market their measuring tapes and components thereof under the impugned trademark FREEDOM. It is now to be considered as to whether to confirm this order, as prayed for by the plaintiff or vacate this order agreeing with the submissions of the defendants. Arguments were accordingly heard on this aspect.2. The plaintiff, FMI Limited, is engaged in the business or manufacturing and/or marketing and export of the measuring tapes and parts/components thereof for the last over...

Barkha Gupta Vs. High Court of Delhi Through Registrar General and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ586

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The facts of this case put on view, in essence, a rather unfortunate episode in the career of an officer belonging to the Delhi Judicial Service.2. The Petitioner was appointed to the Delhi Judicial Service in November, 1992 and was posted as a Sub Judge at Tees Hazari Courts in May, 1993. Her work and conduct did not draw any adverse comments on the contrary, she received rather favourable gradings in her Annual Confidential Reports (for short ACRs) for the first few years of her service as can be seen from the chart given below:ACR for the year Grading1993 B+(Good)1994 B+(Good)1995 B+(Good)1996 B (Average)1997 A (Very Good)1998 A (Very Good)3. In her ACR for the year 1997, against the question whether the Petitioner has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality, her learned Inspecting Judge remarked on 12th May, 1998 as follows:Reputation is very good.The ACR of the Petitioner for the year 1997 was approved by the Full Court of this Court in its meetin...

B.S. and Co. Vs. Niranjan Subudhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 135(2006)DLT440

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Enforcement Directorate, through the Enforcement Officer, has filed complaint under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'FERA') and in terms of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange (Amendment) Act, 1999, against the petitioner herein. The allegation is that vide adjudication order dated 31.8.1989 passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, penalty of Rs. 1,08,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner (accused in the said complaint), but in spite of the direction to pay/deposit the said penalty, the petitioner has not deposited the same within the stipulated period and till the filing of the complaint, i.e. until April 2002.2. Section 57 of the FERA deals with prosecution of such persons who do not deposit the penalty after the adjudication orders and the same reads as under :57. Penalty for contravention of order made by adjudicating officer, Appellate Board and High Court - I...

Seema Gupta Vs. Guru Nanak Institute of Management

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 135(2006)DLT404

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner was appointed as commerce lecturer in response to the advertisement published in Newspaper dated 28.03.2001, by the respondent college (hereafter 'the college'). She joined the College on 1st May 2001. The terms of appointment were appointment to be on probation for one year which could be extended for another one year;i) the appointment could be terminated without any notice and without assigning reason during the first year and by one month's notice on either side.2. It is claimed that though entitled, the petitioner was not granted summer vacation leave for two years. The petitioner was blessed with a child on 28.12.2003 and was sanctioned maternity leave for 135 days w.e.f. 29.12.2003. She had requested for maternity leave of 180 days as per the Guru Nank Dev University Rules (GNDU Rules) which, it is averred, allowed maternity leave for that period. 3. The Petitioner was informed that as the Central Civil Service Rules were applicable to her s...

Anil Kumar Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT10; (2007)146PLR18

A.K. Sikri, J.1. M/s.Prem Nath Autos Pvt.Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as `the complainant') respondent no.2 herein has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against two persons, namely, M/s.Om Sons Autos as Accused No. 1 and Shri Anil Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Om Sons Autos impleading him as Accused No. 2. It is, inter alia, stated that complainant had supplied material to accused persons from time to time and discharged of their liabilities. Accused persons had issued different cheques on different dates for total sum of Rs. 17,76,470/-. These cheques which were 37 in numbers and particulars whereof are given in para-5 of the complaint were dishonoured on presentation. Legal notice dated 17.5.1997 was issued calling upon accused persons to make payment of the amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice which was neither replied nor payment was made and, thereforee, complaint was filed by the complainant. Vishnu Sharma, authorize...