Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Manikant Gairola S/O Shri Shambhu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Applicant, who is assailing the action of the respondents by non-grant of pay scale attached to the post of General Manager in the canteen, which has been designated as Type 2A by the DOPT, states that applicant having formally been appointed to the post in 1987 and after having rendered the work, the up gradation would have to be deemed and in such a way, he cannot be deprived of the pay scale attached to the post of which duties and responsibilities have been discharged by the applicant.3. Learned Counsel has also drawn our attention to the letter written to the Director of Canteens by Deputy Director (Admn.), General to the Director of Canteens dated 18.3.2005 wherein it is specifically admitted that the applicant was promoted to the post of General Manager on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 17.9.1987 by the Managing Committee of the Departmental Canteen and the fact that before 1.10.1991 the declaration of the employees of departmental canteens as government servant, the post of department...

P.K. Sharma, Gr. Iii (Dass)/Udc Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a Grade-III DASS Officer, by virtue of this OA has impugned an order passed by the Chief Secretary, imposing upon him a major penalty, in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings, of reduction to three lower stages in the time scale for a period of five years coupled with loss of increment temporarily. He has also assailed an order dated 4.11.2003, passed in appeal by the Lieutenant Governor (hereinafter referred to as LG), whereby after a show cause notice on consideration of appeal the penalty has been enhanced to reduction in rank to the lower post of Grade IV DASS for a period of five years with a stipulation that applicant on restoration to Grade III shall be assigned seniority as per the length of service in that grade.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that applicant while functioning as UDC in the office of Sub Registrar, Pitam Pura in September, 1997 was, on a raid by CBI, made accused in FIR No. RC73(A)/97-DLI under Section 120B IPC read with 7 & 8 of PC Act...

A.K. Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of this OA, applicant seeks to quash respondents order dated 31.3.2005 whereby the in situ has been denied to him.3. Applicant, a Section Officer of select list of 1990, has qualified the eligibility in 2002.4. Learned Counsel for applicant has relied upon the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in OA-463/PB/2002 decided on 19.12.2002 in S.C. Panda v. Union of India and Ors. wherein declaring the cut-off date as arbitrary, a similarly circumstanced employee, who had acquired eligibility of 12 years of service, had been directed to be considered for the benefit of grant of in situ.5. When this order has been assailed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP-14378/2003, an order passed in confirmation of Tribunal's order on 11.9.2003, observed as under: We have heard Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioners. The contention raised by him is that the in situ promotion as...

S.K. Gupta S/O Shri P.N. Gupta, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. In nutshell, the issue involved in the present OA is identical in law with OA-2492/2005, which has been allowed by us today itself, holding the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in OA-463/PB/2002 decided on 19.12.2002 in S.C. Panda v. Union of India and Ors. and the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP-14378/2003 dated 11.9.2003 would hold the field.3. The main objection raised by the respondents in this OA is whether the relief claimed by the applicants for in situ benefit as Under Secretary is in limitation as well as the persons having different eligibility at different dates be combined together in one application? 4. We have carefully considered the objections raised by the learned Counsel for respondents as also considered the case on merits. In our considered view, when a substantive right of a person on a meritorious claim is before us, the technical objection of limitation would not impede in any manner the administration of just...

Gangeshwar Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 135(2006)DLT13

S. Muralidhar, J.CM No 8082/2005 (restoration) in WP(C) 2585/1986 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Writ Petition (C) No. 2585 of 1986 is restored to file. Application stands disposed of. WP(C) 2585/1986 & WP(C) 2586/19861. Two sugar mill companies have filed these writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of an Order dated 28.3.1985 issued by the Respondent No.1 Union of India, in the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies (Department of Food) under Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (EC Act) by which the Sugar (Price Determination for 1984-85 Production) Second Amendment Order, 1985 ('the impugned Order') was made and brought into effect from 1.4.1985. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 2585 of 1986, Gangeshwar Ltd. manufactures sugar at two factories in Uttar Pradesh - one at Deoband in District Saharanpur and the other at Ramkola in District Deoria. The petitioner in the other Writ Petition (C) No. 2586...

Kewal Krishan Ahuja Vs. Jagdeep Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT424

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the suit property. There were perennial disputes between the tenant and the landlord inter alias in respect of the payment of rent which even resulted in proceedings filed for eviction against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for non-payment of rent. These proceedings, however, culminated in the Tribunal upholding the stand of the petitioner/tenant.2. The problem even thereafter persisted and the controversy in question relates to the payment of rent from 1.4.1993 to 30.6.1993 payable @ Rs. 55/- per month. It is the claim of the petitioner that the rent for the month of April, 1993 was initially tendered and on refusal a money order was sent, which was refused. Thereafter when the rent became due for the month of May, 1993, the position was the same when rent was tendered both for the months of April & May, 1993. There was an identical pos...

Mehar Chand Vs. Sri Kishan Dass and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ657

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of the present appeal, which was filed by the appellant / defendant No. 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28th November, 1985 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby a preliminary decree was passed declaring that the properties bearing number 2858 and 2877, Sirkiwalan, Delhi belong to the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1 to 4 jointly and that each one of them would get 1/5th share in each of the aforesaid two properties. So far the tenancy rights in shop No. 5062, Bazar Sirkiwalan, Hauz Qazi, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi is concerned, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the defendant No. 1 is the sole tenant of the shop in question. The present appeal is filed by the appellant, who was defendant No. 2, only in respect of the aforesaid findings and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge with respect to tenancy right and the order passed declaring the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 a...

Vicky Malhotra and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC830; 2009(93)DRJ22

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. Status report filed. Copy given.2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 485/2004 registered against them under Section 307 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act with Police Station Mukherjee Nagar.3. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners on 18.11.2004 on the statement of respondent No. 2. As per the contents of the FIR, the matrimonial alliance for marriage of respondent No. 2 with petitioner No. 1 was fixed on 30.4.2004 and the marriage was fixed for 22.11.2004 and as such her parents started preparation for the marriage. However, later on, her mother-in-law, Raj Rani Malhotra, her finance Vicky Malhotra, his uncle (Mausa) Hardeep Sodhi and Vicky's elder sister Bittoo started making demands of a flat, one Santro car and Rs. 5 lacs in cash failing which her parents were threatened that the marriage would not be ...

Sandeep Industries Vs. the Collector of Customs and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC234; 2009(93)DRJ58; (2007)145PLR20

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22nd August, 2003.2. The facts in a nutshell are that a suit for the recovery of Rs. 22,64,564/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum pendente lite till realisation and costs was instituted by the plaintiff, M/s. Sandeep Industries on 12th January, 1995. Notice of the institution of the suit was duly served on the defendants No. 1 & 3 for 14th July, 1995, on which date counsel for defendants No. 1 & 3 sought time for filing written statement. Defendants No. 1 & 3 assert in the present application that they filed their written statement through the Central Government Standing Counsel, Shri P.S. Sharma 'expeditiously'. The record belies this: Written Statement has not been filed till date, much less 'expeditiously'3. As per the record, on 14th July, 1995 four weeks' ti...

Dinesh Singh Vs. Air India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ31

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of judgment dated 1.2.1995 of National Industrial Tribunal at Bombay.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that the petitioner was working as a Junior Operator with Respondent No. 1. On 7th October, 1989 he was on tractor duty in the Make-up area and was to attend the Saudia Flight which was scheduled to arrive at 6.00 p.m. One Mr. M.L. Kumar, Apron Supervisor of the same flight was also on duty. The petitioner's tractor dashed against a chain of Container Dollies, which were parked there. Mr. Kumar reprimanded him for his careless driving and petitioner entered into heated argument with him. Subsequently, petitioner entered into the office of shift clerk and misbehaved with Mr. Kumar. He was suspected to be under the influence of alcohol. The management of respondent Air India served following charge-sheet on the petitioner:This is further to our letter...