Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Shakila Dilkusha W/O Shri V.S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicants have assailed an order passed by the respondents on 16.2.2005, whereby their request for revision of the pay scale from Rs. 5000-8000 to Rs. 5500-9000 has been turned down.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that on 24.10.1991, consequent upon revision of the pay scale of Library staff, applicants were accorded the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 from 24.7.1990. V Central Pay Commission's recommendations contained in paragraph 11.63 led to issue of OM dated 24.7.1990 by the Ministry of Finance, where the above pay scale was accorded with a qualification at direct entry of graduate with Bachelor of Library Science as a promotional grade for Library Clerks. For this recruitment rules were to be modified by the department. Accordingly, model recruitment rules for various categories of Groups 'C' and 'D' have been promulgated by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions on 21.12.2002, whereby entry grade pay scale for departmental Librarians,...

Shri Jeevan Lal S/O Shri Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Whether applicant is entitled to promotion or not is the question raised in present OA. The relief prayed for, in this OA, read thus: (i) to quash and set aside the action of the respondents to the extent that the Applicant has been declared UNFIT by the notification dated 1.4.2003, and also declare the action of the respondents as illegal in not considering the Applicant for promotion from the date when his juniors were considered and promoted; (i-a) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 2.6.2004 (ANNEXURE A-1/a) (ii) to direct the respondents to hold review DPC and consider the case of the Applicant from the date when his juniors were considered w.e.f. 1994 onwards and if the Applicant found fit he may be promoted to the post of Inspector (List-F) with salary and seniority etc. (iii) to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.2. The facts, as stated, are that the applicant was enrolled as Sub Inspector in the year 1982 as di...

Constable Dharmender S/O Shri Vs. Govt. of N.C.T.D., Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge is made to communication dated 29.09.2005, notifying result of Preliminary Selection Test of Constables for post of Head Constables (AWO) Grade-III, who qualified in the said test held from 09.07.2005 to 18.07.2005, which did not include applicant's name. A direction is also sought to respondents to consider his candidature for aforesaid post as per provisions of Standing Order No. 223 of 1986 and, if selected, grant him all consequential benefits including seniority, pay & allowances etc.2. Admitted facts are that applicant was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 05.06.1997. Respondents initiated selection process for filling up 80 posts of Head Constable by promotion vide order dated 29.03.2005, stating clearly that preliminary selection would be taken and the condition for qualifying the preliminary selection test would be the same as laid down in accordance with Rule 17 of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980. He appeared in the written e...

Ratan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. It is trite that requirements of law cannot be dispensed with on implication of the directions issued by the Court, as no direction of the Court would be an impediment in carrying out administration of justice. If the rules are to be followed in a manner prescribed, no other manner would be adopted to set out an action against the government servant.3. In the above backdrop, the applicant, who has been compulsorily retired as Executive Engineer, has assailed an order passed on 28.7.2006 in the name of the President whereby a penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon him.4. A brief history of the case transpires that on issue of a memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), applicant has been asked to represent, which was assailed by him in OA-2992/2004. On the admission of the applicant as to cooperation in the inquiry, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 15.12.2004, directed an order to be passed within six months from the da...

K. Upendra Mohan S/O K. Mohan Vs. Government of India Represented

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. These seven applications have been taken up together in view of the common points of fact and law involved therein. For the sake of convenience the facts have been taken from OA No. 791/2006.2. The applicants are Radiographers with the Ordnance Wing of the Ministry of Defence working at different stations and are aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the authorities whereby the higher pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 granted to them is sought to be discontinued and the pay scale downgraded to Rs. 4500-7000 from 1.1.1996 in view of the 5th CPC recommendations that Radiographers with minimum qualification of three year diploma in the relevant field are only eligible for the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. As such, while the pay scale was to be downgraded, the excess payments already made on account of having extended the higher pay scale would be waived. The applicant in OA No.791/2006 was appointed in 1999 as Radiographer in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 but served with a notice on 20.7...

Anirudh Sen Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ70

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.05.2006 whereby summons were directed to be issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in respect of the petitioner Along with another accused.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the summoning order suffers from various infirmities which require to be corrected in revision. The first infirmity that he points out is this. The charge-sheet had been filed showing the petitioner in Column No. 2 as there was no material available against the petitioner. The order dated 04.05.2006, which is impugned herein, does not disclose any material on the basis of which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate could have disagreed with the charge-sheet. In the absence of such material, the learned Counsel submits that the impugned order would not be sustainable.3. The second point taken by Mr. Mohit Mathur is that cognizance of the offences under Sections 419/420/467/471/120-B IPC was ta...

Newton Engineering and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(4)ARBLR257(Delhi); 136(2007)DLT73; 2009(93)DRJ127

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This present petition under Section 11(6)(c) read with Sections 13 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent No. 1 to place on record the arbitration agreement and to appoint a retired Judge of this Court as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims of the petitioner raised in the petition against respondent No. 1. It is further prayed by the petitioner that the arbitration proceedings before the respondent No. 3 be stayed while declaring that respondent No. 3 has not been appointed as per the procedure agreed upon by the parties and has no mandate to continue with the arbitration proceedings.2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. The respondent No. 1 had invited tenders for design engineering, supply, erection, testing and commissioning of POL tank terminals including land development and all other related works, which culminated in the award of the Works Contract by the...

Jagdish Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ648

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 4th September, 2000 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302/120B/201/203/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Sessions Case No. 20/99. By an order passed on the same date, the Appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC. They were also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The Appellants were also sentenced for varying terms for the offences committed by them and punishable under other sections of the IPC.2. The broad facts of the case disclose that one lady Saroj was married to Vijay and they had three children from the wedlock. One of the children was Sonu Lakshmi. Saroj appears to have left Vijay and began living with the Appellant Jagdish. Saroj and Jagdish had four children out of w...

Commissioner of Income-tax (Tds) Vs. Eli Lilly and Co. I.P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]297ITR300(Delhi)

1. It appears that the respondent a joint venture Indian company formed by the collaboration between Eli Lilly, Netherlands B.V. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, engaged the services of four expatriates in India. These four employees seconded by Eli Lilly, Netherlands B.V. were receiving salaries from the respondent in India and, admittedly, additionally from Eli Lilly outside India. So far as the salary paid by the respondent is concerned it had deducted tax at source (TDS) from the salaries payable by it to these four executives and thereafter had duly deposited these amounts with the Department. It is not in dispute that the entire salary of these four employees were eligible to tax in India. The four employees have been assessed to tax and have paid tax on their global salaries also. Since they had not deposited advance tax, they appear to have also paid interest as per the Income-tax Act.2. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has vehemently argued that three of these employees were m...

Manoj Kumar Vs. the State, Nct

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ693

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been moved because the application filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed by an order dated 19.09.2006.2. When the application for bail was argued before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, a plea was taken that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the alleged incident. So, the decision of the bail application rested on two different considerations. The first consideration being as to whether the petitioner was a juvenile. The second consideration being on the merits of the matter, treating the application as a regular application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C de hors the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. What has happened is that an enquiry was conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of the certificates submitted by the petitioner which included his school certificat...