Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

CaptaIn P.K. Bakshi, Nautical Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the order of respondents dated 25.11.2005 whereby he was transferred and posted to Marine Engineering and Research Institute, Kolkata (MERI, for short) along with the post in public interest (Annexure A-1). He has also sought direction to the Government of India to formulate policy/guidelines for new service conditions, including promotional avenues, of Nautical Officers like the applicant, who continued to be on deemed deputation to IIMS since 2002.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.03.1999 the respondents issued an advertisement for recruitment of six Nautical Officers in Lal Bahadur Shastri College of Advanced Maritime Studies and Research (LBS CAMSAR, for short) and T.S. Chanakya (TSC, for short) under the Directorate General of Shipping, Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India. The applicant responded to the advertisement.After interview, the UPSC recommended his candidature for the post of...

Ms. ShamIn Ismat Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The following reliefs have been sought by applicant in the present OA: B. Direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant treating the period of Adhoc Service of the applicant as Regular from the initial date of adhoc promotion against clear vacancies of 1998 in the Senior Time Scale of Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service with all consequential benefits including Seniority/Eligibility for further promotion to JAG of IB (P) S and arrears of pay as the method of regular promotion to STS from JTS of IBPS is seniority-cum-fitness, the same which is for adhoc promotion and UPSC is not associated to consider the applicant for promotion to JAG of IB (P)S as she has already completed 6 years against 5 years. D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Applicant, who joined as a Producer, was promoted as Assistant Station Director (JTS) of IBPS and to Senior Time Scale (STS) of IBPS on ad hoc basis in 199...

Rama Sinha (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Canara Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC169

1. An order passed by the D.R.T., Chandigarh in appeal No. 21 of 2005 in R.C. No. 321 of 2004 on 26th July, 2006 is assailed in this appeal on various grounds. For proper appreciation of the issues, few facts which are necessary are recorded as under.2. The respondent No. 1 - Bank herein, instituted Original Application No. 139 of 2001 for recovery of certain amounts before the D.R.T. in which these appellants also figured as defendants being guarantors. The suit appears to have been decreed exparte. However, these appellants claim to have filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C.seeking to set aside the ex pane decree which matter is still pending before the D.R.T. However, the Recovery Officer, on receipt of the recovery certificate proposed to auction the properties which were offered as security by these guarantors. The appellants herein, filed an application before the Recovery Officer seeking stay of all proceedings in R.C. No. 321 of 2004 on the premise that the princ...

Bhikhwa @ Prakash Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ641

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Appellant Bhikhwa @ Parkash has assailed the order of conviction dated 26.2.1997 and order on sentence dated 27.2.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. Prosecution filed charge sheet against the present appellant Bhikhwa @ Parkash with the allegation that complainant Ram Parkash @ Bandal, Pws Kapil and Biltu and the present appellant belonged to Village Madhopur Jakholi, P.S. Bahra, Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar. PW Kapil was employed in Hotel Mughal Mahal, Rajindra Place, New Delhi. Complainant Ram Parkash @ Bandal was friendly with deceased Smt.Krishna who was doing domestic work in East Patel Nagar and they all used to sleep in the DESU Park, East Patel Nagar. On 10.3.1993 they were sleeping in the park when at about 4.00 A.M., complainan...

Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(1)36; 2007(34)PTC91(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Plaintiff (Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd.) has filed a suit against M/s Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. in which a prayer has been made for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using the trademark 'Sona' or the 'Sona' logo or any other similar trademark or trade name so as not to infringe the Plaintiff's trademark registration No.367241. In this suit, the Plaintiff has filed is No.1758/2004 in which an ad interim injunction to the same effect has been prayed for.2. Suit No.456 of 2004 has been filed by M/s Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. against Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. in which it is prayed that the defendant therein be restrained by a permanent injunction from using the trademark 'Sona' in respect of tea or any other beverage so as not to infringe the trademark of the plaintiff therein being registered trademark No.407039. An interim application being is No.2798/2004 has been filed effectively praying for the same relief but at an interim stage.3. ...

Bhagwan Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ517

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by five persons for quashing of criminal case under Section 363/366/120B/34 IPC registered against them on the complaint of respondent No. 2 vide FIR No. 642/2006 with Police Station Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.2. The respondent No. 2 is the father of the prosecutrix. He lodged a complaint with police of Police Station Uttam Nagar on 26.07.2006 and alleged kidnapping of the prosecutrix by the petitioners. The prosecutrix is present in court. The case of the petitioners and that of the prosecutrix is that the prosecutrix had married petitioner No. 1 Bhagwan Singh of her own free will as per Hindu rites in Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi on 15.07.2006. The prosecutrix was a muslim girl prior to her marriage with petitioner No. 1. Before her marriage with petitioner No. 1 she converted from Islam to Hinduism.3. In response to notice of this writ petition, status report has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and the s...

R.M.X Joss Vs. Sumitra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ93

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 20.2.2003 whereby the learned Tribunal answered the reference in favor of the work-woman and held that she was entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service with full back wages. However, the work-woman had already been taken on duty w.e.f. 2.12.1999 during the pendency of the award, so the work-woman was held entitled for full back wages from 31.7.1988 to 1.12.1999. The management has challenged the validity of granting full back wages to the work-woman.2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent was working with the petitioner as a helper. She absented from duty and after being absent for about two months she sent a a letter along with fitness certificate on 11th July, 1988 stating that she was fit to resume duty however, she would be joining duty on 31st July, 1988. She alleged that she went to join duty on 31st July, 1988 but she was not allowed to join duty. She th...

Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ115

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the order dated 18th September, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (for short `The Tribunal') whereby the petitioner's Original Application No. 2070/1999 was rejected by the Tribunal. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal to assail Office Order dated 28.8.1999 issued by the respondents whereby his services had been terminated.2. The facts in brief are that in the year 1994 the petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Class category, was appointed as an ad hoc Assistant Librarian in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. According to him, though his interview call letter dated 10.6.1994 and offer of appointment dated 21.1.1995 described the post as 'Assistant Librarian (ad hoc)' and also stated that the post sanctioned by the Government of India is temporary up to 28.2.1995, it also stated that the post is likely to continue further....

Jaya Kumar Nair Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)DMC836; 2006(92)DRJ429

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 170/1997. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). Subsequently, the appellant was heard on the question of sentence and by an order dated 5th March, 2002, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The deceased, Laxmi Kanta, was an employee with the Central Reserve Police Force (for short the CRPF). On 23rd October, 1996, police station Najafgarh received intimation that a woman was burning in Naveen Place Colony, Jharoda Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi. The report indicated that the woman was an employee of the CRPF.3. On receipt of the information, the police went to the spot and came to know that the woman, Laxmi Kanta, had been removed to the CRPF Base Hospital in a police van. When the police reached the ...

Virender Singh Vs. Laxmi NaraIn and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC530; 2007CriLJ2262

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2004, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 21.08.2004, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, was dismissed. By the judgment dated 21.08.2004 and order dated 09.09.2004, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and directed him to be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-2. The facts as indicated in the impugned order are that the complainant gave a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the petitioner and his father, who were arrayed as accused No.1 and 2 respectively. The said sum of Rs.80,000/- was allegedly paid by the complainant (respondent No.1) to the accused for the purposes ...