Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Shri Ishwar Singh, (Retd. as Asi), Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Whether applicant, promoted retrospectively, after being reinstated in service on acquittal by Appellate Court, is entitled to pay & allowances of the post for the period when he did not actually shoulder duties & responsibilities, is the question involved in this OA? 2. Applicant, appointed as Constable in 1966 & later promoted as Head Constable on 05.07.1979, was arrested on 27.7.1985 in a criminal case vide FIR No. 87 Under Sections 302/307/325/147/148/149 IPC & Under Section 27 of Arms Act at P.S. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. On 29.11.1988, he was placed under suspension. Prior to it in September 1988 he was convicted by the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. An appeal filed against aforesaid conviction & sentence was dismissed on 15.01.1990 by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. In exercise of power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, he was dismissed from servi...

Aftab S/O Shri Osaf Ali and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicants seek reckoning of their entire temporary service followed by regularization towards the eligibility service for grant of financial upgradation under Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme on completion of 12/24 years of service respectively. Also assailed the order passed by the respondents on 17.8.2004 wherein for financial upgradation 100% temporary status has been left out of the purview for reckoning eligibility.2. The brief facts, which are not disputed, transpire that the applicants, who had been working in group 'D' post on regularization earlier on grant of temporary status, seek benefit of ACP scheme promulgated by the Government on 9.8.1999.3. Learned Counsel for the applicants states that the decision of the respondents not to reckon the temporary status before regularization on temporary status not towards eligibility is in contravention of the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in General Manager, South Central Railway, Rai...

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

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Challenge is made to order dated 15.5.2006, whereby applicant has been transferred from NPQS, New Delhi to CIPMC, Nagpur. Learned Counsel for respondents produced departmental records to justify in issuing said transfer order, as there had been certain allegations of misconduct against him. A prima facie view has been taken by the authorities to investigate the matter. Learned Counsel for applicant contended that he had never been put to any notice on this account and, therefore, transfer order is rendered punitive in the given circumstances.3. Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties, I am of the considered view that once an allegation is made against the applicant and the authorities intend to pursue the said aspects further, the Court cannot issue directions to post or continue the applicant at a particular station or vacancy.4. Learned Counsel for applicant states that except for fifteen days from 01.5.2006 to 15.5.2006, when he occupied the post at NPQS, New Delhi he had never...

Upinder Singh Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ478

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2003 whereby the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been discharged of the alleged offences under Sections 308/506/341/34 IPC. The facts in brief as stated in the impugned order itself are as under:1. On the statement of complainant, recorded on 2.4.2002, FIR in the present case was registered against Tanu Kapoor and Wazid Khan. Police after investigation, has submitted a challan against both the accused persons under Sections 308, 506, 341 read with 34 IPC. Objections has been raised against framing of charge.2. Allegations as made out in the complaint/rukka are that on 2.4.2002 at about 8.30 p.m., complainant was present at Gurudwara Bangla Sahib alongwith his office peon, Sachin. At about 9.05 p.m., when he sat in his Santro car to leave from the Gurudwara; accused Tanu Kapoor, knocked out at the window of the driver seat where the complainant was sitting. When the complainant lowered the window, he ...

Vijay Kumar @ Bhushan S/O Pyare Lal Vs. State Represented by Sho

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ243

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1996 whereby the Appellant was held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC), an offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC and an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC in Sessions Case No. 122 of 1995. On the same day, the Appellant was heard on the question of sentence and the learned Trial Judge sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence punishable under Section 451 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the ...

Madhu Rathour Vs. the V.C. Delhi University

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ489

J.P. Singh, J.1. This LPA has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.8.2004 delivered by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant herein and another petition in which they both had claimed re-employment by the University of Delhi on the basis of being distinguished teachers. 2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner served for about 33 years as teacher in Vivekanand College, Delhi. It is pleaded that she discharged her duties diligently, honestly and has an unblemished record of service. She has done doctorate in Hindi from Delhi University, is a law graduate, has done post doctorate research, got a scholarship, has teaching experience for a number of years under various positions, had been taking part in extra curricular activities of the College, helped in administration, and handled volatile situations created by students. She has also written four books. 3. The governing body of the college recommended her name for re-employment for three years af...

Ratan Lal Garera and ors. Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)146PLR33

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The issue involved in these petitions is whether after the winding up of the Company, can a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, be filed.2. As per the allegations in the complaints, the accused Company i.e. M/s H-Lon Hosiery Ltd. of which the petitioner was the Chairman, had approached for lease financing of vehicle on monthly rental basis for their company and the respondent No. 2, who is the complainant before the learned Trial Court, entered into lease agreement for the lease of one Maruti Esteem costing Rs. 4,46,687/- and six Maruti 800 costing Rs. 2,17,407/- each. It is further alleged by the respondent No. 2 that the accused company i.e. M/s H-Lon Hosiery Ltd., had issued the 60 post dated cheques and assured the complainant that the said cheques will be duly honoured on presentation. Further, the complainant states that the cheque bearing No. 231503 dated 1.12.1999 for a sum of Rs. 52,274/- was presented to the bank for collection but ...

Norma (India) Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sameer Khandelwal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]137CompCas259(Delhi); 2009(93)DRJ318; [2007]78SCL211(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By and under the present order I dispose of is No. 8363/2006 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC praying that pending disposal of the suit, defendants No. 1 to 3 be restrained from carrying on competing business with that of the plaintiff; defendants No. 4 and 5 be restrained from carrying on competing business with that of the plaintiff; defendants No. 1 to 3 be restrained from dealing with the customers of the plaintiff; defendants No. 1 to 3 be restrained from transferring, alienating or creating third party rights in the movable and immovable assets of defendants No. 4 and 5.2. Vide order dated 31.7.2006 while issuing notice in the application, defendants No. 1 to 3 were restrained from transferring, alienating, or creating third party rights in the movable and immovable properties of defendants No. 4 and 5. 3. Since I am dealing with an interim injunction, I would be briefly noting the rival versions. Needless to state, observations and fin...

M.L. Gupta and anr. Vs. Ceat Financial Services Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas837(Delhi); 136(2007)DLT308; [2007]77SCL73(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The question, which falls for consideration, is as to whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be filed against the company and/or its Managing Director/Director after the winding up of the said company.2. Petitioner No. 1 was the Managing Director and petitioner No. 2 is the Director of a public limited company called Sakura Seimitsu India Ltd. It entered into Lease Agreement dated 12.1.1995 with Ceat Financial Services Ltd. (hereinafter called `complainant') and issued post-dated cheques on 12.1.1995 for future lease rentals. There were certain defaults in making payment of lease rentals as a result of which complainant filed winding up petition being CP. No. 23 of 1998 against the company in the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. Vide order dated 24.7.1998 the said petition was admitted and thereafter this company was finally wound up by the orders of the High Court passed on 23.11.1998 and Official Liquidator (OL) was appointe...

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Victory Service Station,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ207

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 29.5.2000 passed by the E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal whereby the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner bringing M/s Victory Service Station and M/s Kapoor Service Station, two petrol pumps in the fold of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act and the respondents were directed to file the returns.2. Briefly, the facts are that M/s Kapoor Service Station was brought under the purview of the Act vide order dated 26.10.1999 along with M/s Victory Service Station on the ground that there was unity of management, control, supervision and ownership in respect of two service stations. M/s Victory Service Station consisted of three owners viz. Mr. B.M.Kapoor, Mr. Jitender Kapoor son of Mr. B.M.Kapoor and Mr. Surinder Pal Singh while M/s Kapoor Service Station consisted of two partners viz. Mr. B.M.Kapoor and his son Mr. Jite...