Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Smt. Panjo Bala Gupta W/O Sunil Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant has challenged Annexure A-1 dated 26.4.1999 whereby services of applicant as Gallery Assistant have been discontinued with immediate effect. It is alleged that this order is based on certain unilateral findings on the allegations of misconduct and amounts to camouflage for the penalty of dismissal from service without an opportunity of hearing in accordance with Article 311 of the Constitution and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short CCA Rules). Applicant has also challenged respondents orders dated 2.3.1993 (Annexure A-1/A) whereby applicants appointment on temporary basis vide order dated 13.3.1992 (Annexure A-25) was treated as cancelled. Applicant has sought the following reliefs: (i) quashing the impugned order dated 26th April, 1999 (Annexure A-1) terminating the services of the Applicant, and the order dated 2nd March, 1993 canceling the office order dated 12th March, 1992; (ii) declaring the appointment of the Appl...

Rani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pati-bel J.V. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC554; 2006(1)CTLJ448(Del); 129(2006)DLT38; 2006(88)DRJ291; (2006)144PLR24

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Five bank guarantees constitute the subject matter of this application. These bank guarantees, numbered as BE-6/6/17 to BE-6/6/21, each for a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs, were issued by the Bank of Baroda (the Defendant No. 2) in favor of the defendant No. 1 at the instance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed this suit, inter alia, seeking an injunction against the defendant No. 1 from invoking the said bank guarantees as well as injunction against the defendant No. 2 from making a payment to the defendant No. 1 in case an invocation is made by the defendant No. 1 under the said bank guarantees. Of course, these reliefs are preceded by the relief of declaration that no invocation can be made by the defendant No. 1, particularly, pursuant to the defendant No. 1's letter dated 09.02.2005 as the amounts would be beyond the scope of the bank guarantees itself.2. The defendant No. 1 had been awarded the contract by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for four-...

Shri Nagendu Bhattacharya and ors. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT301; 2006(88)DRJ306

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Writ petitioners in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek quashing of Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules to the post of Assistants, framed on 4.7.2003, as well as a notification dated 4.10.2005 (by which they were asked to appear for the Limited Internal Competitive Examination ('LICE') for promotion to the grade of Assistant) and issued by the respondent (The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., hereafter called 'BSNL').2. The petitioners were working as Upper Division Clerks in the Department of Telecommunication (DOT), Central Government. At the time of formation of the BSNL, in the year 2000, several employees from the DOT were placed on deemed deputation basis w.e.f. 1.10.2000, with BSNL. It is not disputed that on 15.9.2000, an agreement was reached between employees of the DOT and Central Government outlining the broad understanding concerning the terms and conditions of the officers sent to the BSNL. One of the demands related to ca...

J.B. Exports Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi317; [2006]134CompCas106(Delhi); 135(2006)DLT225; 2006(88)DRJ162

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2005. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3.The facts in details have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. It appears that M/s BVM Engineering Industry (P) Limited was the registered consumer of electricity connection granted at the factory premises A-20, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Petitioner No. 1, M/s J.B. Exports Limited owns the entire share capital of M/s BVM Engineering Industry (P) Limited. 5. In the inspection carried out in the premises in question on 8.8.1991 it is alleged that it was found that electricity was being consumed by M/s J.B. Exports Limited. On these facts a show cause notice was issued and thereafter the impugned order dated 25.3.1995 was passed demanding subletting charges and load violati...

Gargya Research Instruments Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2007)BC77; [2006]133CompCas323(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 23.1.2006 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 227/2005 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the mortgaged property at C-12, Site-IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, U.P. The petitioner also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to settle the matter between the petitioners as per the guidelines on the Rehabilitation/OTS Scheme and not to proceed further for confirming the auction sale.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The facts of the case have been set out in paragraph 3 of the writ petition which we have perused. 4. The petitioner No. 2 is a sole proprietor of petitioner No. 1 and is running a small scale industry for manufacturing various electrical and electronic products. 5. The petitioners had approached the respondent/State Bank of India, and since 1972 was sanctioned and granted various working capital facilities...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sps Engineering Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC119; 128(2006)DLT417; 2006(88)DRJ93

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.7.2004.2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts of the case have been set up in detail in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The writ Petitioner(respondent herein) is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Appellant (respondent in the writ petition) invited tenders for the infrastructure works for supply and installation of construction water system and operation and maintenance of construction and drinking water system at its Paradip Refinery. Petitioner's tender was accepted and work order in respect of jobs was issued in favor of the petitioner. A true copy of the letter of acceptance dated 30.11.2000 is Annexure P2 to the writ petition.5. Pursuant thereof, two agreements dated 18.1.2001 were executed between the parties ...

Chatru Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT336

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.12.2002. 2.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and, hence, we are not repeating the same except where necessary.3. The petitioner/appellant alleged that he was the owner of some land which was acquired and claimed an alternative plot since his land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. However, the respondent no.3 vide its letter dated 20.10.1987 rejected his claim on two grounds:- 1) the petitioner was not a bhoomidar and 2) the petitioner had acquired rights after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The learned Single Judge held that the second reasoning was not valid in view of the judgment of this Court in Shiv Devi Virlloy v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (FB) AIR 1987 Delhi 46. However, the learned Single Judge f...

Smt. Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Decd.) Vs. Rajinder Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ295

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M.(M) 2507/2005 is directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Delhi, dated 28.9.2005 whereby in execution the executing court has granted 15 days' time to the judgment debtor to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises, C-25, Friends Colony, New Delhi, and for payment of the decretal amount along with costs awarded failing which warrants of possession as also warrants of attachment shall be issued.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner moved the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition against the order of the High Court where the Supreme Court has issued notice. He submits that mere issue of notice should be sufficient for the executing court to stay its hands.3. Counsel for the respondents contends that if the Supreme Court would have desired to pass any interim order, it would have done so. That not being the case, it would be open for the executing court to continue with the proceedings.4. I have heard cou...

Kamaljeet Singh Negi Vs. Pritam Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT66

R.S. Sodhi, J1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.1.2005 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, in MCA 2/2005, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Delhi has dismissed the appeal arising out of the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by the Civil Judge dismissing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC of the petitioner herein.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi are as under :That the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction and declaration; that the plaintiff is in possession of the portion of property No.X/425, Gali No.1, Mohalla Ram Nagar, Gandhi, Delhi : 110031, comprising of two rooms measuring 14' X 11' and 14' X 12', one kitchen with roof rights measuring 50 sq. yds, shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint (hereinafter referred to as suit property); that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 30 years continuously; ...

Hewlett Packard India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT252; 2006(88)DRJ238; 2006(201)ELT3(Del)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing the respondents No. 2 & 3, the Commissioner of Customs, Aircargo, New Delhi Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi and the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to implement the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi dated 6.8.2001 and for a mandamus directing the said respondents to finalise the assessment in respect of 28 Bills of Entry in question on the basis of the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and to sanction the refund of excess customs duty of Rs. 45,08,079/- in respect of the 28 excess Bills of Entry in question and further to direct the said respondents to grant interest on the aforesaid amount from March, 2000 till the date of the refund. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of buying and selling various computer related items like computer printers, cartridges for printers etc. The pe...