Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Mr. Desh Raj Singh Vs. Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT120

ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 8.11.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi and the order dated 19.12.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, in the execution proceedings.2. I have heard Mr. R.S. Endlaw, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Anand, learned Counsel for respondents/caveators, on the point of admission, and have gone through the impugned order and the judgment and copies of the documents placed on the file.3. Briefly the facts are that the predecessor of respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit against respondent No. 2 herein, Sarvan Singh, father of the objector (petitioner herein) for directing respondent No. 2, Sarvan Singh, father, who is alive, to hand over the possession, demolish unauthorized construction made by him and further for restraining him (father of objector) from making any further construction in future. The said suit was decreed on 21...

Union of India (UOi) Vs. West Bengal State Coop. Consumer's Federation ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR389(Delhi); 134(2006)DLT470; 2006(89)DRJ697

Manju Goel, J.1. The Union of India filed the CS(OS) No. 251A/99 under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for a direction to defendant No. 2 Mr. S.B. Sharan - to file his award in the dispute between Union of India and the defendant No. 1 M/s. West Bengal State Coop. Consumer's Federation Ltd. Notice was issued to the Arbitrator on which the Arbitrator filed his award on which CS(OS) No. 1594A/99 was registered. Both the matters are being taken up together. While the Union of India prays for making the award a rule of the court, the defendant M/s. West Bengal State Coop. Consumer's Federation Ltd. - objects to the award. The objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act is registered as is No. 11639/99 in CS(OS) 1594A/99. This judgment will dispose of all these matters.2. The Union of India alleges that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement No. I-13028/1/81/88 Pur-III dated 28.3.1988 for supply of 1600 MT Masseur Whole to defense ...

Dr. B. Mohanty Vs. Tata Sons Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT116; (2006)144PLR16

J.P. Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed for quashing order dated 25.2.2004 passed by civil judge Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in suit No. 113/03. Vide impugned order an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC moved by the defendant has been dismissed.2. I have heard Ms. S.R. Padhy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shraman Siwha, learned Counsel for respondent and have gone through the impugned order and the summoned record.3. Briefly the facts are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 89,816/- against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 2) and Mr. Anand Mohanti (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1). The plaintiff is inter alias engaged in the business of consultancy. Defendant No. 1 was trainee of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 stood surety to the service agreement executed by defendant No. 1. It was agreed that since the plaintiff would incu...

S.K. Sharda Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT142

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 10th July, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'CAT') in an application filed by the petitioner by which the petitioner approached the CAT challenging his reversion to the substantive post of Assistant by order dated 9th May, 2000. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant with the respondents on 8th December, 1987. In 1995, after serving for eight years as Assistant the petitioner became eligible to be promoted to the post of Section Officer. As the required rules for promotion to the post of Section Officer stipulated 8 years working on the post of Assistant, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Section Officer on ad hoc basis on 16th June, 1997. The petitioner's reversion was occasioned due to the promotion of four Assistants to the post of Section Officer on 2nd July, 1...

S.N. JaIn Vs. Registrar of Companies

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas453(Delhi); 2006CriLJ3228; 131(2006)DLT536; 2006(89)DRJ700; [2006]72SCL332(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.11.2000 passed by the learned ACMM, New Delhi whereby the petitioner's application for discharge was dismissed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that there was a serious error in the impugned order inasmuch as the complaint that had been initiated against the present petitioner was on the ground that he was a Managing Director of the Company, Star Electronic Limited, on the date on which the company was required to file annual returns and balance sheet for the years 1996-1998. He submitted that as per the Companies Act, 1956, the annual return for the year 1996 had to be filed by 31st October, 1996. As regards the balance sheet for the year 1996, the same had also to be filed on the same date. The complaint was lodged by the Registrar of Companies as late as on 28.5.1999. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned senior counsel was that the petitioner had resig...

Shri Sewa Dass Nimbaker, Retd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This case has a chequered history, as could be noticed from the details noticed hereinunder. By the present OA, applicant seeks following relief: b) Direct the respondents to place the name of the applicant in the select panel dated 9.10.1992 for promotion to Group-B Service in Commercial Branch of T(T) & C Department against 75% quota at the appropriate place and be granted notional promotion (as the applicant has retired) and further grant all consequential benefits. Pass such further order or orders which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.2. The controversy raised in present OA is whether applicant qualified in selection held in the year 1992 for Group-B Service in Commercial Branch of Respondent. The facts as stated are that Respondent issued notice for selection for promotion to Group-B Service in Commercial Branch against 75% quota on 21.4.1992. He was shown as eligible for said selection communication dated 17...

ishwar Singh (Retired Asi) Vs. Shri K.K. Paul, Commissioner of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. OA No.52/2006 seeking direction to respondents to pay washing allowance, conveyance allowance, special pay/salary of one month as the period of suspension had been treated as spent on duty, was disposed of by order dated 10.1.2006 with the following directions: 4. Accordingly, OA is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to treat the present OA as a representation made by the applicant to the respondents for redressal of his grievances and the respondents are directed to consider this representation and decide it within two months from the date on which the copy of the aforesaid representation and the copy of the order of the Tribunal is received by them. Counsel for applicant has undertaken to serve a copy of the aforesaid representation and copy of this order of the Tribunal on the respondents within one week. OA stands disposed of in above terms. 5. It will be open to the applicant to approach this Tribunal in accordance with law in case her grievances survive after t...

Ex. Constable Nagraj S/O Jhoota Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this OA has been challenged punishment of dismissal from service on the charge of unauthorized and wilful absence without any intimation/prior permission of the competent authority after transfer.It was alleged that applicant had remained absent in this manner from 17.5.2001 to 9.5.2002. Applicant has sought quashment of the impugned orders by which applicant was dismissed from service and reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.2. The learned Counsel of applicant has challenged the disciplinary proceedings against applicant resulting in the punishment of dismissal from service on the following grounds: (1) The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against applicant in violation of Rule 14(4) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter called the 1980 Rules) inasmuch as orders for the enquiry were issued by DCP, New Delhi District, who was no longer the competent authority as applicant stood transferred to the disciplinary contr...

Shri P.K. Sharma, Adviser (ir) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this order, we are considering a prayer made for grant of interim relief to restrain the Respondents from considering/posting a non-IRPS Officer as Additional Member (Staff) in terms of judgment rendered by this Tribunal in S.C. Manchanda v. UOI, OA No. 211/2002 decided on 08.07.2002 and to consider the Applicant herein for posting as Additional Member (Staff) even by downgrading the post as was done in case of Shri Manchanda, till the final disposal of the O.A.2. Necessary background facts, which are required to be noticed are that Applicant was initially encadred in the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers with DOITS as 07.04.1977, was inducted into Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS in short) in the year 1986. The said Group A organized service, i.e. IRPS, was constituted in the year 1975 and options for induction in the said service after adjudging suitability by a High Powered Selection Committee including a Member of UPSC were invited in terms of Railway Boar...

Krishna Raja P. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Vide this application has been sought review of Tribunals orders dated 14.2.2006 whereby OA No. 382/2006 was dismissed in limine. (1) While applicants had claimed that the 3rd, 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions (CPCs) had accorded parity of pay scales between applicants who are Accountants in the accounts cadre of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Cabinet Affairs, Government of India, and Accountants of the organized cadres of other Ministries/Departments, the Tribunal could not have asked for extracts of the reports of the CPCs where such parity was considered by them. Applicants maintained that such a query is not relevant to the issue.In State of Mizoram v. Mizoram Engineering Service Association , the Honble Supreme Court has held that there should hardly be any difference in organized and unorganized service so far as the government service is concerned and such a distinction will not have any relevance in the matter of granting parity sinc...