Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

Dr. Govind Ram Bhilwar, Cmo Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, an order passed by the respondents on 29.12.2005 is assailed whereby the request of the applicant to change/alter his date of birth (DOB) from 7.6.1946 to 24.4.1949 has been turned down on the ground that representation preferred on 21.11.2005 is belated and time barred and the claim of the applicant for DOB is not an authentic one.2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant states that there have been discrepancies in the DOB as transpired from the horoscope though not an authentic proof, but the affidavit duly sworn before the SDM culminated into a request made to the erstwhile cadre, i.e., CHS where the applicant had been functioning on ad hoc basis. Later on, this request was not acceded to and there had not been any alternation in DOB. The applicant on being appointed on substantive post through UPSC on 16.12.1983, for want of alternation in DOB in his documents, he was constrained to record his DOB as in vogue, then, i.e., 7.6.1946.3. Learned s...

Shri Atul Kumar, S/O Shri Shankar Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA though applicant sought direction to Respondents to regularize him in Class-III post as Amonio Printing Machine Operator or in any other relevant Group-C post after he qualified the trade test in pay scale of Rs. 3050-4500/- as well as quash and set aside order dated 20.11.2000 vide which he has been reverted to substantive grade and post of Sr. Khalasi in scale of Rs. 2650-4000/- with consequential benefits, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for applicant stated that he would be satisfied if the relief as granted in Badri Prasad and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., wherein protection of pay was granted even after repatriation to substantive post, is allowed to him.2. Admitted facts are that applicant initially joined as casual labour on 2.6.1976 under Inspector of Works (Bikaner), awarded CPC Scale on 30.10.1976 in grade of Rs. 196-232, was given temporary status on 16.3.1979. He worked in Bikaner Division till 11.7.1985 as Khalasi. As per AEN/BKNs Notice da...

Ravi-ul-islam Vs. State (Nct)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ612; 129(2006)DLT595

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Delhi was dismissed.2. The facts leading to the present revision petition are that a charge-sheet under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in respect of FIR No. 568/2004 was filed against the petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.11.2004, the petitioner was found in possession of 1.820 kgs of Charas. It is further pointed out that a sample of 80 grams was taken out and the same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing which was subsequently found to be Charas. On 14.12.2004, the petitioner had moved an application for transfer of the proceedings to the Juvenile Justice Board inasmuch as the petitioner claimed to be a juvenile. That application was dismissed by the learned Additional...

Shri Amit Malik Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Malik and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT510

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. These are three appeals and have been filed against two orders dated 14.12.2005 and 13.2.2006 passed in two execution petitions No. 35 and 36/20042. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:Shri Amit Malik and Shri Anurag Malik are two real brothers. Smt.Kamlesh Malik is their mother. The family owned following four properties:(i) Property bearing No. A/20, Mahendru Enclave, New Delhi.(ii) Flat at Apna Villa.(iii) Godown at Sadar Bazar.(iv) Shop at Sadar Bazar-M/s Malik Light House.3. There was a dispute between the parties regarding their share in the aforesaid properties. The said dispute was referred by them for arbitration to Shri B.M. Khurana who was an elder of their family. Shri B.M. Khurana, Sole Arbitrator after hearing the parties gave his award on 03.06.2001. Material portion of the arbitral award reads as under:PROPERTY BEARING No. A/20, MAHENDRU ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. 11.Smt. Kamlesh Malik shall execute necessary documents of tr...

Bashishtha Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT279; 2008(1)SLJ114(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The present writ petition by the petitioner arises from the dismissal on 15th April, 2005 by the CAT Delhi of the O.A. No. 2270/2004 filed by him which O.A. challenged the order dated 16th January, 2003 passed by the Central Water Commission (CWC)/respondent No. 1, rejecting the petitioner's prayer for a third deputation to the Bihar State Hydro Electric Power Corporation (B.S.H.E.P.C.). The following impugned order was passed in the CAT on 16th January, 2003 by respondent No. 1:ANNEXURE P-8No. 3/1/2002-Estt.III/95Government of IndiaMinistry of Water ResourcesCentral Water CommissionNew Delhi, the 16th January, 2003OFFICE MEMORANDUMShri Bashishtha Rai, AD is informed that his application for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) in Bihar State Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. is proposed to be forwarded only if they were ready to take him on immediate absorption basis. He s...

C. Lal Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT531

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the appellant M/s C. Lal Gupta is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.04.2005 by which the arbitral award dated 03.09.1993 has been partly set aside. The challenge in this appeal is restricted to setting aside of award on claims No. 3, 4, 5 and 7.2. The appellant is a building contractor and was awarded contract by the respondent (Delhi Development Authority) for construction of unauthorised regularized colony of Brahampura Complex SH Drains, Culverts, Roads and Paths etc. at Harijan Colony, Brahampura vide Agreement bearing number 397/EE/HD.XV/84-85.3. Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid work done which under Clause 25 of the Agreement were referred for decision to the Sole Arbitrator Mr. A. Shankaran, Retired Additional Director General of CPWD by the then Engineer Member vide his letter bearing number EM2(3)91 Arbn/1...

Ajay Kumar Kaushik and ors. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT82; 2006(90)DRJ157

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ proceedings claim pay scales higher to what has been prescribed to them, and allege that the scales of equivalent to what is prescribed for Assistants, is vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; they claim pay parity with those who worked as Stenographer Grade II, at the relevant time. 2. All the petitioners were recruited, at the relevant time, on various dates between 1983-1986, as Stenographer-III. The relevant facts, uncontroversial by the respondent-employer (the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, hereafter called 'ONGC') are that as per the recruitment rules applicable in the respondent organization, there were three categories of Stenographers- Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III. In 1968, ONGC decided, as a matter of policy to discontinue direct recruitment to the post of Stenographer-III; it commenced recruitment directly to the post of Stenographer Grade-II. Sometime in 1974, Recruitment Rules were framed, which alte...

Kamal Pal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT822; 2006(90)DRJ166; 2007(1)SLJ537(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The Petitioner has approached this Court claiming a direction to be promoted to the post of Lab Assistant in the Respondent No. 4 school which is an aided institution in terms of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules.2. The undisputed facts are that the Petitioner joined the Respondent on 21.10.1982 as a Sweeper; he was confirmed to the post on 6.1.1994. It is claimed that in 1995 he completed his class 10th examination from the National Open School in Science subjects. The Petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate.3. The school where the Petitioner works is a Girls school. It has one post of Lab Assistant which fell vacant in the year 1999. The Petitioner alleges that the post has not been filled up, till date. In another school run by the same society, which consists exclusively of male pupils a similar vacancy arose in the year 2000 in the post of Lab Assistant.4. The Petitioner alleges that he represented on several occasions in the year 2000 and 2002, se...

Rajni Vs. Rajinder Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC502

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,85,746.25 against the defendants under the provisions of Order 37 of the CPC. During the pendency of this suit, an application for leave to defend was filed on behalf of the defendants. The application was contested by the plaintiff. However, during the pendency of the application defendant No. 1 did not appear resulting in passing a decree against defendant No. 1. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the decree dated 8.2.2005. This application was also dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 11.8.2005. The suit against defendant No. 1 is still pending before the Trial Court.2. Aggrieved from the said two orders i.e. 8.2.2005 and 11.8.2005, the appellant has filed the present appeal which itself is barred by time and the application for condensation of delay has been filed.3. During the course of hearing learne...

international Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants are a manufacturer of tractors which are liable to duty on the basis of their value. They sold the tractors to dealers and adopted their sale price to the dealers as assessable value for discharging Central Excise duty.2. Subsequently, two show cause notices were issued to treat the margin of the dealers also as part of the assessable value. The ground taken was that the dealers were agent of the appellant and agent's commission is not to be deducted while fixing assessable value. When the dispute was adjudicated, the adjudicating authority found, as a matter of fact, that the tractors were bought by the dealers on outright purchase basis and they sold the tractors after charging their margin and that verification showed that no payment of commission was being made by the appellant manufacturer to the dealers. Upon this factual finding, the duty demands were dropped by the adjudicating authority.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order on adjudication, the revenue filed a...