Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

R.K. Maheshwari Vs. Department of Personnel and Training and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ177

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, R.K. Maheshwari, is aggrieved by the dismissal of OA. No. 2081/2004 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, vide its order dated 16.1.2006 and dismissal of the Review Application No. 36/2006, preferred by the petitioner, vide order dated 6.3.2006 by the Tribunal. 2. Petitioner's claim in the OA before the Tribunal was for promotion w.e.f. July, 1992 on the basis of his being declared successful and his name being included in the selection list at Sl. No. 59 in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Section officer Grade-I against the vacancies for the year 1992. Petitioner had been officiating as Section Officer on adhoc basis since 1990. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Rani Chhabra submits that petitioner should have been promoted on the basis of the Select List issued by UPSC since there were no disciplinary proceedings pending and/or contemplated against the petitioner, which could be a bar for appointment to the post of Section ...

Sunnaren Seaways Inc. Vs. the Metals and Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT477

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Metal Scrap Trade Corporation limited (hereinafter referred to as MSTCL) has preferred objections to the Umpire's award dated 15.4.1995. Vide order dated 17.8.1994, Mr. M.S. Anchan and Mr. N. Gopalakrishnan the 2 arbitrators appointed by the parties, one each, referred the dispute to Captain S.M. Berry as an Umpire inasmuch as the learned arbitrators deferred on 2 out of 3 claims of Sunnaren Seaways Inc., Monrovia, Liberia (hereinafter referred to as the owner). For record, award published by Mr. M.S. Anchan is dated 14.8.1994 and that published by Mr.N. Gopalakrishnan is 17.8.1994.2. On 14.12.1989, a voyage charterparty agreement was entered into between MSTCL and the owner where under the ship M.V. Progressive owned by the owner was chartered to carry pig iron from Novorossiosk, Russia (load port) to Bombay (discharge port). Inter alia, Clauses 21, 22, 24, 51, 56 and 64 of the charter party provided as under:Clause 21: The Master's written notice of readiness ...

Sadashiva Raj Purohit Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT99

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Aggrieved by the denial of his prayer for payment of pension from the date of his application, a 77-year-old freedom fighter has approached this Court. He is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.7.2006 of a learned Single Judge rejecting his writ petition.Facts2. First, the facts. The appellant, a resident of Raichur, had participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. He was arrested twice by the then Hyderabad police in 1947-48. He had been imprisoned for two periods from 2.10.1947 to 9.11.1947 and from 1.6.1948 to 25.8.1948 and remained underground from 15.2.1948 to 1.6.1948. Some time after the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme was announced in 1972, the appellant applied for grant of pension. On 11.8.1973 Deputy Commissioner, Raichur forwarded the appellant's application for grant of pension, to the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the Respondent herein. This application was initially rejected on 27.6.1974 on the ground that the app...

Jagrati Devi Vs. Gulfam

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007ACJ2066

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 16.4.2004 on the death of Mahabir Singh. Mahabir Singh who expired on 24.10.1999 was 52 years of age at that time.2. Mahabir Singh was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector with Delhi Police and was earning Rs. 9,641 per month. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,52,400 on account of loss of dependency and has awarded Rs. 25,000 for mental pain and agony, Rs. 5,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000 for loss to estate and Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. In all payment of Rs. 7,92,400 has been awarded and interest at the rate of 7 per cent has also been awarded.3. While awarding the compensation the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that while awarding compensation learned Tribunal has not taken into account future prospects and increase in income. He also s...

income Tax Officer Vs. Giggles (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)570; [2008]301ITR32(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is preferred by the IT Department being aggrieved by the order dt. 5th July, 2005, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The impugned order arose in a revision petition which was filed on behalf of the assesseds [M/s Giggles (P) Ltd. and Ors. ], who are the respondents herein, against the order dt. 21st March, 2005 passed by the learned ACMM, Delhi. The order dt. 21st March, 2005 came to be passed on an application for discharge moved by the accused persons. In the application the accused had taken the plea that the Tribunal had deleted the penalty sought to be imposed on the accused under Section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and thereforee, the present criminal proceedings under Section 276C(1) r/w Section 278B of the said Act against the accused also did not survive and the complaint ought to be quashed. The learned ACMM, after considering the application moved on behalf of the accus...

Archaeological Survey of India and anr. Vs. Niraj Kumar Sinha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ182

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners-Archaeological Survey of India and Union Public Service Commission by this writ petition seek quashing of the judgment and order dated 21st April, 2004 and 11th August, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 547/2004. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of increase in the upper age limit by two years in terms of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services and Civil Posts (Upper Age limit for Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as `Rules'). 2. The said order and judgment was passed in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner and thus an application bearing M.A No. 1653/2004 was moved for recalling the order. The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal observing that there was no ground to rehear the matter and the remedy of the petitioner may lie in challenging the order in the appropriate forum. 3. This petition involves interpretation of Rule 3 of the Rul...

Abdul Kalam Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Tribunal is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Judicial Member. 2. This is a second appeal against Order of first appeal No. SD(A)/KOL/ 2004-05/2, dated 21-2-2006 passed by Special Director (Appeals), FEMA and Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,42,000 (Rupees four lakh and forty two thousand only) against the appellant, Abdul Kalam for contravention of provisions of sections 3(a), 3(b), 4 and 8 of FEM Act, 1999 besides confiscating the seized foreign exchange to the tune of US $ 14,130, U.K. Pound 180, Singapore $ 80, Australian $ 120, BD Taka 1,000, Euro 150, Thai Bhat 100 and Saudi Riyal 500 and two gold biscuits along with Indian currency of 3 lakhs. Originally the appellant was penalized by the Adjudicating Officer with penalty of Rs. 6,67,000 which was subsequently reduced in the first appeal by the Special Director to the tune of Rs. 4,42,000. In the memo of appeal it has been mentioned by the appellant on page 2 that the amount...

Sarjit Singh S/O Shri Jawant Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As these OAs are founded on identical facts with an identical question of law raised as to whether the casual labourers with temporary status on regularization would have to be regularized from the date of accrual of vacancies or from the date preceding the selection of the concerned after adjudging them suitable as per the Recruitment Rules (RRs) in consonance with DoPT OM dated 10.9.1993, all these OAs are being disposed by this common order.2. It is trite in the light of Constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi that regularization de hors the rules is against the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Accordingly, all the Courts, below the Apex Court, are being precluded to issue directions of regularization pertaining to temporary, ad hoc casual or daily wages employees. However, on an exception carved out that those who have been engaged on an irregular appointment having completed ten or m...

Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretary Vs. Jai Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ222

Vijender Jain, A.C.J.1. We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for both the parties. Mr. V.K. Tandon counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge erred in declaring the respondent as Bhumidar. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the respondent could not have moved an application under Section 74 of Delhi Land Reforms Act for declaring him as a Bhumidar before the completion of the lease period granted to him. It was further contended by the 6ounsel for the appellant that in any case Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act postulates that application shall be made at the end of five years. It is relevant to quote sub-section (4) of Section 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms, Act. The same is as under:74. Admission to land mentioned in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of Section 6 or to waste land for reclamation.(4) At the end of five years, the Gaon Sabha shall report to the Revenue Assistant the extent to w...

ishat-e-islam Trust Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(164)DRJ91

S. Muralidhar, J.Background facts1. On 14.7.1980 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act) notifying the petitioner's lands located in Village Okhla, Delhi for acquisition for the planned development of Delhi. Following this a notification dated 29.4.1981, being a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, came to be issued.2. This writ petition was filed in May 1981 seeking the quashing of the notifications dated 14.7.1980 and 29.4.1981. The Khasra Nos. of the lands of the petitioner as mentioned in the petition, and in particular in the prayer clause, were Khasra Nos. 233, 234, 236, 238, 244, 413/237, 414/237, 425/239 and 426/239 situated in Village Okhla. Significantly, Khasra No. 232, in respect of which both the notifications dated 14.7.1980 and 29.4.1981 were issued, did not find a mention either in the petition or in the prayer clause. The second significant aspect was that out of the Khasra Nos. mentioned in the Section 4 notification, the n...