Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Sri Sumit Vig, Commercial Clerk Vs. the Secretary, Railway Board and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged chargesheet dated 8.5.2006 (page 20 and 22) as well as order dated 10.5.2006 ( page 7) whereby he has been spared from the office of CMI, New Delhi to report in the office of OS/P-2, DRM Office, New Delhi for further sparing to LKO Division on administrative grounds.2. It is submitted by the counsel for applicant that he has been transferred due to personal vendetta of Rajesh Khanna, CMI which is evident from the fact that in 4 months he was transferred 4 times, therefore, it is bad in law. Transfer is punitive in nature as he has been transferred on account of chargesheet but neither there is any complaint against him nor there is any evidence against him. In fact along with chargesheet documents have been supplied which do not even relate to him and are related to one Shri R.K. Malhotra viz. page 40 and 41 etc. Apart from it, there are other cases where a specific complaint is available on record for charging excess amount from the passengers ...

Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta S/O Shri M.C. Vs. Govt. of India Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. An order passed on 16.12.2003 whereby the period of overstay on foreign assignment w.e.f. 21.12.2002 to 6.7.2003 has been treated as dies non without any service benefits, including eligibility service for promotion, qualifying service for pension, etc. A representation preferred against it has been disposed of by a non-speaking order on 27.8.2004 2. It is trite that before any civil consequences ensue upon a government servant, he has a right to be accorded a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is not only in consonance with the fairness but also audi alteram partem, a principle contained in the principles of natural justice.3. As per FR 17-A, before the period of absence has been treated as dies non, a reasonable opportunity has to be given. This has been decided on the basis of a decision of Allahabad High Court and by adopting the OM of DOPT dated 20/23.5.1988, which is reproduced as under: (1) Reasonable opportunity to be given before invoking the penal provisions. - ...

Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Late Shri Shiv Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants have challenged order dated 30.3.2005 whereby request of applicant No. 1 for compassionate appointment of her son (applicant No.2 ) has been rejected.2. It is stated by applicant No. 1 that her husband expired on 20.10.2002 leaving behind three children. She gave a representation for grant of compassionate appointment in favour of her son since they have no source of income except her husband service for supporting a large number of family. However, her request has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 30.3.2005 by a non-speaking order. Counsel for applicant relies on OM dated 5.5.2003 to state that her case had to be considered upto 3 consecutive years.3. Respondents have opposed this OA. They have stated that compassionate appointment Committee had considered the request of applicant on 11.2.2005 along with cases of other persons but the Committee found that the family of the deceased received Rs. 3,56,365/- as terminal benefits apart from family pension of...

Vijay Pal Singh Son of Shri Subhash Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. None appeared for the applicant even after the second call. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 28.8.2006, it was directed that if nobody appears for the applicant, the matter would be proceeded under Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, by invoking Rule 15 ibid, the present OA is being decided after hearing Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned Counsel for respondents.2. By virtue of this OA, applicant is challenging the process of selection adopted by the respondents in recruitment of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police notified by a notification dated 13.4.2005.Applicant, who applied for the post under OBC category, had been examined physically with other parameters but when it comes to interview, he was not called and his name was not in the list of persons selected for the post.3. Applicant in this OA assails this action of the respondents on the ground that no opportunity was accorded to him to show his driving skill and as a licence given to person, who drives the vehi...

Ajai Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged Memorandum dated 10.10.2001 whereby adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of applicant for the period 1999-2000 and 2000-01 were communicated to the applicant (page 23). It is submitted by the applicant that this Memorandum itself is bad in law because it is not clear whether the remarks given were adverse or advisory in nature as it was stated in Memorandum dated 10.10.2001 that the adverse/advisory remarks have been recorded in the said ACRs even though his overall performance has been adjudged as Very Good. He thus treated those remarks as advisory remarks and not as adverse remarks.This is also apparent from the fact that in March, 2001 when applicant was repatriated back to his parent cadre, he was promoted as Commissioner in the State of Tripura, which shows that even the State treated this Memorandum as advisory remarks only.2. His grievance is, that even though he was recommended by the Government of Tripura for appointment on Central De...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Graphic Era Educational Society

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 4-10-2004 for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, in the matter of order passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Following are the common issues in both the years: 1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-H, Dehradun, has erred in law and on facts in holding that society fulfils conditions for exemption under Section 11. 2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-H, Dehradun, has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of treatment of voluntary receipts as business receipts. 3. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-11, Dehradun, be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored." 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The assessee is a society registered on 3-9-1996 by Registrar of Firms, Societies & Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Garhwal Region, Dehradun. The society is also reg...

Samrat Behl Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ409

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The appellant feeling aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.8.2006 (W.P.(C) 13539/2006) has filed the present writ appeal. After decision of the Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2006 VI AD (S.C.) 213 : 2006 (90) DRJ 1 [SC], the controversy relating to the grant of L-52 licences to private parties pursuant to policy of the Government to partially privatize retail sale of liquor stands settled The facts of the present case are fully covered by the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court. The appellant has tried to distinguish his case by stating that the L-52 licence Was already granted to him prior to 9.3.2005 though the same was actually issued on 26.4.2005. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant forcefully pleaded that the date of grant of permit is the date of the order and the issuance of permit is a mere ministerial function and on this plea he states that the licence to the appellant ...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. K.K. Berry and Ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ120

S. Muralidhar, J.1. LPA No. 550/2004 is directed against the judgment dated 3.10.2002 of a learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4009 of 1998 filed by the respondents. By the impugned judgments, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to prepare a `due and drawn' statement on the basis that the respondents herein, who are retired pensioners of the appellant, would be entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the commuted value of the pension due to each of the respondents for the period from 1.7.1989 to 30.9.1995.2. This appeal was filed on 30.8.2003 with a delay of over 270 days. It was apparently returned by the registry with certain objections. Thereafter it was re-filed only on 30.4.2004 with an obvious delay in re-filing the appeal. In the meanwhile, the impugned judgment was complied with by the appellant as is evident from the following two paragraphs of its memorandum of appeal:At the outset it is submitted that the appellant Corporation has in pursuanc...

Mohd. Akbar Butt Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT43; 2006(91)DRJ242

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 03-06-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the three appellants have been convicted under Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908 and appellant Mohd. Akbar Butt has also been convicted under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the said Act of 1908(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1908') and the order dated 07-07-2003 whereby life imprisonment has been imposed upon the appellant Mohd. Akbar Butt besides fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default three years RI for his conviction under Section 4 read with Section 5 and 10 years rigorous imprisonment has been awarded to all the three appellants and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default two years 'RI for their conviction under Section 6. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and were heard also analogously the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:O...

C.L. Khanna and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT111; [2007(113)FLR1115]; (2007)2LLJ915Del

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Shri C.L. Khanna appellant No. 1, the sole proprietor of appellant No. 2 K.F. Engineering Works, against the judgment and order dated 27th February 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the Civil Writ Petition No. 789/1980 by which judgment and order the learned Single Judge had upheld the order of the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, holding that the two units i.e. the appellant No. 2, M/s K.F. Engineering Works and M/s A. Pee Industries are one establishment and are covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent No. 1 herein is the Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and respondent No. 2 is the Central Provident Fund Commissioner.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings against the appellant No. 1 under Section 7A of t...