Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

A.K. Chohdda, Indian Supply Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The short point involved in this case is whether the UPSC while convening the DPC for the post of Deputy Director General (ISS) could have taken into consideration the criteria of selection subject to unfit, as laid down in instructions dated 8.2.2002 when the procedure laid down in recruitment rules notified on 9.9.1994 was selection by merit and they were still in existence when the DPC met.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he joined Indian Supply Service in the year 1973 as Assistant Director (Supplies) Group -A. The next post for promotion is that of Deputy Director General and as per the recruitment rules dated 23.9.1994, the selection was required to be made on merit, which means that the officers who were found to be `outstanding' should have been placed above those, who had lesser merit as per the recommendations of the DPC whereas the DPC, which was held sometimes in May, 2002 for filling up the vacancies of 2000-01, 2001-02/2002-03, for promotion to the post of DDG...

Shri Lokender Pal Ex Head Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ225CAT

1. Doctrine of precedent as well as stare decisis have been settled by the various pronouncements of the Apex Court. It is trite that an order passed by a coordinate Bench is binding on another Bench and in case of any divergent opinion for a view expressed in variance of the earlier Bench, the methodology is to refer the same to a Larger Bench. However, in SI Rooplal and Ors. v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Ors. , insofar as doctrine of precedent is This Court has laid down time and again that precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law.2. Having regard to the above, any decision, which is rendered in ignorance of a statutory provision is to be observed as a decision in per incuriam and has no precedent value. The Apex Court in a Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. observed as under: 42. It appears that when this Court gave the aforesaid directions on 16th February, 1984, ...

Subhash Singh S/O Late Sugar Singh Vs. Northern Railway Through Genera ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Father of applicant, namely, Sugar Singh, had been in employment of respondents as Key Man since 5.9.1965. He expired on 23.1.1997 due to a tragic accident while he was on duty as Key Man at Okhla Railway Station at about 8.05 a.m.2. Admittedly, applicant is an issue from the second wedlock of the deceased government employee. He had taken applicants mother Smt.Parmati Devi as his second wife while his first wife was alive. Two applications for employment on compassionate ground had been made - one by the son of the first wife and Anr. for the present applicant. There are seven children of the deceased government employee from his first legally wedded wife. Apart from applicant, there are four daughters (married) and one more son of applicants mother and the deceased government employee. Applicants mother had made an application to respondents for providing employment on compassionate ground to her son, i.e., applicant, on 2.5.1997. Vide Annexure P/1 dated 24.11.1998 respondents ha...

U.S. Lamba S/O Shri Ami Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. OA is filed for setting aside the order dated 12.12.2003 (Annexure A-1) whereby the representation of the applicant for his promotion to the post of Inspector was rejected and for further direction to the respondent to consider him for promotion from the post of Tax Assistant to the post of Inspector.2. Briefly, the allegations of the applicant are that on 1.10.1993 he was promoted to the post of Tax Assistant in the office of the respondent. He was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector on clearing the physical test before he had attained the age of 38 years as per Recruitment Rules. A DPC was convened in 1987 for promotion to the post of Tax Assistants, for those who had qualified the physical test, but the applicant was not informed of the physical test before that meeting so he was deprived of this opportunity. The applicant had attained the age of 38 years on 6.5.1987 so his right for consideration for promotion was denied. His representation for giv...

Ashok S/O Shri Babu Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this third round of litigation, these applicants have claimed the following relief: (i) To direct the respondents to consider the applicants against the posts advertised by the respondents as having the first pre-emptive right in terms of the order and judgment in Original Application No. 953 of 1991 Suresh and Others as well as subsequent judgments passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.2. The background of the case as averred in the OA may be stated as follows. The applicants were working as Daily Rated Casual Labours in the National Zoological Park from different dates starting from 1985.Their services were discontinued in March 2003 on the ground that they had not put in more than 240 days in a calendar year. They approached this Tribunal by filing OA 1724/2000 for conferring temporary status on them and for regularization of their service in Group 'D' in its turn.The Tribunal disposed off the OA by order dated 1.6.2001 and directed that whenever the respondents decide to engage ca...

Manohar Lal S/O Khayali Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, who had been working as Technician Grade-I in the Railways was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) rules, 1968 and removed from service vide Annexure P-1 dated 2.2.2005 as he had been convicted by a court of law (Trial court, Mathura) under Sections 304B, 201 and 498 IPC vide judgment dated 27.4.2004. Appeal against the penalty of removal from service imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority was rejected vide Annexure P-2 dated 13.5.2005. Applicant has come up assailing Annexures P-1 and P-2.2. It has been stated that applicant had preferred an appeal against the order of conviction before the Allahabad High Court through Appeal No. 2384/2004. He was released on bail while the appeal is still pending with the High court.3. The learned Counsel of applicant maintained that the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 30.4.2005 stayed the execution of the sentence of applicant in the criminal case, thus, he could not have ...

Super Cassettes Industries Limited Vs. Chanda Cassettes Pvt. Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(1)232

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Instant appeal arises out of an order dated 3.8.2006 of learned Additional District Judge, whereby she, while disposing of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC and another application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, made by appellant and respondent No. 1 respectively, vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction granted earlier in favor of the appellant.2. Material facts as set out in the plaint unfold that the appellant acquired copyright, for consideration, in literary, dramatic, musical works and sound recording of several cinematographfilms, including films 'AKSAR' and 'KUCCH TO HAI', under separate deeds of assignment. The appellant also produced a sound recording under the title 'MAIYA RANI'(MATA KI BHENT). By virtue of being assignee of the sound recordings comprising the songs(musical/literary works) of the films 'AKSAR' and 'KUCCH TO HAI', and also being producer of sound recording under the title 'MAIYYA RANI'(MATA KI BHENT) the appellant claims ...

K.D. Mathpal Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ406

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 12.07.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2110/2005, the petitioner has filed the present writ appeal seeking directions for setting aside and quashing the impugned order and for directions to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to register a case against respondents No. 5 and 6 under Sections 441, 448, 452 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. We need not give facts in detail here, as the same are set out in the order of the learned Single Judge. Suffice to state that the petitioner seeks ouster of his son and his daughter-in-law from the premises stated to be owned by him. The petitioner Has complained that he and his wife are being subjected to torture, and harassment at the hands of his son and daughter-in-law, day in and day out, and it has become unbearable for them to suffer all this. The petitioner has also complained that his son and daughter-in-law, respondents No. 5 and 6 herein, have ...

Dilip Kumar Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ616

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of NDMC. There was a complaint against him that he had demanded Rs. 100/- from Chaman Lal who was doing business of vending flowers and dolls on pavement at Teen Murti Chowk. The incident is two decades old that took place on 25.09.1986. It is alleged that the complainant Chaman Lal on the date of incident went to pay the bribe money of Rs. 100/- to the petitioner but he did not accept the same and asked the complainant to come the next day with Rs. 250/-. At that time, he was accompanied with a shadow witness Satish Singh. The shadow witness Satish Singh was asked to accompany the complainant as the complainant had reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Branch and on his complaint a case vide RC-63/1986-III had been registered against the petitioner. The matter was investigated by the Anti-Corruption Branch and after completion of investigation, a Closure Report was filed by the CBI before the Special Judge. The closure report file...

Sh. V.K. Puri Vs. Cbi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT521

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner's application for discharge on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was rejected.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which relates to the possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of a public servant. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed pertaining to the check period from 01.06.1988 to 22.02.2002 when the search was conducted. It is his submission that during this check period, the petitioner was not posted in Delhi. This fact is borne out from the charge-sheet itself. He referred to the provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) an...