Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

Sh. Satyabir Singh, Laboratory Vs. Deptt. of Agriculture, Animal

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. In this case, the applicants, who are working as Laboratory Assistants, have impugned order dated 30.09.2006 (Annexure-A) whereby their request for grant of higher pay scale has been rejected.3. Facts leading to filing of the present Original Application are as under: Applicants were engaged as Laboratory Assistants in the Delhi Milk Scheme at its establishments in Delhi. Recruitment Rules (Annexure-B) for appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India provide that the appointment for the said post shall be 100% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. The Recruitment Rules also provide that in case of promotion, the grade from which promotion shall be made is as follows: (a) Promotion from amongst Skilled Operatives with three years regular service in the grade; and (b) Laboratory Attendants with seven years regular service in the grade with matriculation with science. Skilled Operatives being the feeder cadre for the...

inspector Avtar Singh Parmar S/O Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Govt ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Avtar Singh Parmar, holding the post of Inspector in Delhi Police, applicant herein, was SHO of P.S. Tilak Marg at the relevant time on 18.04.2007, when he was issued a show cause notice as to why his conduct should not be censured and if he wanted to file reply he should do so within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice aforesaid.The conduct of the applicant that required to be censured, as per the case of the respondents, is that a meeting of SHO and Inspector Investigation/P.S. Tilak Marg was called in the office of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range at 4.30 p.m. on 13.04.2007 to discuss the pending investigation cases. The meeting was attended by the SHO/Inspector Investigation, P.S. Tilak Marg but in the said meeting the applicant could neither explain the present status nor give satisfactory reply to the query pertaining to details of cases. As per the show cause notice, this would reflect a causal attitude of the applicant regarding investiga...

Sh. Satya Narayan Meena S/O Sh. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A juvenile aged 14 years, Satya Narayan Meena, the applicant herein, was arrested in 1994, having been involved in 3 petty cases of theft in FIR Nos. 47/94, 50/94 and 51/94. He was given in the custody of his father. Twelve years thereafter, the applicant successfully competed for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police, but before he could be appointed, pursuant to a show cause notice issued to him, his candidature was cancelled, vide order dated 6.9.2006.2. The question that has been posed to be answered by this Tribunal in this Original Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is as to whether the involvement of the applicant in three petty criminal cases, when he was juvenile, would put a permanent seal on his fate so as never to get a government job in his life.3. Before, we may take into consideration, comment and adjudicate upon the rival contentions of the parties on the question mooted before us, it will ...

Sh. Lekh Raj S/O Sh. Moolchand and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. The applicants, who are working as Technician Gr.II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, are impugning order dated 26.08.2003 (Annexure A-1) in terms of which respondent No. 3 has passed order to promote as many as 70 Technician Gr.II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- to Technician Gr.I in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- but has arbitrarily and inexplicably ignored them despite their names having been on the panel and even senior to them.3. Respondent No. 1 initiated a selection for the post of Technician Gr.I prior to 01.04.2003 when the re-grouping of the Railway Division had taken place but the selection proceedings continued even after re-grouping and the result of 122 candidates was published on 04.08.2003 (Annexure A-2). Applicants' names figure at Serial Nos. 11, 21, 44, 65, 67 and 100.4. The applicants have submitted that in spite of representations dated 08.11.2005 and 29.12.2005 (Annexure A-3) having been made and several judgments dealing with the same issue, neither ...

Sh. Madan Pal Bhasker S/O Late Sh. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant impugning Charge Memo dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure A-1). Applicant initially joined as LDC and thereafter got promotion to the post of UDC in May, 1988. While he was posted in the Office of SDM, Preet Vihar, a false and frivolous case was registered vide R.C. 32(A)/2004-DLI dated 30.06.2004 against him. After conducting detailed investigations, the CBI filed the closure report dated 28.07.2005 (Annexure A-2) in Special Court of CBI and the same was not accepted. The said report was duly considered by the disciplinary authority, who found that in view of any material against the applicant, there was no reason to proceed further departmentally. As the Closure Report was not accepted by the Special Court of CBI, the case was proceeded further in the Special Court. After considering the material collected during investigation and other relevant documents submitted by the CBI as well as the complainant, the Special Court, CB...

Shri B.K. Srivastava S/O Late Sh. Vs. Director (Employment),

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant has challenged order dated 31.7.2007 (page-15) whereby his request for revision of order dated 06.7.2004 has been rejected and order dated 06.7.2004 wherein following operative order has been passed.2. His suspension period from 03.11.1983 to 21.10.1984, when he was unemployed, has been treated as period spent on duty. However, the period from 22.10.1984 to 04.8.1997, when he was found to be running a business in the name and style of M/s. R.K. Industrial Appliance as the sole proprietor of the firm duly registered by the Sales Tax Department as per details given in the penalty orders dated 14.12.2001 and for which he furnished 95 false certificates to the effect that he was unemployed, cannot be treated as period spent on duty, otherwise the whole charge-sheet, enquiry report as well as the penalty order shall become a nullity. Moreover, after the revocation of suspension on 04.8.1997, applicant refused to accept the orders of revocation of suspension for the ...

P.K. Gupta Vs. Idbi Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)141CompCas90NULL

1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated April 12, 2004, passed by the Tribunal below dismissing the application made by him purporting to be under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC read with Section 22(1)(e) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, for impleadment of M/s.Satnam group as a defendant in O.A. No. 236 of 2001 in question. None has appeared for the respondents in the appeal.A few facts necessary for the decision of the appeal are recorded. The O.A. in question has been filed by respondent No. 1 herein (IDBI) against M/s. Sterling Flatware Ltd., defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 herein (principal borrower), Mr. P.K. Gupta, defendant No. 2/appellant herein (guarantor), IFCI Ltd., defendant No. 3/respondent No. 3 and ICICI Ltd., defendant No. 4/respondent No. 4 for the recovery of Rs. 11 crores and odd. The appellant herein/defendant No. 2 was the guarantor for the repayment of loan. Defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 created first charge by way of joint mortgage in favour of t...

Glaxo Group Limited and anr. Vs. Mr. Kamlesh Patel and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)521; 2008(36)PTC311(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiffs have instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of trademarks, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, etc. against the defendants. The said suit has been instituted by Mr. Rahul Sethi, the Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff No. 1 and Mrs. Sree Patel, the constituted Attorney of plaintiff No. 2 by virtue of Power of Attorney in their favor respectively (Ex. PW1/2).2. The plaintiffs are members of the Glaxo Smith Kline group of companies of which Glaxo Smith Kline Plc. is the parent company engaged in the worldwide business of manufacturing and marketing a wide range of research based pharmaceutical, medicinal preparations and health care products. The plaintiff no.1 is a company incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom and is indirectly held, wholly owned subsidiary of Glaxo Smith Kline, which is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. The plaintiff No. 2 is a company incorporated under the I...

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federat ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)497; 2008(36)PTC168(Del)

G.S. Sistani, J.I.A. No. 3847/20071. The plaintiff has filed the present suit, seeking, inter alia, a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from using in any manner, particularly in relation to their products, viz. frozen desserts and choc minis, the expression 'Sugar Free', which, the plaintiff claims has acquired exclusivity as a trade mark in relation to the various products manufactured by it. The said relief is being sought in order to prevent the defendants from passing off their products as those of the plaintiff as well as for rendition of accounts and damages.2. Pending disposal of the present suit, the plaintiff filed an application being I.A. No. 3847/2007 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, 'CPC') for seeking interim relief. This Court vide order dated 3.4.2007 granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants. Pursuant thereto, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal...

Shree Krishna Polyester Ltd. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ167

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The 6 captioned petitions center around same issue of law and save and except the borrowers and the sum borrowed as also the date on which the sums were borrowed, factual matrix of all the petitions is the same. Hence, the 6 captioned petitions are being disposed of by a common order.2. Crl.M(C) 779/05 and Crl.M(C) 2641/05 arise out of a common transaction. Crl.M(C) 848/05 and Crl.M(C) 2642/05 arise out of same transaction. Crl.M(C) 852/05 and Crl.M(C) 2643/05 arise out of the same transaction.3. The facts are that M/s Shree Krishna Polyester Ltd., petitioner of Crl.M(C) 779/05, Crl.M(C) 848/05 and Crl.M(C) 852/05 had made inter corporate deposits with three group companies, namely, (a) M/s Lottee Holdings Pvt.Ltd., (b) M/s Midopa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and (C) M/s Lotus Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd. in sum of Rs. 1.4 crores, Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 1.2 crores respectively. The date of the three inter corporate deposits are 17.9.1997, 23.9.1997 and 17.5.1998 respecti...