Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments

M.N. Khan S/O Muzaffar HussaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. M. N. Khan, the applicant herein, was initially appointed on 25.5.1985 as JTS ITS Group 'A' and was later promoted to the post of STS ITS Group 'A' on 8.6.1989, and was thereafter promoted to JAG ITS Group 'A' on ad hoc basis on 14.2.1996 followed by his regular appointment w.e.f. 20.8.2001.2. It is the case of the applicant that he was functioning as Director (OFC) at Guwahati in the year 1996. The entire work of inviting tenders from eligible contractors was carried out by his subordinate officers under the direct supervision of site engineers who were Group 'B' gazetted officers. The applicant along with one Divisional Engineer and one Sub Divisional Engineer visited the Imphal-Morey and Imphal-Churachandpur route to carry out test check of trial pits. He left Guwahati for Imphal on 9.12.1997 and returned on 13.12.1997.During his stay for three days his team carried out test check of twelve sub-sections in the State of Manipur. With regard to the said incident that took place in...

Hari Chand Sharma S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As could be gatherable from the averments made in the application, applicant has been yearning for selection to Group `B' cadre from 1995 onwards and for one reason or other, it has not been possible for him to reach his goal. In the application, he has impugned two orders, one issued by the Railway Board dated 09.12.2003 purporting to be for general information but directly concerning his case and the second dated 18.11.2004, which is a speaking order issued by the Railway Board rejecting applicant's claims for a promotional posting after selection.It may be necessary to advert to the facts presented in the application in some detail for facilitating us to examine as to whether there is substance in his submission that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination and in violation of his fundamental rights.2. There is reference to an application filed by him in the year 1987, and ultimately, according to him, due posting had been conferred only in the year 1998, but that need no...

Kalyani Steels Ltd. Through Its Company Secretary Vs. the Secretary, R ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ341; 2008(224)ELT47(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ to the Central Government not to withdraw the anti-dumping duty imposed by Notification No.65/2001-Cus dated 25th June, 2001.2. It may be mentioned that the anti-dumping duty was provisionally imposed by Notification No. 151/2000-Cus dated 26th December, 2000 till 25th June, 2001. Thereafter, it was extended by the Notification dated 25th June, 2001 and was to remain in force for 5 years with effect from 26th December, 2000. However, it was prematurely withdrawn by Notification No.69/2005-Cus dated 19th July, 2005. That is why the Petitioner is aggrieved.3. The withdrawal Notification dated 19th July, 2005 was challenged by the Petitioner before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) and in its decision dated 2nd August, 2006 the Tribunal set aside the impugned Notification but declined to extend the imposition o...

R.K. Saraf Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(36)PTC520(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Registrar Trade Marks, New Delhi dated 3.8.2005 whereby the Trade Mark 'ROCHAK' being No. 447376 B was directed to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks with immediate effect.2. The brief facts of the case are that the mark 'ROCHAK' (hereafter referred to as the 'Trade Mark') was registered in Clause 30, i.e. the Bread, Biscuits, Cakes, Pastry and Confectionery in respect of goods. It was in favor of Sh. K.C. Bajaj, B.K. Bajaj and Y.K. Bajaj, trading as M/s Bajaj Food Products, Najafgarh Industrial Area, New Delhi. The Trade Mark was originally registered on 26.12.1985. It was apparently renewed and became due for renewal on 26.12.1996. No renewal fee was paid. The Petitioner claims to have acquired through assignment the said trade mark on 5.3.2004. It is alleged that the examiner of trade-marks informed the Petitioner on 17.3.2004 that registration of the trade mark had been renewed for the period 2...

Jagat Talkies Distributors and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of D ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ94

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, (her after called 'the Act') dated 25th October, 2007. That order had upheld the eviction directed by the Estate Officer, on 16-2-2005.2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details and mention of intervening proceedings, are narrated below. M/s Maidens Theatres Ltd. were lessees of land which was given to Novelty Cinema. The land was owned by the erstwhile Delhi Municipal Committee. The structure was owned by M/s Maidens Theatre Ltd.; after a protracted litigation between parties, i.e. M/s Jagat Distributors and M/s Maidens and the Standing committee of the Municipal Committee, which was succeeded by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereafter 'MCD'), a compromise was arrived at between the parties. This led to a resolution by MCD on 2-5-1967 by which lease of the land and superstructure was granted; a deed was executed on 5...

Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT385; 2008(100)DRJ63

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner in the present writ proceeding approaches this Court seeking partial quashing of an order of the Central Information Commission and also for a direction from this Court that the information sought by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') should be supplied with immediate effect.2. The facts relevant to decide the case are as follows. The petitioner was married in 2000 to Smt. Saroj Nirmal. In November 2000 she filed a criminal complaint alleging that she had spent/paid as dowry an amount of Rs. Ten Lakhs. Alleging that these claims were false, the Petitioner, with a view to defend the criminal prosecution launched against him, approached the Income Tax Department with a tax evasion petition (TEP) dated 24.09.2003. Thereafter, in 2004 the Income Tax Department summoned the Petitioner's wife to present her case before them. Meanwhile, the Petitioner made repeated requests to the Director of Income Tax (In...

Suresh Kumar Rana and ors. Vs. the Managing Director, Centaur Hotel Co ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ17

ORDEROptions for accepting Voluntary Retirement Scheme are hereby invited from all employees of Centaur Hotel Delhi Airport including Chefair, Delhi, Chefair, Mumbai including Dining Facilities Centre and also the employees of Head Office who had opted for Centaur Hotel Delhi and Chefair, Mumbai, as the case may be. On acceptance of the Voluntary Retirement by the Company, the Scheme would be operative only in the eventuality of disinvestmentson completion of the transaction of the respective business to which the employees belong. A copy of the Scheme is enclosed for perusal, information and sake of clarity. The employees are advised, if they are interested, that they may submit their applications in the prescribed format enclosed with the Scheme referred hereinabove latest by 7th August, 2002, which on receipt will be processed and details thereto would be provided to the prospective bidders with the list of employees whose Voluntary Retirement options have been accepted by the HCI a...

Gujarat Bullion Refinery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ153

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent-Company, a public sector undertaking, placed an order on the petitioner on 10.01.1990 for sale of copper from the location of the respondent at Khetri, Rajasthan. The agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for sole arbitration by the Chairman of the respondent or any other officer nominated by him. In the event of the arbitrator dying, neglecting or refusing to act or resigning or being unable to act for any reason, the Chairman of the respondent was authorized to appoint another arbitrator. The jurisdiction of the Courts was vested in either Calcutta or New Delhi Courts.2. The Contract resulted in disputes between the parties and a petition was filed in this Court by the petitioner being OMP No. 100/1996. In the said matter an ex parte Order was passed on 07.05.1999 which was sought to be recalled on an application by the petitioner since the respondent had appointed one of its own officers Sh. T.P.Girish as the sole arbitrator. How...

Prakash Chandra Vs. Guru Gobind Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ171

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein holding that the issue raised by the appellant regarding non-inclusion of the member of SC/ST or Physically Handicapped category in the Selection Committee has vitiated the selection process is without any merit. It was held that no case is made out by the appellant for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.2. The appellant herein is a physically handicapped person with 58% locomotory disability. He first appeared in the selection process held by the respondent University for being appointed as a lecturer in management in 1999. He did not qualify in the said selection.3. In 2002 some posts were again advertised by the University and one of the said posts was reserved for physically handicapped person. The appellant submitted his application to be considered as against the aforesaid post. S...

Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ43

J.M. Malik, J.1. The management / petitioner, M/s Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd., has called into question the award passed by Sh. S.K. Sarvaria, Presiding Officer Labour Court dated 15.09.2007, wherein, workman Sh. Digambar Singh Rawat, respondent No. 2 was found entitled to an amount of Rs. 39,650/- from the management / petitioner by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages.2. Adumbrated in brief, the case of the workman / respondent No. 2 is as follows. He was working with the management since October 2000 as a Driver. His last drawn wages were Rs. 5,860/- per month. He was not given appointment letter, yearly or casual leave, overtime etc. and on repeated demands, the management provided ESI and PF facilities to him in the year 2002. The workman was getting his house constructed in Burari, Delhi, and took leave from 05.07.2004 to 18.07.2004. He attend his duties from 19.07.2004 to 21.07.2004. On 21.07.2004, the workman demanded advanc...