Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ravi Kanta Nagpal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007ACJ1990

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide F.A.O. No. 48 of 1991 D.T.C. has challenged the award dated 18.1.1991 pronounced by the M.A.C.T., Patiala House, New Delhi.2. Only one issue has been urged. The same is that the evidence on the record establishes rash or negligent driving by the deceased and not by the driver of the bus. Alternatively, it is urged that contributory negligence is made out.3. Vide F.A.O. No. 115 of 1991 claimants seek enhancement of compensation.4. As the appeals were disposed of by an order of a kind which I fail to understand, inasmuch as, after recording that matter may be placed before the Lok Adalat, the appeals were restored as disposed of, the Registry returned the lower court record.5. Needless to state, no appeal can be disposed of without awaiting a report from the Lok Adalat whether parties have settled the disputes.6. If disputes are settled before the Lok Adalat, formal orders have to be passed disposing of the appeal in terms of the settlement. If settlement fai...

Shri Suresh Kumar S/O. Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of the present OA, applicant is seeking promotion from Group 'C' to Group 'B' by claiming benefit of his disability under Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1995. Learned Counsel would contend that the respondents when held the selection where the applicant was declared qualified, the subsequent disability would not make him disqualified.3. Shri Patel, learned Counsel for applicant by placing reliance on Section 2 (b) (ii) of the Act ibid, the visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200 (snellen) in the better eye worse and further on Section 2(i)(i) contended that blindness is defined as low vision. In above view of the matter, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India and Anr. to contend that provision of Section 47 of the Act ibid prohibit against dispensing with the services of an employee acquiring a disability during his se...

Smt. M.D. Patwardhan W/O. Dr. D.V. Vs. the Director, Central Hindi

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

State of Tripura and Ors. v. K.K. Roy 2004 (1) SC SLJ 552, the employees who are holding isolated posts, in case of stagnation at least two promotional avenues shall be made available to them.2. Consideration for promotion being a fundamental right, deprivation of which would adversely affect the rights of career progression of the Govt. servant.3. In the above backdrop, applicant, who had been working on adhoc basis as Research Assistant (German), had approached alongwith others before this Tribunal vide OA No. 39/1985, which was disposed of on 3.11.1992 by holding that the applicants therein possess qualification similar to those prescribed by the statutory rules for Research Assistants (Hindi) in the Central Hindi Directorate or regional languages offices and as they were working for long years would entail regularisation. Accordingly, by the order passed on 17.9.1999 (Annexure A-18) on the recommendation of DPC, the applicants therein have been appointed on regular basis from the d...

Shri Shiv Raj Singh S/O Sh. Roshan Lal Vs. Shri Gurmel Singh S/O Sh. R ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC158; 138(2007)DLT490

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed against the award dated 20th October, 1995 passed by Sh. Charanjit Jawa, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Delhi.2. The case of the appellant is that on 15th May, 1985 he was traveling in bus No. DEP-5543 from Sabji Mandi to Lawrence Road. When the bus reached at G.T. Karnal Road, near Police Station, Adarsh Nagar at about 10.15 a.m., a truck bearing No. PBH-885 driven rashly and negligently by its driver (respondent No. 1) struck against the bus with the result the appellant sustained injuries. Respondent No. 5 is the owner whereas respondent No. 6 is the insurer of this truck. Respondent No. 4 is the driver of the bus whereas respondents 2 and 7 are its owner and respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the bus.3. Vide the impugned judgment, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as compensation under the following heads:(1) Pain & Sufferings : Rs. 05,000/-(2) Exp.incurred on treatment, gooddiet & conveyance : Rs. 10,000/-(3) Loss of inc...

Mahavir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR1106]

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 5th September, 2006 passed by Labour Court XXI, Karkardooma, Delhi whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner.2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was working as a conductor with the respondent. On 9th September, 1993 he was on duty at bus No. 9867 from Delhi to Sharanpur. His bus was checked at 6.20 PM at Jalalabad by the ATIs Sohan Lal, Zile Singh and Balbir Singh. Two passengers were found getting down the bus without tickets. They were held up for being without tickets. They told that they had paid Rs. 20/- to the conductor for issuance of tickets. The conductor had taken the fare but not issued tickets. The conductor was confronted with the passengers and the conductor admitted his guilt and gave 2 unpunched tickets to the ticket checkers. The ticket checkers recorded the statements of passengers and obtained the signature of conductor. They boarded the bus ...

Haryana State Through Its Secretary, Transport and General Manager, Ha ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT171; (2007)2LLJ921Del

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned award the petitioner Management has filed the present writ petition. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to lead evidence on merits after the domestic enquiry was held as vitiated. The brief facts of the case germane to the controversy raised are that the Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration, referred the dispute for its adjudication to the Tribunal as per the following terms:Whether dismissal of Shri Daya Nand from service is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? 2. On the pleadings of the parties the issues were framed as under:1. Whether the domestic enquiry held by the management is fair and proper?2. As in terms of reference.3. The Issue Number (1) was treated as a preliminary issue and both the parties led their respective evidence before the Tribunal. The ma...

Deepak Kapoor Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ81

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 26.4.1999 in Sessions case No. 350/97, FIR 425/1991 under Sections 392/397/34 of IPC, P.S Kashmiri Gate whereby the appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appeal is also against the order dated 28.4.1999 whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a further period of one month.2. The prosecution's case before the trial Court was that on 31.10.91 at about 8.30 p.m, a robbery took place at Shop No. 186/72, Prem Gali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate. Four boys including appellant entered into the shop. They took out daggers and disconnected telephone wires and removed Rs. 17,000/- from the cash box. Vinod Malik, the owner of the shop was sitting at the shop with his broth...

Computers Unlimited Vs. Xerox (i) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR261(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act') for appointment of a sole arbitrator. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner had entered into a Sale Promotion Agency Agreement dated 29.8.1999 with the respondent herein. In terms of this agreement, the petitioner was to be paid a service charge in respect of sale of the products of the respondent. This agreement was initially for a period of three years, which was subject to renewal for a further period of three years unless terminated earlier under Clause 19 of the agreement. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as security with the respondent. The petitioner promoted the sale of the respondent's products and according to it, it became entitled to payment of service charge in the sum of Rs. 17,76,027/- as of 31.12.2001 when the agreement was terminated by the respondent. The petitioner...

Mauro Antonio and anr. Vs. R.P. Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT622

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This contempt petition has been filed by two Italian nationals who were detained in Tihar Jail in Delhi on 10.2.2005 in a case under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). In the another case involving these two petitioners a production warrant had been issued on 12.2.2005 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ernakulam Kerala requiring production of these two petitioners in that Court on 18.2.2005. The said production warrant was issued in terms of Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi declined the prayer for production of the petitioners in the Kerala Court on the ground that they were required in the criminal cases in Delhi. Consequently the petitioners were not produced in the Court in Kerala on the date indicated in the production warrant.2. Pursuant to a circular dated 27.11.2003, issued by the Office of the Director General (Prisons), Tihar, New Delhi in matters where a production warrant sen...

Arif Ali Khan Vs. State of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR891]

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court on the ground that neither the petitioner has been directed lor reinstatement nor he has been awarded the full back wages. Counsel lor the petitioner contends that a very meagre amount of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded in his favour towards compensation. Another contention which has been raised by Counsel for the petitioner is that the compensation amount of Rs. 35,000/ is merely in lieu of reinstatement and not against full back wages. He further contends that the back wages alone amounted to Rs. 9,14,947/-. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to Para 9 of the impugned award which is the operative part whereby only an amount of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded in favour of the petitioner-workman in lieu of reinstatement and full back wages. It would be worthwhile to repr...