Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Central Health Service Regularly Vs. Union of India (Uoi), (Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The first applicant is a Forum of Regularly Appointed Doctors in Central Health Services. The second applicant is a member of the said Forum. They have filed the above OA for the following reliefs: 8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned orders. 8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be further graciously pleased to direct the Respondents to produce the records as to how and why the impugned order has been blatantly passed, ignoring the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8.3 That any other or further relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the Applicants. 8.4 That the cost of the proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of the Applicants.2. As per the order dated 07.09.2006, the SAG level officer (regularized cadre) is given additional charge of the post of Additional Director (HQ), CGHS, Delhi. The said or...

Hari Ram Shukla And Ors. Vs. Union Of India (Uoi), Through It'S

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA 664/2006 filed under Rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together by thirteen applicants in one OA is allowed.2. MA 665/2006 seeking condonation of delay in approaching this Tribunal in filing belated OA stating that they approached respondents on a number of times for grant of pay scale in skilled grade from the date of their initial appointment and they have informed that their case will be considered subject to the outcome of SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Though Writ Petition filed by respondents was dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 15.7.2000 & thereafter respondents' SLP filed vide CC No. 15136/2004 was also dismissed on 26.7.2004, they have yet not been granted benefits of pay scale in terms of directions issued by this Tribunal. Legal notice dated 24.8.2005 also did not elicit proper response. Re-fixation of pay is a continuous & recurring cause of action and in terms of law laid down in State of Bihar v. Kameshwa...

Vijender Kumar S/O. Raghuvir Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant was initially selected as PET and posted in a rural area school in accordance with the policy. Subsequently, he was transferred on a few occasions firstly by order of 21.7.2003 from Singhu-G(Co-Ed) SSS to Vikaspuri, then by order of 19.12.2003 to GBSS Bindapur, thereafter by order of 20.6.2005 from Bindapur GBSS to SV Janakpuri, Possangipur, and finally by order of 9.9.2005 from SV Janakpuri, Possangipur to Uttam Nagar No. 2 GBSSS.2. The applicant states that he had joined at Vikaspuri without resentment but because he objected to the wrongdoers from using the school building for personal gain, the private respondent No. 4 who is the Deputy Director of Education, District West-B, Vikaspuri 'G' Block, got biased and to pressurize him issued the transfer order to Bindapur where he joined without objection, but being not suited to the principal of that school he was transferred again to SV Janakpuri Possangipur. However, at another place in the application it has been stated...

Dr. Yash Pal S/O Ram Dayal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants are all employed as Veterinary Doctors in various grades under the respondents. They are aggrieved that although the Fifth Central Pay Commission (VCPC) gave clear recommendations in para 55.291 of their Report regarding complete parity with Dental and General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs), the authorities have disregarded the same and discriminated against them particularly in the matter of career progression. They have enclosed order dated 5.4.2004 at Annexure A-1, which is the career progression scheme made applicable to them, wherein only two financial upgradations have been extended as against three provided to the Doctors of Indian System of Medicines and Homoeopathy (ISM&H) in total parity with the GDMOs as per the scheme at Annexure A-4. It is explained that although the Veterinary Surgeons have been given existing pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500, they have been granted first upgradation to Rs. 10000-15200 after four years and the next upgradation to Rs. 1200...

Honeywell International (India) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)924

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi dt. 21st Dec, 2006. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in denying the set-off of loss of Rs. 2,46,93,358 pertaining to the unit of the appellant eligible for exemption under Section 10A of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), against profits of the other units of the appellant for the relevant year.2. During the relevant assessment year, the applicant incurred a loss of Rs. 2,46,93,358 in the amorphous division, which was otherwise eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The applicant claimed set-off of the aforesaid loss against the profits of the other units. The AO disallowed the aforesaid claim of the assessee, on the ground that the declaration as required under Section 10A(8) of the Act for not claiming the benefit of Section 10A of the Act had not been filed by the assessee. The actio...

Delhi Transport Corporation Through the Secretary, D.T.C. Board Vs. Sm ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)ACC739; 138(2007)DLT177; 2007(94)DRJ774

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and award dated 4th January, 1995 and order dated 26th October, 1995 passed by Shri Charanjeet Jawa, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal'), Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a petition on account of death of one Ram Prakash in a road accident involving bus No. DEP 8875 allegedly driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent No. 5.3. Parties settled their case before the Lok Adalat on 10th December, 1994 for a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- minus Rs. 25,000/-(already paid) in full and final settlement of the Respondent's claim. The grievance of the Appellant is that the learned Tribunal vide order dated 4th January, 1995 passed the award and modified it with a direction to pay the award amount within 30 days failing which to pay interest at the rate of 12 % per annum. The direction to pay the interest is contrary to the settlement between the parties a...

Daya Chand Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT479

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2002 challenges the judgment dated 10.10.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 51/96 arising out of F.I.R. No. 575/1990 registered at Police Station, Trilok Puri, whereby the learned Judge has held the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and further by his order dated 15.10.1997 sentenced the appellant for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows:On 13.12.1990 at about 12.20 p.m., complainant Daya Chand, son of Khimman, was present in his house in Balmiki Basti where his nephew Sanjay aged 5-6 years and niece Pinki, aged 4-5 years, came and informed him that Pushpa had been stabbed by Daya Chand, resident of the house having blue coloured door. The complainant ran to the gali where he saw his elder br...

Mrs. Shipra Chatterjee Vs. Siddharth Chatterjee

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)DMC360; 2007(94)DRJ420

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Instant appeal arises out of an order dated 7th June, 2002 of the Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing the appellant's applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. A petition, under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed by the respondent-husband against the appellant wife on 18th April, 1996. On being served with notice, the appellant filed her Written Statement and contested the petition. During the pendency of the petition, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, accompanied by an amended petition under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, signed by both the parties, came to be filed on 27th August, 1998 which was slated for consideration on 28th August, 1998. On 28th August, 1998, however, there was no appearance from the side of the appellant and she was thus proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner husband withdrew the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and made a statement closi...

Chet Ram Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ171

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal 505 of 2002 seeks to challenge the judgment dated 08.05.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 187/1997, F.I.R. No. 153/96, registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar under Section 302/120B/201 IPC, whereby the learned Judge convicted accused Chet Ram under Section 302/201 IPC. The other accused persons, namely, Bacha Ram and Ragho Ram were acquitted of all charges leveled against them. Vide separate order dated 15.05.2002, the learned Judge sentenced the convict, Chet Ram to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The convict was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were directed to...

Miss. Pratima Seth Vs. the Management of Ansal Properties and Industri ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT45; (2007)2LLJ869Del

Hima Kohli, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 22nd May, 1998 wherein it was held that the dismissal of the petitioner workman vide order dated 28th May, 1990, pursuant to an enquiry conducted against her, was not commensurate with the nature of misconduct proved against her and, thereforee, the respondent management was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity in service by treating the intervening period as absence from duty as leave without pay. It was further held that the workman is not entitled to any back wages. Aggrieved by the latter part of the award, declining to grant any back wages to the petitioner workman, she has preferred the present petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner workman was appointed as Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator in the year 1982 with respondent No. 3 herein, at its New Delhi office. She was dismissed from service vide order dated 28th May, 1990. She raised an Industrial D...