Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Madan Lal Arora Vs. Shiv Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ395

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. In furtherance to our order dated 9th February, 2007, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant had placed on record the requisite documents including pleadings of the suit. 2. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at some length.3. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration, possession and in the alternative suit for redemption with possession and other reliefs being Suit No. 3/2006. He claimed these reliefs on the basis of the fact that he had purchased a shop measuring 8' X 30' forming part of property bearing No. X/140 (New) and Old No. 274/1, out of Khasra No. 72 situated in the abadi of Tagore Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, for the consideration of Rs.95,000/- from one Shri Amarnath Nagpal S/o Shri Ram Narain Nagpal, who had executed General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Deed of Will all dated 26th March, 1999 in favor of the plaintiff. He claimed absolute right and title in the s...

Major General Lakhwinder Singh Vs. Union of Inida (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ706

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner who was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Indian Army on 16.12.1967 became a Major General in the year 2001. He was recommended for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General by two different but successive Special Selection Boards of the Indian Army. The Central Government did not approve the recommendation of the Special Selection Boards qua the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was denied the rank of Lieutenant General. This action of the respondents is challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition on the ground that the non-approval for grant of the rank of Lieutenant General to the petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory, whimsical and, in fact, violative of the rules, established procedure of selection and offends principles stated in various judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court of India.2. The necessary facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army as a...

Dehradun Club Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STR519

1. This appeal is directed against demand of service tax in regard to, charges for letting out of the appellant club's rooms/ halls and premises. The demand has been made by treating the said charges as that of a mandap keeper from his clients.2. Heard both sides and perused record. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant's club is a non-profit company registered under Section 25 of the Company's Act 1956. It is being pointed out that it is a members' club in as much as every member is a share holder and every share holder is a member. This is also being pointed out that the club is open only to its members and or to members of reciprocating or associate clubs. The contention is that the recipient of services from such a members club' are not clients and no tax is attracted, since service tax is in regard to the service rendered to a client. It is also being pointed out that the very issue had come up before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the ...

Govind Manish, Joint Vs. Govt. of India Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By MA 902/2006, applicant seeks direction to produce concerned files wherein decision had been taken to initiate departmental proceedings against him.2. Validity of Charge Memorandum dated 7/8.09.2005 initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is questioned in this Original Application.Consequential appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer vide orders dated 09.12.2005 have also been challenged with consequential benefits.3. At the outset, we may note that we are conscious of trite law on the subject that charges framed in a disciplinary enquiry should not be interfered with by Court/Tribunal unless charges framed read with imputation or particulars of charge, if any, no misconduct or other irregularity as alleged has been made out. At the initial stages, Tribunal/Court has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. In the light of aforesaid law, we proceed to examine the allegations contained vide impugned charge memorandum dated 7/8.09.2...

Smt. Pushpa Mandal (Arya), Staff Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This common order will decide two OAs bearing No. 2618/2006 and No.2703/2006, since common question of facts and law are involved therein.2. Present OAs are filed challenging the order dated 25.10.2006 whereby respondents have purported to pass an order deciding to hold disciplinary proceedings against applicants and order dated 8.11.2006 placing them under suspension. Applicants are challenging the aforesaid order and the charge-sheets, inter alai, on the grounds that they are incompetent and invalid containing vague allegations without material particulars as to how applicants were declared ineligible in the first place or how they managed to have their applications allowed and called for interview as apparent from the reading of the statement of imputations itself. The challenge is also made on the ground that the decision has been made with a mala fide motive and in colourable exercise of power, which cannot be allowed in law. (i) that applicants were initially appointed as cas...

Shri S.C. Sharma, Senior Research Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders dated 06.05.2003 (Annexure-I) and dated 05.08.2003 (Annexure-II) on the basis of which the respondents ordered recovery of an amount of Rs. 53,610/- from the salary of the applicant.2. The bare facts of the case are that the applicant was recruited through Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, for short) as Senior Technical Assistant (STA, for short) and was posted as Sub-Regional Employment Officer (SREO, for short), Ministry of Labour, from 1980 to 2001. In 2002, the applicant was selected by the UPSC as Senior Research Officer (SRO, for short) in the Central Institute of Research & Training in Employment Services (CIRTES, for short). On 28.07.2000, the SREO wrote a letter to the Director of Employment Exchanges, Directorate of Employment about the audit report regarding irregular expenditure incurred in connection with repairs/purchases of furniture.On 22.04.2002, the applicant was informe...

Constable Anil Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, has assailed an order dated 13.2.2003, whereby he has been imposed a major punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service permanently, with reduction in pay and suspension period has not been treated as spent on duty as well as the period of absence as dies non. Also assailed is an appellate order dated 20.10.2003, affirming the punishment.2. Applicant, who was proceeded against for a major penalty for remaining absent for a period of 98 days, was alleged to have willfully and deliberately absented himself and had not responded to absentee notices. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has held him guilty of the charge entailing a punishment of removal, which was set aside by the High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 6693/2000 on 11.3.2002, remanding back enquiry from the stage of hearing when applicant had remained absent. As a result thereof, applicant was reinstated in service on rejection of SLP on 2.9.2002 and the depart...

Shyam Singh S/O Sh. Chander Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of impugned order dated 09.05.2000 passed by the respondent, in compliance of the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 1805/1999 dated 08.03.2000, rejecting the claim of the applicant for appointment as Staff Car Driver (SCD, for short). He has further sought direction to the respondent to appoint him as SCD w.e.f. 12.05.1987 or 08.01.1988 or 07.02.1989, as the case may be, with all consequential benefits.2. The basic facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as a Group `D' employee (Despatch Rider) with the respondent, was tested for his driving ability in 1981 for the post of SCD, in terms of the Recruitment Rules for the post, which provide the method of recruitment as 'by transfer failing which by direct recruitment' and, in case the post is filled `by transfer' the grades from which the transfer has to be made are prescribed as 'Despatch Riders and Group `D' employees of the Ministry of Home Affairs posse...

V.P. Sharma S/O Shri Om Prakash Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The prayer made in the present application is to review the order of this Tribunal recorded by Justice V.S. Aggarwal, Chairman and Mr. S.K.Malhotra, Member (A), as they then were, dated 08.08.2005 passed in OA No. 2756/2004. We have gone through the order sought to be reviewed, in which every aspect of the case has been elaborately dealt with.2. All that has been urged in support of the present Review Application is that the judgment relied upon by the Tribunal in Rajinder Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2001 (10) SCC 400 pertained to a case of promotion whereas the case in hand was of conversion of posts from Telephone Operator to Radio Telephone Operator. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant appears to be incorrect. The bare minimum facts in Rajinder Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.(supra) that may need necessary mention reveal that the appellant was working as Fettler in the service of Ordnance Factory, Murad Nagar in the pay scale of Rs. 19...

Nand Lal Singh S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a Sales Tax Officer, has assailed respondents' order dated 27.5.2004, whereby on disciplinary proceedings, a major penalty of withholding of three increments, with cumulative effect, has been imposed upon him.2. Vide memorandum dated 14.6.2001, applicant was alleged of the following misconduct: While functioning as STO in ward No. 73, Shri Nand Lal Singh was dealing with the case file of M/S. Pratham International. He has committed misconduct in not obeying the instructions issued vide circular No. 7 of 1995-96 regarding issue of statutory forms to the registered dealer. He issued blank statutory forms to the dealer, who in turn passed on one such form to another dealer, who misused the same for the item not allowed on the RC for a different year and amount. Sh. Nand Lal Sigh had submitted two sets of replies, which are contradictory to each other and are not expected from a senior gazetted officer. This proves the connivance of Sh. Nand Lal Singh with the dealer. Thus S...