Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Shri Gurdial Chand Son of Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By present OA, applicant seeks direction to Respondents to assign him seniority in the post of Carpenter carrying pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- w.e.f. 25.04.1975 instead of 01.06.1993, and further assigning him proper seniority in Grade-II carrying pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/- with all consequential benefits.2. Facts as stated are that he joined Railways as Casual Labour performing duties of Carpenter, was screened in the month of December 1969/January 1970. His name was included in the panel dated 10.02.1970 at serial No. 127, and ultimately regularized in Group 'D' w.e.f.27.03.1970. On a trade test held by Respondents on 25.04.1975 for promotion to skilled post of Carpenter, which he qualified, he was promoted to said post carrying pay scale of 950-1500/- w.e.f.19.07.1975. His pay scale was revised to Rs. 3050-4590 w.e.f.01.01.1996. In a provisional seniority list issued & circulated in March 2003, his name was shown at serial No. 109 with date of promotion as 06.01.1993. He ...

Mange Ram Sharma S/O Shri Bal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, who is Assistant Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, by virtue of this OA, has assailed respondents' order dated 20.9.2005 whereby his request to follow the laid down procedure before the disciplinary authority passes a fresh order in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal in OA-91/2004 decided on 13.8.2004, has been turned down.2. Brief factual matrix of the case transpires that the applicant along with others on the allegations of demanding and accepting illegal money while posted in Traffic Signal at Seemapuri on 3.12.2000 when apprehended on PRG raid, has been held to have committed negligence and gross misconduct. Another part of the charge was that the driver of the truck had been threatened. As such, he could not appear in the departmental inquiry to depose against the applicant when he had specifically deposed in the preliminary inquiry. Finding recorded by the inquiry officer holding the applicant guilty of the charge, when represented to the disciplinary autho...

Nanag Ram Meena S/O Shri Hira Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to order dated 2.12.2005 and consequential order dated 8.12.2005. The impugned order (Annexure A/1) dated 2.12.2005 reads thus: Sub :- D&AR action against against Shri Nanag Ram Meena working as CTI/N.Rly., Delhi. You are hereby directed to debar Shri. Nang Ram Meena, CIT/N.Rly., Delhi from handling cash till service in Railways with immediate effect. You are also advised to put him on non-sensitive post and ensure the compliance of this office order without fail through return dak.Sd/- 2. Concededly, the applicant is facing a departmental inquiry under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and he has been issued charge memo dated 2.12.2005 (Annexure A-6). The charges against the applicant are as follows: (i) He demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from the complainant acting as decoy for his personal gain. He did n...

Bilcare Limited Vs. the Supreme Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)13; 2007(34)PTC444(Del)

J.M. Malik, J. 1. This order shall decide the two appeals mentioned above which entail similar questions of facts and law. The controversy in these two appeals swirls around the question, 'is there any presumption in favor of the validity of the patent for grant of temporary injunction in favor of patentee.' The present appeals are directed against the orders of the learned Trial Court dated 7th February, 2007, wherein the Trial Court dismissed the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff/appellant, the applications filed by the defendants/ respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC were permitted and ex parte injunction orders dated 6th October, 2006 were vacated. However, the defendants/respondents were directed to maintain accounts of the sales they make of the impugned product. The defendants/respondents were also directed to submit the statement of accounts after every three months in the court and to submit undertakings that they would pay the damages...

Bilcare Limited Vs. Amartara Private Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(2)42

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA No. 10848/2006 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC BY THE PLAINTIFF)IA No. 11160/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC BY THE DEFENDANT)IA No. 13971/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC BY THE PLAINTIFF)1. The claim of the plaintiff of patent violation by the defendant in respect of moralized packaging film patent of the plaintiff has given rise to the present litigation.2. The plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the patent bearing No. 197823 in respect of the said moralized packaging films in pursuance to a patent granted on 12.04.2006 as per an application of the plaintiff dated 03.03.2004. The patent comprises of 21 claims of which there is a parent claim and there are twenty dependent claims depending directly or indirectly on the parent claim. The description of the invention as per the parent claim is as under:a multilayer, thermo formable, translucent food and pharmaceutical packaging film consisting of a core layer of 100-1000 microns thickness of food ...

Ashok Newatia Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2007)BC237

ORDERS. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner seeks a quashing order in respect of proceedings filed by the respondent/complainant for commission of offences under Sections 138/141, Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The complainant had alleged that in the course of commercial transactions M/s. Viniyoga Clothex Ltd. had issued cheques in the sum of Rs. 25 lakh to it and that those cheques, when presented, were returned with the remark 'exceeds arrangement'. The drawer of the cheque namely the company and Ors. such as Managing Director and Directors, of whom the petitioner as one at that stage, were issued with notice. It was alleged that in spite of notice, the amounts were not paid. Consequently, the complaint was filed.3. A summoning order was issued. In the course of the proceedings the Court issued notice under Section 251 to the accused. The petitioners arrayed as accused No. 4 challenge the proceedings. The principal contention raised is that the complaint does not disclose any specific ...

Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Behari Lal Madan Lal Jaipuria and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ723

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of various varieties of paper which are sold through wholesalers. The arrangement of such sale is stated to be through direct payment or payment against hundies payable on due date with the bank by the such wholesalers.2. Defendant No. 1 was working as a wholesale dealer of the plaintiff-company in purchasing material. Defendant No. 2 is stated to be the Managing Director of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 is stated to be controlled by both defendants No. 2 and 3.3. The terms of the sale of the paper to defendant No. 1 was stated to be through limited credit of 45 to 60 days. Fifteen days interest free credit facility from the date of delivery was available and thereafter interest was charged. Any default of payment carried interest of 21 per cent per annum from date of delivery till date of payment and further penal interest at 3 per cent. The arrangement between the plaintiff and de...

Haldiram Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Srf International

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR434(Delhi); 139(2007)DLT142; 2007(95)DRJ489

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the present respondent as respondent No. 1 and M/s Prime International, a partnership firm, as respondent No. 2. The petition states that the petitioner is manufacturer/ exporter of high quality of Indian sweets, salty and spicy mixture and pure Asian vegetarian food snacks commanding good reputation. The petitioner is a unit of the Haldiram Group of Companies encaged in the business of financing and exports. The original second respondent is stated to be the sole distributor appointed for distribution of goods manufactured by the petitioner in Saudi Arabia.2. The petition states that an agreement dated 19.6.1997 was entered into between the petitioner, the respondent and the original respondent No. 2 for exclusive marketing and distribution of 'Haldiram' brand of snacks and food in Saudi Arabia. The said agreement ...

Sukhvinder Singh Shagufa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ586

Mukul Mudgal,J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as DTP Operator. The Petitioner retired from Govt. of India Press, Mayapuri, New Delhi. The petitioner's grievance has arisen on account of the fact that on attaining the age of superannuation after retirement on 30th June 2004, a recovery of Rs. 23,658/- was made from his retiral dues and this had effect on his subsequent benefit as detailed in O.A. 1098/2005 filed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). The principal submission of the petitioner before the Tribunal was based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gajanan L. Pernakar v. State of Goa 2000 SCC (L&S;) 57, where it was contend that before an administrative order passed in favor of an officer is recalled, show-cause-notice must be issued. It was also recorded by the CAT th...

Cit Vs. Subrata Roy

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]292ITR627(Delhi)

C. M. No. 15992 of 2005 :1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. C. M. stands disposed of. I. T. A. No. 1117 of 2005 :3. The revenue seeks the framing of four substantial questions of law. We are of the view that two of the questions raised are substantial questions of law but two are not.4. The first question urged is that the assessed ought to be taxed under sec corporation 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of perquisite benefits such as a house provided to him by the company, servants, chauffeur and gardener.5. The assessing officer had imposed tax on these items but the appellate authorities disagreed with the view of the assessing officer.6. It was held by the appellate authorities that the company had claimed a deduction on the expenses incurred in respect of these items. The deductions were disallowed and the company was taxed on that amount. Once the company has been taxed on that amount, the assessed cannot be taxed on the same amount again. Moreover, the be...