Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Dalip Singh Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT20

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the memorandum bearing No. 37/Vig/CPC/DA II dated 08.02.2006 whereby the respondent had proposed to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 8 of D.M.C Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959. The facts of the matter in nutshell as set out in the writ petition are as under:The petitioner was employed with the respondent as Junior Law Officer on ad hoc basis. On 19/20.9.2000, the petitioner was posted to this High Court to coordinate the legal matters pertaining to Slum and J.J. Department so as to have proper coordination with their designated counsel conducting cases on behalf of Slum and J.J. Wing in the High Court. Vide order dated 05.03.2001, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Law Officer on regular basis and request of the petitioner for his promotion to the next higher po...

Sh. Bakshish Singh Dhaliwal Thru Lrs. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ245

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff, late Shri Bakshish Singh Dhaliwal, filed a suit for recovery against the Union of India as the first defendant and the State of Punjab as the second defendant. The original claim was much larger but in terms of the amended plaint, the claim is confined to recovery of Rs.32,51,599/-.2. The plaint sets out that in the year 1944-45 the plaintiff was engaged in contractual works for CPWD on a large scale. The plaintiff was, however, arrested under the defense of India Rules by the Punjab Police on 12.4.1944. He was released by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore but was soon re-arrested on 26.4.1944 under the provisions of Section 420 IPC. The origination of the complaint was in respect of the works carried out by the plaintiff in respect of a contract at Burma. Searches were carried out at the house of the plaintiff and cash amount of Rs.5.00 lacs, 6 trucks and one Buick car of the plaintiff were seized under the provisions of Section 94 Cr.P.C. ...

Surinder Kumar Sharma Vs. M.C.D. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT465

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioner - Shri Surinder Kumar Sharma is presently working as Assistant Accounts Officer with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In the year 1982, he was a Lower Division Clerk and in his such capacity, he made a note in a file concerning one Smt. Prem Kumari who was in occupation of Shed No. 27 in Madanpur Khadar, Delhi, little knowing that many years after the said note would become his nemesis. The note in question was to the following effect:Smt. Prem Kumari, submitted an affidavit as a successor of late Shri Godarmal, the allottee of 20 rings in Shed No. 27, Madanpur Khadar. Her husband is working out of India as per affidavit. If agree, demand notice for license fee in the name of Smt. Prem Kumar the daughter-in-law of late Sh. Godarmal the allottee of 20 rings in Shed No. 27, Madanpur Khadar may kindly be issued. 2. After a decade and five years, to be precise, on 26th February, 1997, the aforesaid note came to haunt the petitioner. The Municipal Corpor...

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sultana and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ121

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. These two appeals being M.A.C. Appeal Nos. 398 and 379 of 2006 arise out of the same accident which took place on 3.9.2002.2. Sultana, aged 36 years, filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stating that she suffered serious injuries when the bus bearing No. UP 15-K 2292 in which she was traveling met with an accident. The said bus was owned by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.3. defense taken by the U.P.S.R.T.C. before the Tribunal was that the said road accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. It also denied that Sultana was traveling in the bus.4. After considering the evidence on record pertaining to the accident, learned Tribunal held that U.P.S.R.T.C. failed to establish that Sultana was not traveling in the said bus at the time of accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,57,946.5. In M.A.C. Appeal No. 398 of 2006, U.P.S.R.T.C. has challenged the award pertaining to the fi...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC499

1. The issue involved in these appeals is whether payment under Rule 57CC and 57AD of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 are applicable in respect of clearance of bagasse.2. The learned DR on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, Final order No. 551-554/03 dated 22.7.03. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Department's appeal summarily, which cannot held to be affirmation of Tribunal's view being non reasoned, non-speaking.3. Heard both sides and perused he records. The relevant portion of the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below: The Central Board of Excise & Customs vide their letter F.No. 384/65/2003-JC dated 9.7.2004 addressed to the CCE, Meerut II, forwarding there under the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. D 27628/2003 of 2004, in the said case has intima...

Abhiram Mishra Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit the amount of service tax of Rs. 2,70,675/- and penalty. The only request of applicant is that the amount of service tax is to be treated as cum tax amount. In these circumstances, we direct the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- within a period of eight weeks. On deposit of the above mentioned amount, pre-deposit of remaining amount of service tax and penalties are waived. To come up for reporting compliance on 24.5.07....

Dal Singh S/O Shri Ran Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The prayer made in this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to declare the action of the respondents in not conferring the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme to the applicant being illegal and arbitrary, as also to consider the case of the applicant for grant of the said benefit from due date and if the applicant be found fit, the respondents may be directed to grant the first financial upgradation from due date like salary, seniority etc.2. For the relief aforesaid, counsel relies upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors.1991 (4) SCC 109. The records of this case would, however, reveal that prayer for the precise relief, as asked for in the present Original Application, was made prior in point of time on 20.11.2006, i.e., the applicant made a representation, which was followed by reminder dated 1.12.2006. This Tribunal is given to understand that the representation and th...

NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. B.S.N.L. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)603

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by 30 employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the BSNL, for short)- a Public Sector Company.2. The appellants were earlier Group-B and C employees of Directorate of Telecommunication, Ministry of Telecom, Government of India.3. In 2000, the Government of India formed BSNL and the assets and liabilities of the Department of Telecommunication were transferred to the said company. Employees working in various cadres of the Ministry of Telecommunication were put on deemed deputation with BSNL till they exercised their option.4. On 14th January, 2002, BSNL called upon the employees working on deemed deputation to exercise their option/willingness for permanent absorption in BSNL. The appellants opted for BSNL and are now employees of BSNL.5. The appellants were in possession of accommodation allotted to them from the State Pool. The said accommodations had been allotted at the time when they...

R.C. Kaushal Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR206(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, three questions have been raised by the Petitioner, in respect of a disciplinary enquiry initiated into his conduct. During pendency of these proceedings, the Court had granted an interim order, restraining the order of removal.2. The Petitioner, working as an Assistant Engineer with the DDA, was charge-sheeted, on 13th August, 1981 on allegations of misconduct. He had been earlier suspended, by order dated 23-5-1981. A joint enquiry was ordered and held. The other employees who faced departmental proceedings were S.C. Gupta, a Superintending Engineer, and Shri S.C. Jain, Assistant Engineer.3. The inquiry officer submitted his report, inter alia, exonerating the Petitioner. Apparently, the DDA referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) eliciting its comments. The CVC considered the entire issue, and returned the reference with its advice. The DDA, thereafter issued a 'Disagree...

Tunde Gbaja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ429

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present petitioner/accused is a Nigerian national claiming to be in possession of a valid International passport issued by the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He claims bail, and asserts that he has to be released in terms of Sections 167(1) & (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC.).2. The brief facts necessary to decide this application are that the Petitioner was apprehended by the Central Bureau of Investigation ( 'CBI,' hereafter referred to as 'the Respondent') on 25.9.2006, based on a complaint of one Sh. Vivek Ahlawat intimating it that a consignment of counterfeit bank drafts and postal orders of foreign currency were received by him.3. The respondent on receiving the complaint registered the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused, namely, M/s Joshua, Eubouwman and Joseph for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 489-A to 489-E of IPC. The Respondent raided premises of the Petitioner on suspicion that accused person...