Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Lakhan Singh and anr. Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3680; 2007(97)DRJ68

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 101 and 102 of 2006 seek to challenge judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2004 arising out of F.I.R. No. 1386 of 1998, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, whereby the learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 28.01.2006 held the appellants, namely, Lakhan Singh and Hargovind, guilty for an offence under Section 396 IPC. Further by his order dated 31.01.2006, has sentenced both the appellants to Rigorous Imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Section 396 IPC.2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the learned judge in judgment under challenge are as under:.that deceased Narender Prashad Jain, aged 69 years and Ms. Inderani Jain, aged 65 years used to reside alone at M-78, Saket, New Delhi. PW-1, Devender Kumar used to assist them in the house hold work by visiting their ...

Manohar Singh Vs. Shri D.S. Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT539

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. This Revision Petition challenges the order dated 27.7.2005.2. By the impugned order, suit filed by the plaintiff who is petitioner herein was dismissed.3. Backdrop facts leading to the passing of impugned order are as follows.a) Plaintiff filed suit for damages for defamation against the defendants who are the respondents herein.b) The said case was listed for cross-examination of witness S. Josheph, DW-2 on 7.1.2004 On the said date, at the request of the plaintiff, an adjournment was granted to cross-examine the witness subject to payment of costs.c) However, no steps were taken by the plaintiff to pay the costs till 1.4.2005. On 1.4.2005, it was directed that upon deposit of the cost in court, the witness shall be cross-examined on 27.4.2005. Again, no costs were deposited in the court by the plaintiff. Matter was listed for 27.7.2005.d) On 27.7.2005, after noting the provisions of Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and failure of the plaintiff...

Shri Avinash Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR147(Delhi); 2007(97)DRJ132

Gita Mittal, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. The brief facts so far as necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are briefly noticed hereafter.2. The petitioner is a sole proprietor of M/s Kamal Construction Company which was awarded two contracts by the respondent during the year 2000-01. Pursuant to the first contract, a work order dated 24th May, 2000 for the desalting and removal of silt of Bhagat Singh Road Nalla in W. No. 78 was placed on the petitioner. The second contract relate to desalting and removal of silt from West Vinod Nagar drain in W. No. 72, RD 0 To 550 mtrs was awarded to the petitioner and order dated 25th May, 2000 was placed on him. The petitioner has contended that the work was successfully completed and bills for payment of the work were duly given...

R.P. Gupta Vs. the State Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ100

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This present Petition, under Section 482, Cr. P.C. impugns the order dated 16.11.2004 of the learned Learned Addl. Sessions Judge (hereafter ``the revisional Court'`). 2. The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that the Petitioner is a retired Gazetted officer, and allotee of Flat No. 25 in Vasant Co-operative Group housing society Ltd. (hereafter called 'the Society'). The Respondent too is an allotee occupant of a flat in the same society. He was Vice President of the society till 23.10.1994. It is alleged that he threatened to implicate the Petitioner and other members in false cases. 3. The Respondent on 31.10.1997 registered an FIR No. 948/97 under Sections 336/427 IPC of P.S. Trilokpuri alleging that when he went for a walk at 11 pm with his daughter, some persons threw bricks at him, one of which fell on his car. He alleged that the same night, someone broke the wind screen of his car. He claimed that Kishori Lal and Parikshit Sahney to be th...

M.C.D. Vs. Sh. Jai Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT581

Hima Kohli, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner corporation, praying inter alias for an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order/award dated 4th December, 2002, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as follows. Father of the respondent was working with the petitioner corporation as Beldar when he died on 23rd June,1992 leaving behind his widow, four sons and two daughters. Thereafter, the respondent applied to the petitioner corporation for appointment on compassionate grounds, but his application was rejected by the petitioner corporation vide its letter dated 23rd November, 1993 on the ground that three of the sons of the deceased were employed, and thereforee it could not be said that the deceased died in harness or that his family was left in a penurious condition. Aggrieved by the said rejection by the petitioner corporation, the respondent raised an industrial disp...

Kamlesh Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT669

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This revision petition challenges an order of acquittal, by the Additional Sessions Judge, under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, dated 8-2-2005.2. According to the prosecution, one Deepak @ Deepu was arrested by the Sarojini Nagar police for offences punishable under the Arms Act; First Information Report (FIR) being No. 364 of 96 was registered against him on 25.8.1996. It was alleged that on 29.8.1996, Deepak was taken to Safdarjung hospital for X-ray. He was taken to the hospital from Patiala House Courts in the custody of HC Girish Prasad, respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3, another policeman.3. Deepak escaped from the custody of police i.e. respondent No. 2 and 3 and could not be traced. Case FIR No. 374 of 1996 was accordingly registered against him under Section 224 I.P.C. and a police search party was involved in searching him. On 30.8.1996, at 4.20 AM, information was received at Police Station Sarojini Nagar that the body of an unknown person had...

Surinder Kumar Kakkar and Babu Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. At the outset, we may note that only legal contention pressed by learned Counsel for applicants was regarding the competency, authority & jurisdiction of authorities under the Construction Division to impose penalty on delinquents who hold lien in Open Line. Since issue raised in these two OAs is common on facts and law, same are being disposed of by present common order.2. Applicant challenges orders passed on 27.12.2005 & 19.05.2006 whereby penalty of removal from service as imposed upon him by disciplinary authority, has been upheld. The facts stated are that he was appointed as Pharmacist Grade Rs. 950-1500/- on 16.06.1988 under Northern Railway, Ferozepur Division. Thereafter, he was transferred from Ferozepur Division to Deputy Chief Engineer (C) Northern Railway Jammu Tawi, a Construction Unit in January 1989 and remained there upto 27.12.2005. He was served with charge memorandum dated 29.04.1993 by Senior Civil Engineer (C) Northern Railway, Jammu Tawi alleging wil...

Shri M.R. Satyarthy Son of Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Since issue raised in these four applications is common in nature, the same were heard together & are disposed of by present common order.2. By this application, Nirmaljeet Kaur, working in the office of Deputy Director General, Computer Centre, Ministry of Statistics, seeks direction to respondents to re-fix her pay in pre-revised scale of Rs. 1600-2660 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or the date of her joining as DPA, extending her the benefit of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Chandraprakash Madhavrao Dadwa v. UOI and Ors. , and this Tribunal Order dated 11.2.2002 in OA 1332/1999 D.K. Sinha and 6 Ors. v. UOI as upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It was further contended that various juniors have already been allowed such benefits based on Order dt. 9.2.2004 in OA No. 1080/2003, Mrs. Urmil Jaitley & Mrs. Vijay Goel v. UOI and Ors. as well as Order dated 30.8.2005 in OA 2914/2004, Mrs.R.K. Chadha and Smt. Saroj Bala Bhatnagar v. UOI and Ors.3. In this OA, 7 applicants initially appoint...

R.D. Gupta and anr. Vs. State Thru C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT38

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Special Judge framing charges dated 29th May, 2006. They were arrayed as accused 5 and 6 (hereafter they shall be referred to as A-5 and A-6).2. Briefly the case of the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter 'CBI'), was that the M/s Kanika Chemicals India through Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar (referred to as A-1 and A-2 by the Court and referred to as such in these proceedings) conspired with Deepak Kumar (A-3) and Raj Kumari (A-4), other accused and obtained cash credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 36.36 lakhs, after depositing false and forged property deeds, owned by Swaran Lata as a collateral security. It was alleged that this amount was not repaid to the Bank.3. It was alleged that the petitioners were Directors of M/s Shri Ram Polychem Pvt. Ltd. and that the concern of the accused Ashok Kumar Singhal and Neeraj Kumar (M/s Kanika Chemicals India) had sought for utilization of the limits sanctione...

Shri Rohit Gupta S/O Shri Gian Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a Booking Clerk in Railways, has assailed an order passed by the disciplinary authority (DA) on 22.4.2003, imposing upon him, after disciplinary proceedings, a major penalty of reduction to lower scale in the time scale for a period of 10 years with cumulative effect. Also assailed is an order passed in appeal on 3.12.2003, whereby punishment has been reduced to the bottom of the lowest stage in the same grade for a period of 8 years with cumulative effect.Lastly, the order passed by the revisional authority on 30.8.2005, upholding the modified punishment, is also assailed.2. While posted as Booking Clerk under CES/MKDE on 18.7.1998 on a vigilance raid applicant has been proceeded against for a major penalty under SF-5 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, for allegedly charging excess amount of Rs. 50/- from decoy passenger, mixing up his private cash with the Government cash, acting with malafide intention to earn illegal money, show...