Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Subhash Pandey S/O Shri P.N. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this MA applicant seeks permission to prosecute Shri S.N. Das, Chief Soil Survey Officer under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.3. The applicant, no doubt, cannot ask for this prayer, though it is his prerogative to challenge any particular order in an appropriate forum. This Tribunal is not the appropriate forum to seek permission under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, this MA has no merit and is dismissed.4. By virtue of this OA the applicant impugns order dated 10.8.2005 whereby he was transferred from Regional Centre (North), All India Soil and Land Use Survey Organisation (AISLUSO) to Regional Centre, Bangalore and order dated 11.8.2005 whereby he was transferred along with the post on administrative grounds.5. The facts in brief are that applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in AISLUSO w.e.f. 30.4.1975 and confirmed in that grade and later promoted as UDC. On...

Sh. Jayanta Kumar Dutta S/O Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The Applicants in this case are seeking the relief that their pay should be fixed on promotion from Master Crafts Men (MCM) also called Senior Technician to Junior Engineer II (JE-II), which are in identical scale, though the promotion post enjoins higher responsibility, by application of Rule 1313 of Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) which is same as Fundamental Rule FR 22(I)(a)(1). Fundamental Rule FR 22(I)(a)(1) is as follows: F.R. 22(I) The initial pay of a Government servant who is appointed to a post on a time-scale of pay is regulated as follows: (a)(1) Where a Government servant holding a post, other than a tenure post, in a substantive or temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, as the case may be, subject to the fulfilment of the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching ...

Ravinder Kumar S/O Shri Satpal Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The Applicant applied for the post of Peon (Group 'D') in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti in the Ministry of Human Resource Development under Government of India. The post was to be filled up from a person belonging to OBC. The Applicant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was selected for the post. It later transpired that the Applicant belonged to OBC notified by Government of NCT of Delhi and was not under the OBC category as per the Government of India notification. As a result he was not allowed to join as Peon by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.2. It has been agreed by both the parties that the issue involved in the O.A. is whether a person would be eligible for appointment to a post reserved for OBC category in Government of India if he/she is notified in OBC category in the State Government but not so notified in the Government of India's notification.3. The learned Counsel for the Respondents stated during the hearing of the case on 25.04.2007 that the matter was no longe...

Shyam Sunder Bhartia and anr. Vs. Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ78

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these petitions, inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated through a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate has been invoked.2. The respondent Bureau of Indian Standard (hereafter referred to as 'BIS') was set up pursuant to a Parliamentary enactment in 1986. A complaint dated 5.9.2000 was received by it from one Deepak Gupta of M/s. Newtech International. The informant was an approved contractor specializing in water proofing treatment and handling various public projects. He alleged that for approval of materials i.e. 'integral water proofing compound' carrying the trade mark 'VAMIPLAS 302' (of the standard mark bureau manufactured by M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Limited, the company which is now known as Jubilant Organosys Ltd., arrayed as accused in the proceedings), manufactured in February 2000 bearing batch No. 760001, was sought for. It was alleged that the NDMC had forwarded a sample of the product to a Res...

Kendriya Vidyalaya Vs. Sushil Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT542

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alias for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records in I.D. No. 428 of 1996 pending before the Labour Court, Delhi and for directions to the said Court to transfer the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (in short `the CAT').2. Before moving on to deal with the matter on merits, it is appropriate to discuss the facts of the case in brief. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS for short), petitioner herein, is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act and is fully funded by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi. On 14th May, 1994 the respondent workman joined the services of the petitioner as a daily rated/casual/muster roll worker and was paid daily wages as per law. The respondent workman continued to work with the petitioner till 30th November, 1994, from which date his servi...

Surjawati and ors. Vs. Ajay Saini and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2078

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 20.4.2002, Mam Chand died in a road accident involving bus No. DL 1P-B 1088. He was survived by his wife and three sons.2. Dependants filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 on account of death of deceased in the said road accident.3. After holding the driver of offending bus guilty of rash and negligent driving, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,21.840 to the dependants. Break-up of the compensation is as follows:Loss of dependency Rs. 2,94,840(In the award, due totypographical error,this sum has beenwrongly mentionedas Rs. 2,96,840)Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000Non-pecuniary damages Rs. 25,000-------------Total Rs. 3,21,840-------------4. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation, dependants-appellants have filed the present appeal praying for enhancement of compensation.5. As only enhancement of compensation is prayed for, I will only be noting facts as are relevant for determination of said issues.6. Wife of the dec...

Ajay Verma Vs. East India Company and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ212

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This application has been filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 41(a) & (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The applicant has also contended that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. However, this argument is not raised by the defendant/applicant in the course of his arguments.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:(a) Pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring that cheque No. 482423 dated 15.03.06 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 62,60,000 is null and void and un-enforceable against the issuing bank or against the plaintiff.(b) Pass a decree thereby adjudging the cheque No. 482423 dated 15.03.06 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 62,60,000/-is null and void and unenfo...

Santosh Kumari and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2107

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 8.2.1996, deceased aged 40 years died in a road accident involving bus No. DEP 6261. He was survived by his wife, 2 minor sons, a minor daughter and father.2. Dependants filed a claim petition under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 on account of death of the deceased in the said vehicular accident. Father of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim petition.3. After holding driver of the offending bus guilty of rash and negligent driving, learned Tribunal proceeded to determine compensation to the dependants.4. The wife of the deceased, Santosh Kumari stepped into the witness-box as PW 5 and deposed that her husband was a transporter and was earning Rs. 20,000 per month at the time of the accident. She further deposed that deceased had bought a Tempo under hire-purchase agreement from Singh Finance Co. and was paying an instalment of Rs. 12,000 per month and that he was earni...