Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Ex. H.C. Rajender Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ35(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 5th November, 1998 passed by the Commandant No 71, Bn. CRPF, dismissing the petitioner from service on proof of two charges of misconduct framed against him. An Appellate Order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Delhi Range, CRPF, R. K. Puram, New Delhi and a revisional order passed by the Director General, HQ, CRPF, New Delhi upholding the dismissal have also been assailed.2. The petitioner was enrolled in the CRPF as a Constable on 1st January, 1975. Having served in the Force for more than 23 years, he was, on 30th November, 1998, given a charge-sheet under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules read with Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, containing two articles of charges against him. The first charge contained in the charge-sheet alleged the commission of misconduct by the petitioner in that he was, while on duty in Coy quarterguard, found absent without the prior permission of t...

Rahul Ranjan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ368(Delhi)

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in the service of Indian Air Force as an Aircrafts man in its non-technical stream and he along with other selected candidates was deployed for 24 weeks mandatory Joint Basic Phase Training Course (JBPTC) 1/2004 at Airman Training School, Belgaum. The training commenced from 19.01.2004 Due to his poor performance in the examination held during training, the petitioner was awarded Cease Training and discharge from the service of Air Force w.e.f 06.07.2004 under Clause 15 (2) (j) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 under the clause 'Unlikely To Make An Efficient Airman'. The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question an order of his discharge and has prayed for a writ of mandamus against the respondents directing them to produce his original answer-sheet of English paper of final examination and the entire training record and also to direct his reinstatement in the service of Air Force with all consequential benefits.2. The grievance ...

Param Hansh Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ93(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Having served in Delhi for a period of three years, petitioner has been transferred to a Field Station in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. Aggrieved, he has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order on the ground that the same is in violation of his Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as also the policy regulating transfers and postings in the Indian Air Force. The order is also challenged on the ground that the same is vitiated by malafides and bias against the petitioner.2. We have heard Mr. Pandey, counsel appearing for the petitioner, and perused the record. Transfer of a public servant from one place to another is made in the exigencies of service and are not interfered with by the Courts unless they are shown to be incompetent in the sense that the authority issuing the order has no jurisdiction to do so or found to be vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations. This is particularly so in the case of Armed Fo...

Sub. B.K. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ287(Delhi)

ORDERS OF THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF ON THE PETITION DATED 10 AUGUST 2001 SUBMITTED BY JC-722890X EX SUBEDAR (AMMUNITION TECHNICAN) BINOD KUMAR SINGH OF HEADQUARTERS INSPECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES (NORTH) ATTACHED TO 12 ASSAM RIFLES1. In exercise of the powers conferred on my vide Army Act 16492), I have examined petition dated 10th August 2001 submitted by JC-722890 X ex Subedar (Ammunition Technician) Binod Kumar Singh of Headquarters Inspector General Assam Rifles, attached to 12 Assam Rifles, against the findings and sentence of General Court Martial (General Court Martial), held from 07 September 2000 to 09 February 2001, in the light of proceedings of the said Court Martial and all relevant documents on record.2. The petitioner was arraigned on six charges, all under Army Act Section 53 (a) for 'committing extortion'. The accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges. However, the court after trial found him not guilty of third, fourth and firth charges and guilty o first, secon...

Rati Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ365

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The appellant was the bhumidar of agricultural land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Rawta, New Delhi which was acquired for increasing the capacity of Najafgarh drain. The notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the said Act' for short) was issued on 13.01.1981 and the land acquisition collector determined the compensation payable at the rate of Rs 2,000 per bigha vide award no 24/1983.84 dated 23.07.1983. The appellant being aggrieved by the quantum of the award preferred a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act. On such reference being made, the learned Additional District Judge in terms of the judgment dated 12.08.1987 held the appellant entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 3,500/- per bigha apart from solarium at the rate of 30 per cent, additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the market value from the date of notification to the the announcement of the award or date of taking possession whichever is e...

Sunila Wadhwan and ors. Vs. Perfect Drugs Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ497

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC) filed on behalf of the defendant No. 2 for rejection of the plaint. The ground taken in the application is that the suit is barred by law. According to the learned Counsel for the defendant No. 2 (Mr. Arun Sahay), the suit has been filed, inter alia, against the defendant No. 1 (Perfect Drugs Limited) although the defendant No. 1 had been wound up on 22.1.2001 Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, according to him, bars a suit against a company after an order of winding up has been passed. According to the learned Counsel for defendant No. 2, the plaintiffs knew about the winding up of the defendant No. 1, yet filed this present suit. He submitted that since the suit is barred by Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, the plaint has to be rejected. The learned Counsel also referred to a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in ...

Standard Chartered Bank and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ71

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that inadvertently Karuna Bhatia, Business Manager was not impleaded as petitioner No. 2 inasmuch as counsel for the petitioners thought that as Karuna Bhatia had filed the petition on behalf of Standard Chartered Bank, the petition would enure to the benefit of Karuna Bhatia as well.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners concedes that the belief of learned Counsel for the petitioners is in sweet ignorance of law.3. Suffice would it be to state that where a company and the living human being stated to be in charge and control of the affairs of the company are impleaded as accused persons, each is an accused in its/his individual capacity and each must take recourse to legal remedy available as per law.4. Be that as it may, amended memo of parties is taken on record. Ms. Karuna Bhatia is impleaded as petitioner No. 2.5. Petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that they have been summoned to face trial in a complaint filed ...

Tata Tea Limited Vs. Overseas Trading Corporation and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Vide impugned order dated 14.12.2000 which is an ex parte order, the appellant Tata Tea who was arraigned as respondent-2 before the District Forum has been jointly and severally held liable with respondent-1 M/s. Satya Priya Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. whose services for transport of the goods were availed by respondent-1 for having delivered the consignment in short quantity and directed to pay the rupee equivalent of the cost of 1709 kgs. of copper cathodes as per the prevailing exchange rate on the date of loss i.e., 2.6.1996 and pay interest @ 18% p.a. till the amount is actually paid and Rs. 10,000 as damages and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant M/s. Tata Tea Ltd. who was admittedly the settlement agent of respondent-2 M/s. Satya Priya Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. has preferred this appeal. 2. Impugned order has been assailed firstly, on the ground that appellant was not at all served with any notice of the complaint issued by the Distric...

Jindal Texo Fab. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC180

1. The appellants are engaged in the processing of cotton and man made fabrics and working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They were liable to discharge the duty for the month of May, 2000 as on 31.5.2000. It has been alleged that the appellant discharged duty on 1.6.2000 instead of 31.5.2000. The adjudicating authority had gone through TR-6 challan No. 03/2000 dated 29.5.2000 for an amount of Rs. 4 Lacs. It has been observed that the dated stamp of the Bank of Baroda, Service Branch is 1.6.2000 and the date of tendering the amount is written as 31.5.2000. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings because the appellant tendered the cheque on 31.5.2000 within the stipulated period. The department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the department's appeal. He observed that there is clear default by the appellant in making...

Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ493

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the original defendants in respect of the property bearing No. 1, Tughlak Lane, New Delhi. The plaint was subsequently amended and suffice to say at this stage that defendants No. 7 and 8, now imp leaded in the suit, are not members of the family while the plaintiff and the other defendants are members of the same family.2. Late Shri L. Hanuman Pershad Gupta was Karta of a HUF styled as M/s Deoki Nandan and Sons and one of the assets acquired by the said HUF was the property in suit in pursuance to a perpetual lease deed dated 13.10.1937. On the said plot a construction was raised and the family members occupied the property.3. The HUF is stated to have disrupted in the year 1957 which had a consequent impact on the suit property. Late Shri L. Hanuman Pershad Gupta passed away on 8.12.1972 leaving behind a Will by which his estate was bequeathed to his four sons in equal shares. The property in sui...