Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Mr. R.P. Singh S/O Late Shri Mangal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through I ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The disciplinary proceedings initiated as against the applicant have culminated in Annexure `A' order dated 23.01.2006. He is an Assistant Engineer working in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) and articles of charges were issued to him on 18.02.2003 pointing out that there were certain lapses in his conduct while he was working as Junior Engineer. By the present orders, his salary is reduced to a lower stage for two years without cumulative effect. The order has been upheld by the appellate authority, as could be seen from Annexure `B' dated 28.03.2007.2. Dr. G. Lal appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer was in negation of the principles of natural justice. More importantly, he submits that the proceedings itself were misconceived and the allegations as raised could not have been considered as misconduct, which are actionable. The punishment, counsel submits, seriously affects his career, and requires to be interfered...

The Commissioner of Police and ors. Vs. H.C. Durgesh Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT42; 2008(3)SLJ78(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Learned counsel for petitioners Union of India and Commissioner of Police assails the order dated 12.9.2007 passed in O.A. 88/2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi. For a proper appreciation of the matter in controversy the facts in brief may be noted:2. Durgesh Kumar, respondent was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 3rd October, 1980. He got promoted to the post of Head Constable on 19th June, 1990. It is the admitted case of parties that the respondent had been appointed as a Constable on 3rd October, 1980 being an OBC candidate. In fact, the respondent had submitted an OBC certificate issued by the Additional Magistrate Ghaziabad, at the time of his appointment. Respondent continued to serve as a Constable. A promotional exam to the post of Head Constable was held in the year 1987. The respondent had duly appeared in the same and after successfully passing the examination and the training, his name was brought in the list 'B...

Ms. Zareena Bano Vs. Shri Sukhpal Singh @ Sukhpal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2503; 148(2008)DLT468

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The present appeal preferred under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of the award dated 17.9.2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,22,986/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimant from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.2. Aggrieved with the findings of the Tribunal, the appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation as granted by the Tribunal in the present appeal.3. Before adverting to deal with the contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to give brief facts of the case as under:On 4.8.2003 at about 3 P.M. the injured appellant was filling the water in water canes from a water tanker which was parked on Pushta Road, Jharoda, when all of a sudden a TATA 407 Tempo bearing registration No. DL-1L A-4841, without blowing any horn being driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the appellant due to which the front left tyr...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Om Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2023

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred an appeal challenging the impugned order dated 27.9.2006 passed by the learned M.A.C.T.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for deciding the present appeal, inter alia, are that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are the legal heirs of deceased Shiv Pratap Mishra who died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. On 28.11.2003, the deceased Shiv Pratap Mishra was going on foot near the I.G.I. Stadium, ITO when he was hit by a bus bearing registration No. DL 1P-A 7916 driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner due to which he received serious bodily injuries and rushed to L.N.J.P. Hospital where he was declared dead.3. The Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts of the case as well as evidence led by the parties had passed an award in the sum of Rs. 13,45,140 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum payable from the date of the...

Pol Securities Limited and Others Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. There is serious dispute as to the genuineness of the signatures of the appellant on the share transfer deed submitted with the appellant resulting in the impugned order dated 5.11.2007, giving following direction to the appellant: (1) To refund a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at the rate of 9% from 18.7.1996 till realisation to the complainant. No. 1. (2) To refund a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest @ 9% from 18.7.1996 till realisation to complainant No. 2. (3) To refund a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest @ 9% from 18.7.1996 till realisation to complainant No. 3. (4) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to each complainant. (5) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 consolidated as cost of litigation. 2. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the appellant had suffered similar order earlier which is dated 23.8.2006 and filed an appeal against the said order. Vide order dated 10.4.2007, this Commission allowed the appeal and sent back the matte...

Economic Transport Organisation Vs. Laxmi Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Grievance of the appellant who is a transporter, against the impugned order dated 21.9.2007, directing it to pay Rs. 15,506 with interest @ 7% p.a. and pay Rs. 21,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation is that the District Forum has not at all taken into consideration the proof adduced by the appellant that it had delivered consignment to the consignee and also the objection that it had never received any letter dated 9.7.2003 sent by the respondent informing him about the non-delivery of the consignment or non receipt of the payment of the due amount. 2. We have perused the impugned order and find that District Forum has categorically observed that there is no evidence that the complainant ever instructed the respondent to deliver the consignment without valid documents. District Forum has also observed that respondent had sent original receipt by acknowledging it in writing. 3. At this stage also we called upon the learned Counsel fo...

Naveen Wadhwa Vs. Anil Kumar Ajmani and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. There is no need to issue notice of the appeal as the respondent has no role to play to file reply because what is challenged is the discretion exercised by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The appellant has been sentenced in three execution petitions to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and pay fine of Rs. 10,000 each and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for having failed to comply with the order passed by the District Forum, directing him to pay Rs. 3,94,785 to the respondents. Both the sentences have been ordered to run consecutively. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that the District Forum passed these orders on the oral statement and the oral show-cause notice. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection, Act, 1986, prescribes penalties for failure or omission by any trader or person against whom complaint is made, to comply any order m...

NitIn Kumar Vs. Standard Chartered Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Appellant misplaced his credit card on 25.10.2003. He came to know about the misplacement of the card only on 27.10.2003 and immediately lodged report with the respondent helpline. After a month he received statement of account and was shocked to notice that as many as five transactions have taken place between 10.40 a.m. to 11.50 a.m. on 27.10.2003, amounting to Rs. 13,529. He paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the representative of the respondent on 16.12.2003 towards full and final settlement. But the respondent did not issue certificate to that effect. Consequently he filed the instant complaint before the District Forum asking for refund of Rs. 5,000 with interest, cost and compensation. 2. Vide impugned order dated 7.12.2007, the District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing that after examination of the flow of signatures on the photocopy of the transaction slip with other documents filed by the appellant, there is nothing to rule out that the app...

Delhi Jal Board Vs. Niranjan Shah

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the District Forum, the appellant has been directed to refund the purchase price of the jar of water and to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and further directed to observe proper hygiene while bottling the jars and ensure that the jars are thoroughly cleaned before being bottled as the impure water is unsafe for human consumption and bottled water is purchased for the added surety that it is fit for consumption. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned order in brief are that he had purchased 20 ltrs water sealed jar from the appellant on 6.7.2004 for drinking purpose. Respondent stated that he is a regular purchaser of the bottled water of DJB but the bottle in question had impurities. The respondent went to the office of the appellant at Greater Kaialsh-I and the officer present there assured him that action will be taken on his ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Chandra Helicon Pumps Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR396

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby penalty of Rs. 4,139/- was set aside.3. I have gone through the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the present respondent had paid the Service Tax through their Service Tax credit account and had done nothing to evade Service Tax.The Commissioner (Appeals) further observed that it is a technical fault which is due to ambiguity in the law due to shifting of burden of payment of Service Tax on respondent instead of goods transporter operator. In view of these facts as the appellant had paid the Service Tax through their Service Tax credit account, I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby penalty is set aside. The appeal is dismissed....