Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Shri Subhash Chand Garg Son of Late Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is working as Assistant Accounts Officer, under the Delhi Development Authority, respondents herein. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, on the basis of a Memorandum (Annexure P-5) dated 10.1.1995. It may be necessary to note the nature of the charges, and it will be relevant to quote the allegations as below: A scrutiny of the records relating to the above works had shown that there has been serious violation of codal formalities and procedural requirements in the matter of preparation sale and issue of tender documents relating to the above stated works. Specifically stated, the following deficiencies/infirmities have been noted: (a) In r/o works mentioned at S.No.(i) to (iv) above, tender papers issued to various contractors contained only two pages of tender form PWD-7 instead of containing complete set of PWD-6 & 7. Thus the tender documents sold and received did not contain the contract conditions. (b) The sale of tenders for works stated at...

J.S. Khatri Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a retiree, assails respondents' order dated 8.2.2002, whereby his request for grant of full pension of 33 years has been denied to him.2. The facts are complicated and show that applicant was initially appointed in Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) and served there on the post of Assistant Development Commissioner from 9.12.1996 to 30.6.1983. He was confirmed there vide order dated 21.5.1986. He was on deputation from KVIC to Industries Department, Delhi Administration.While applicant was on deputation he was appointed in the Industries Department (Delhi Administration) on the recommendations of the DPC/SSB on approval of the Lieutenant Governor though on deputation as Development Commissioner in accordance with the rules and joined there on 1.7.1983 in terms of order dated 8.7.1983. Thereafter, applicant along with others was transferred to Delhi Khadi and Village Industries Board (DKVIB) vide transfer order dated 22.11.1983. On joining the Board as Develop...

Naseer Khan S/O Shri Bashir Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA applicants impugn order dated 26.8.2003 issued by Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) (Mechanical), North Central Railway, Jhansi for not promoting them as Technician Grade II in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 although they were amongst those 122 Technicians who had been screened and found suitable for the post of Technician Grade I. In terms of letter dated 26.8.2003, respondent No. 3 had promoted 73 Technicians Grade II to Technician Grade I but had ignored the applicants who had been selected earlier and awaiting promotion, after expiry of period for which they refused promotion/transfer due to unavoidable circumstances.2. Facts in brief are that applicants while working in Jhansi Division as Technician Grade II in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 were eligible for promotion to the post of Technician Grade I in scale of Rs. 4500-7000.Respondent No. 3 conducted the Trade Test and declared the result by Office Order dated 23.10.2000. All the applicants were declared successful and ...

Jag Ram Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT778; 2008(101)DRJ271

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. The two appellants are impugning the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 28.01.1998 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 23/96 whereby both the appellants were convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. for the murder of one Ramesh, who was the husband of appellant Munni and elder brother of appellant Jag Ram, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year in case of default in payment of fine. Further, both the appellants were also convicted and sentenced for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. Since both the appeals arose out of the same judgment of the trial Court they were heard together and now are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 1.4.95 an information was received at Police Station S...

Ramaswamy Athappan and anr. Vs. Bharti Infotel Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)BC533; 2008BusLR522(Del); 148(2008)DLT79; 2008(101)DRJ426

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeks the quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No. 3142/2004 pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) New Delhi titled Bharti Infotel Ltd. v. Data Access India Ltd. under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') in so far as it concerns the Petitioners here. 2. Petitioner No. 1 Mr. Ramaswamy Athappan is a resident of 96 Meyer Road, Singapore and Petitioner No. 2 Mr. Gobinath Athappan is a resident of 1450 Washington Boulevard Appt. 709 S Stamford, CT (USA).3. The aforementioned Complaint Case No. 3142/2004 was filed by Respondent Bharti Infotel Ltd. ('BIL') on 16th October 2004 in the Court of the learned MM against Data Access India Ltd. (`DAIL') and eight others. Petitioner No. 1 was arrayed as Accused No. 2 and described as the Vice Chairman of DAIL. His address was shown as the registered and corporate office of ...

Vardhman Spinning and General Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR565

1. This appeal arising from common order came up for hearing on the point of waiver of pre-deposit. The dispute relates to Service tax for the period January, 2005 to June, 2005. The case of the appellant is that the entire activity carried on by the appellant took place outside India and, therefore, the appellant cannot be fastened with the levy of Service tax for the period prior to 18-4-06. In support of the submissions reliance is placed on an order of Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE, Chandigarh (ST Appeal No.2. We find substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel and accordingly, grant full waiver of pre-deposit, and stay recovery thereof....

Dr. Prajneshu S/O Sh. H.C. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This O.A. has been filed by 31 applicants, who have sought permission of the Court to allow them to file this OA in a representative capacity so that whatever decision is taken, it may be applied to all other Scientists of ICAR, whether serving or retired.They have sought the following relief: to quash letter dated 12.12.2006 whereby respondents have denied the benefit of two advance increments to the applicants. To declare that by issue of clarifications dated 28.3.2001 and 14.11.2005, the original scheme dated 27.2.1999 is no longer an incentive scheme. To give direction to the respondents to give benefit of two advance increments w.e.f. 27.7.1998 to the applicants and other similarly situated employees working/retired as Principal Scientists/Senior Scientists and joined ICAR after completing their Ph.D earlier to any one of Principal Scientist/Senior Scientists who got similar benefit by virtue of acquiring Ph.D during service career.2. It is stated by applicants that some of th...

Tvc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abn Amro Bank N.V.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR579(Delhi); 148(2008)DLT262; 2008(101)DRJ710

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the respondent seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of establishing, maintaining and operating the closed users group domestic 64 kbps Network via INSAT satellite system using VSATs (Very Small Aperture Terminals) throughout India. The parties entered into an agreement dated 17.5.1999 whereby the petitioner agreed to provide the agreed services to the respondent at its various sites in India using the equipment leased to respondent on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. The said agreement executed between the parties contained an arbitration clause for adjudication of dispute that may arise between the parties under the contract through arbitration. Clause 9.3 is the relevant clause in the agreement which provide for dispute reso...

Shri Nand Lal Vs. Smt. Mundras Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT749

Vipin Sanghi, J.CM No. 2232/2008Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.RC.R. No. 11/2008 & CM No. 2231/20081. This petition has been filed to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-315/07/2000 filed by the respondent against the petitioner whereby the aforesaid eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (the Act) has been allowed and an eviction order has been passed against the petitioner-tenant from the suit property, that is, first floor of property No. 1205, Gali Samosan, Farash Khana, Delhi-11006. Admittedly the respondent is the owner and landlady of the aforesaid premises, wherein, the petitioner is a tenant. The family of the respondent admittedly consists of herself, her husband, three married sons with their wives and five grand children. There is one married daughter living in the same area. The petitioner-tenant raised various submissions. Firstly, it was contended that the purpose of letting was ...

Krishan Kumar Vs. Vinod Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT668

Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. Under challenge in this Petition is the order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller in E-647/2006 filed by the petitioner whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the petitioner's aforesaid eviction Petition filed under Section 14(i)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). 2. The Respondent tenant despite service in the prescribed form failed to file an application seeking leave to defend within the statutory period. In fact, even without applying for and obtaining the leave of the Controller, the written statement was directly filed, though beyond the 15 days period prescribed for filing the application for seeking leave to defend. Thereafter, an application for seeking condensation of delay in filing the application seeking leave to defend, and an application for treating the written statement as the application seeking leave to defend was filed by the respondent. Both these applications were dismissed by the learned Additional R...