Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Shri Mange Ram Mittal Retired Pay Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant seeks benefit of OM dated 22.4.2004 whereby his colleagues S/Shri A.P. Jain and Ram Krishan-II were given back dated promotion on basis of orders in case of A.P. Jain and Ors. (OA No.533/2000) decided on 28.2.2001. The applicant had represented to state that he is similarly placed and he be extended the same benefits. After drawing a blank, he filed OA No. 2295/2005. His OA was disposed of on 19.10.2005 with a direction to respondents to dispose of his representation within a period of 4 months. The respondents rejected the claim of applicant on 22.2.2006. This order is being impugned in this OA (Annexure A-4).2. Facts in short are that some junior colleagues of the applicant were granted certain service benefits in terms of antedating of their promotion etc. vide OM dated 22.4.2004. On 17.10.2004, applicant made a representation that he may be extended the same benefits. Shri A.P.Jain had filed OA 533/2000 for their service benefits. The said OA was allowed by...

Dewas Soya Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(235)ELT821(Del)

Gita Mittal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s Dewas Soya Limited petitioner herein seeking a mandamus to the respondents to implement the decision dated 14th February, 2006 followed by an office memorandum dated 27th February, 2006 issued by the Grievance Redressal Committee of the Ministry of Commerce and for consequential benefits. The petitioner has stated that it is a manufacturer- exporter of Soya Bean Extraction Meal and has been recognised as a status holder by the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade respondent No. 2 herein. During the financial year 2003-2004 the petitioner had exported soya bean extraction meal valued at Rs. 48,91,58,475/-. In the preceeding financial year 2002-2003 the petitioner had exported the said item for a value of Rs. 8,86,17,620/- thus, it is claimed the petitioner has effected an incremental export growth of 486.45% in 2003-2004 over 2002-2003.2. The petitioner places reliance on the Export and Import Policy (2002- 2007) as o...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Madan Construction Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR499(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has restricted challenge to the impugned award dated 7.6.1995 which has been upheld by the learned Trial Judge vide impugned order dated 7.7.1997 in so far it relates to claim No. 1, 4, 12, 15, 23, 25.3. At the outset I may note that the learned Additional District Judge who has dealt with the objections filed by the appellant under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has noted that findings of fact recorded by the learned Arbitrator would be immune for challenge.4. I may only clarify that the law is not all that wide. If it can be shown that a material document or a clause of contract has been ignored by the learned Arbitrator, finding relatable thereto can be corrected.5. Before dealing with the objections it may be noted that the contractor was awarded civil construction work for constructing MIG flats in Paschim Vihar. The contract could not be completed within the stipulated ...

Dr. Amitabha Sen Vs. Sports World International Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi118; 148(2008)DLT8; 2008(101)DRJ528

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff for summoning of three witnesses who have been listed as PW-II, PW-III and PW-IV. PW-II (Mr Mike Ashley) is the sole shareholder of the defendant No. 1 (M/s Sportsworld International Limited). PW-III (Mr Justin Barnes) is the defendant No. 2 and PW-IV (Mr Peter Barnes) is the defendant No. 4. It is an admitted position between the parties that PW-III, Mr Justin Barnes and PW-IV Mr Peter Barnes are both partners of defendant No. 6. Mr Justin Barnes is also the CEO and owner of defendant No. 3.2. The controversy between the parties is that the plaintiff, who is an advocate, was engaged for services to be rendered to defendant No. 1. The case of the plaintiff is that his dues on account of professional fees have not been cleared by the defendants. Apart from this, the plaintiff has also claimed damages from the defendants. The case of the defendants is that the defendant No. 6, which is an international firm of trad...

Krishan Gupta Vs. Hari Shankar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ201(Del); 2008(102)DRJ84

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on these appeals which relate to grant of license of a Kerosene Oil Depot by the respondent No. 2 and we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment and order as they arise from cross-writ petitions.2. One of the said writ petitions was filed by the appellant-Krishan Gupta being Writ Petition No. 4515/1994 and the other by the respondent No. 1-Hari Shankar. The appellant-Krishan Gupta as also the respondent No. 1-Hari Shankar, one of the respondents in the present appeal and the appellant in LPA No. 2238/2005, are the two aspirants for grant of license for the Kerosene Oil Depot in the year 1994. Krishan Gupta, appellant in LPA No. 2595/2005, was not successful and the same was granted to Hari Shankar which was renewed from time to time and the said Hari Shankar was enjoying the said benefit on the basis of the renewal granted. The writ petition was, thereforee, filed challenging ...

Ajay Kirti Kumar Dalmia Vs. Company Law Board and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas742(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, directions are claimed for quashing of an order dated June 15, 1998 in applications, i.e., C.A. Nos. 29-31 of 1996, moved in Company Petition No. 55 of 1996 Suresh Kumar Jain v. Hindustan Ferro Industries Ltd. . Those applications were moved before the Company Law Board (hereafter referred to as 'the CLB') under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act').2. The petitioner alleges to have control over 40 per cent, of the shareholding in respondent No. 26, through his holdings and those of respondents Nos. 27 to 34. It is claimed that another block of shares is held by the second respondent, his family members and associates, i.e., respondents Nos. 3 to 18. It is alleged that the parties had sometime in 1991 joined together with equal shareholding in respondent No. 26 company. It is further averred that to resolve disputes, which had arisen sometime in 1995-96 betwee...

Shri Deepak Sinha, General Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged order dated 15.02.2006 (Page 21) whereby penalty of stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect has been imposed on the applicant. He has claimed all the consequential benefits namely, entertaining his promotion at par with his juniors and other consequential benefits.2. It is stated by the applicant that vide Memorandum dated 15.01.2007 (Page 25 at 27), applicant was served with a charge sheet with the following allegations : That the said Sh. Deepak Sinha, while functioning as TDM Mathura during the period 1997-98 and while deciding the case of hiring a building for Telephone Exchange at Sahpau in Mathura SSA committed following serious irregularities in as much as he, Consented the proposal for entering into a contractural obligation with Sh. Navin Prakash Shukla for constructing a new building on a vacant plot of land with the assurance that same would be taken on rent by the Department, which was in violation of departm...

Shri Ompal Singh, Booking Clerk, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

8.1 That this honourable Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned order with all consequential(sic) benefits and refund the amount which has been recovered from the Pay of the applicant. 8.2 That any other or further relief which this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant. 8.3 That the cost of the proceedings may also be granted in favour of the applicant.2. It is stated by applicant that while posted as Booking Clerk at GJL Railway Station on 20th August, 1998, following allegations were served on him vide Memorandum dated 24.11.2000: i) That he demanded and accepted Rs. 27/- excess illegally from the decoy passenger on 3 tickets of Bhadoi. That he caused loss of Rs. 27/- to the Railways by his malafide act of preparing ticket for less amount than due.Inquiry officer gave his report by holding therein that though charges (i), (ii) and (iv) are proved, bu...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh. Inder Bhushan Kohli and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT740

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this application under Section 47 of CPC, applicant has raised objections against the attachment of property/flat No. 31-A. Ground Floor, Block A-1-A Janakpuri, New Delhi. The applicant, Kunta Devi has claimed herself to be owner of the property.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the application are that in suit No. 93/94 a decree was passed against Sh. Inder Bhushan Kohli, Smt. Uma Kohli and Sh. Pulkit Kohli on 16.12.2003 and in execution of the decree the property in question was sought to be attached. A notice of attachment was issued by this Court, where after objections have been filed by the applicant. It is stated by the applicant that this property was allotted to Inder Bhushan Kohli vide allotment dated 31.5.1984 and Inder Bhushan Kohli sold the flat for valid consideration to one Sh. C.L. Kapoor son of Sh. Dhyan Chand Kapoor on 4th October, 1993 for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. Mr. C.L. Kapoor sold the flat to the applicant on 1...

Dr. Manav Rakshak and anr. Vs. Civcon Engineering and Contracting Co. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT468

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This application under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs seeking leave of this Court to amend the plaint.2. The plaintiffs filed the instant suit for specific performance and mandatory injunction qua property bearing No. 27-A, Friends Colony (West), Mathura Road, New Delhi making four defendants. Defendant No. 1 is M/s Civcon Engineering and Contracting Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd., defendant No. 2 is the Director of defendant No. 1 company, defendant No. 3 is the builder and contractor and defendant No. 4 is an individual. In this application, plaintiffs plead that in the written statement filed by defendant, defendant had made a vague averment that the Flat in question had been sold to another person. The defendant did not disclose the name and address of the person and date of the sale deed or the sale consideration. Plaintiff filed replication denying this averment since the plaintiff h...