Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Dr. Ramjee Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT678; 2008(102)DRJ75

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by the Union of India on being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24th May, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent herein, being WP (c) No. 2593/06 holding that there was no justification for deletion of the name of the respondent from the electoral roll or voters list and also giving an observation that the respondent would nevertheless be entitled as on date to seek election to the post of President, as per the Act and the Rules. The Act and the Rules, which are referred to, are 'The Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the Rules framed there under.2. A writ petition was filed by the respondent which was registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 1186/2006, wherein he challenged the appointment of Administrator to the Central Council of Homoeopathy. The writ petition was disposed of with the following order, which was passed on 7th February, 2006...

Hero Honda Motors Limited Vs. Mr R.P. Agrawal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT168

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.IA No. 1856/2008 (U/O 23 Rule 3 Read with Section 151 of CPC)1. The amended memo of parties, as directed by virtue of the order dated 13.02.2008, has been filed. The name of the defendant No. 1 stands corrected to Mr Rajendra Prasad Agrawal (Mr R.P. Agrawal).2. The plaintiff had filed this suit for alleged infringement of its trade mark, copyright as well as for passing off and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and the defendants have arrived at an amicable settlement. The terms of the settlement are set out in this application. Essentially, the defendants have acknowledged the plaintiffs to be the proprietors of the trade marks mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint which includes the trade mark 'HERO HONDA' and the HERO HONDA stylised logo under class 12 vide Registration No. 419115 and 513474 respectively.3. The defendants have also acknowledged the plaintiffs to be the owners of the copyrights in the logo as well as in the packa...

Vijay Kumar Vs. the State (Gnct) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ725

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Tried on charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and 386/511/34 IPC in Sessions case No. 62/2002 arising out of an FIR No. 168/2001 under Sections 364A/302/34 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, PS Kapashera, the appellants stand convicted thereforee by a judgment dated 16.8.2003 of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and sentenced to (i) imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine SI for one month under Sections 302/34 IPC and (ii) RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, SI for three months under Section 386 read with Sections 511/34 IPC.2. The sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently.3. The appellants are in appeal against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi.4. The appellants faced trial on the allegations that they committed murder of a 12 year old child and tried to extort Rs. 3 lacs from the father of the chil...

Jaipal Singh Rana Vs. Swaraj Pal Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2008)BC662; 149(2008)DLT682

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J. 1. An interesting question arises in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') concerning the scope of the powers of a Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), trying a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') to ask for the opinion of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory ('CFSL') on the handwriting on the cheques in question despite an application filed by the complainant for the same relief having been dismissed earlier by the learned MM.Background facts2. The brief facts to filing of this petition are that a complaint being Criminal Case No. 429/1 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 138 NI Act in the court of learned MM on 18th March, 2002 with regard to the dishonour of two cheques: cheque No. 315106 dated 20th August, 2001 for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs and cheque No. 315108 dated 28th December, 2001 for a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs. The allegation in the complaint w...

Roshni Devi, Wife of Late Shri Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. On dismissal of OA, the Tribunal is precluded from issuing any positive direction, which would bestow upon the applicant an indefeasible right, as ruled by the Apex Court in Government of NCT v.Nitika Garg, 2. In the light of the above, the applicants, legal heirs of the deceased employee who died after serving 5 years, filed an OA 757/2002 on 15.11.2002 where the claim for compassionate appointment has been found not to have merit endorsement. Accordingly, an observation made in the Para 7, leaving the respondents to decide the claim of applicant in accordance with law and relevant instructions in force. The High Court has taken note of the aforesaid in WP(C) 1226-1228/2004 wherein an order passed on 21.8.2004 ruled that the claim of applicant for compassionate appointment has been rejected. SLP filed against it, as stated at Bar by Learned Counsel for respondents has already been dismissed. Accordingly, the issue of compassionate appointment of applicants has attained finality, w...

S.P.S. Chauhan, S/O Late Shri B.S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, by virtue of this OA, has impugned respondents' Presidential order dated 23.5.2003, whereby a minor penalty of withholding of one increment for one year, without cumulative effect, has been imposed upon him. Also assailed is an order passed in review on 7.11.2006, whereby the penalty has been confirmed.2. Applicant, a Director, was issued a minor penalty chargesheet under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 26.4.2002 on an allegation pertaining to the year 1991-92. The aforesaid when responded to, belated chargesheet was questioned on the ground that at this remotest point of time with clarity the events could not recollected by the applicant, which would certainly prejudice his case. However, disposing of the representation of applicant on his reply, a minor penalty, in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission when imposed, led to rejection of review, gives rise to the present OA.3. Shri S.S. Tewari, Learned Counselof applicant though taken a plethora o...

K.C. Uttreja, S/O Late Shri Vs. the State Government of Nct of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A retired Administrative Officer, through this OA, has assailed respondents' order dated 16.4.2007 and has sought interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, including pension, leave encashment, commutation of pension and gratuity from the date it has become due till actually paid.2. Applicant, who had to retire on superannuation on 31.8.2003 submitted all his relevant documents and papers before his retirement on 5.6.2003. At the time of retirement as Pay and Accounts Officer applicant was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 9,000/-. The retiral dues were released to applicant on 17.12.2003 but on a basic pay of Rs. 7,000/-, whereas he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 9,000/-. A representation preferred for interest on retiral dues and on approaching the Public Grievances Commission, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 31.8.2004, differential amount as to calculation of retiral benefits, treating the basic pay as Rs. 9,000/- was released. Further representation preferred, when not complied with, led t...

Prem Prakash Dhal S/O Shri Atma Ram Vs. Union Public Service Commissio ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Prem Prakash Dhal, applicant herein, a Senior Superintendent in the Social Welfare Department of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as GNCTD) has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question the action of the respondents by which they have not finalized his case for regular promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Technical) on which post, even though, he is working on ad hoc basis since 07.08.1996, despite the fact that the Secretary (SW), vide order dated 16.11.2006 decided that the case of the applicant for regular appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Tech.) may be placed before the DPC for consideration at the earliest.2. Brief facts on which the applicant seeks direction to be issued to the respondents to give him regular promotion from 07.08.1996 reveal that the applicant was initially appointed as Welfare Officer in Social Welfare Department of GNCTD on 05.12.1977. He was...

C.K. Dubey S/O Shri K.K. Dubey, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Loco Cleaners working as Loco Inspectors have sought through this OA regularization of ad hoc promotion on the posts of Loco Inspector of Driver Instructors without any break.3. A brief factual matrix transpires that applicants, who have been appointed as Loco Cleaners have been promoted upto Passenger Drivers and Senior Passenger Drivers.4. On acute shortage of loco running staff and non-filling up of the vacancies on regular basis, applications had been invited through notification dated 4.12.2004 for filling up the posts of Loco Inspectors/Driver Instructors, applicants when applied were screened and on short listing after written test were found suitable and accordingly were promoted purely on local ad hoc arrangements temporarily for a period of three months, with a condition that they can be repatriated to the cadre of Driver at any time, without any notice. Posting orders have been issued, deputing applicants as Driving Instructors. Meanwhile, while working on ad hoc basis a...

Bhagwan Dass Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 155(2008)DLT687

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. This is an appeal against the impugned order and judgment dated 7th September 1998 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,52, 999 filed by the appellant/ plaintiff.3. Brief facts leading to the culmination of this appeal are as follows:a) The appellant while working as a Branch Manager with the respondent bank, was issued a charge sheet by the respondent bank on account of his misconduct of allowing advances to M/s Sotan Lal Jamboo Prasada, M/s. Dhanesh Tube Company, M/s Rakesh Steels, M/s. Jaypee Tubes and M/s. Jain Industries.b) The charges against the appellant related to the misuse of official position by allowing indiscriminate advances, much beyond the limit set up and beyond his discretionary powers. Further he was charged with gross violation of Bank norms and was also found to be negligent and lacking due care in th...