Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

State Vs. R.P. Tyagi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT693

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Death Reference 01/2007 arises out of the impugned judgment dated 13th December, 2006 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, by which the accused R.P. Tyagi posted as the SHO at the relevant time, was convicted under Sections 302/342/120-B IPC. Further, by his order dated 15th December, 2006 accused R.P. Tyagi was sentenced to death.2. The Death Reference and the Appeal of the convicted accused R.P. Tyagi were taken up together for hearing and after hearing Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. R. N. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the accused, both the matters are now to be governed by this common judgment.3. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the State, it is necessary to notice at the outset the main evidence relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the learned trial court for convicting the appellant. Then we...

Tej Singh Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT242

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The trial court had rendered the impugned judgment dated 13th December, 2006 by which the accused SHO, R.P. Tyagi along with SI Tej Singh and Inspector K.P. Singh were convicted. The appellant in the present appeal SI Tej Singh was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for his conviction for an offence punishable under Section 218 IPC and in default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment. In addition to it, the appellant was further sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment and sentences awarded to the said convict were ordered to run concurrently with a benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.2. The brief facts of the case as per the prosecution sans unnecessary details are as follows:a) On 16th Augus...

K.P. Singh Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ600

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The trial court had delivered the impugned judgment dated 13th December, 2006 by which the accused SHO, R.P. Tyagi along with Sub Inspector Tej Singh and Inspector K.P. Singh were convicted. The appellant in the present appeal Inspector K.P. Singh was convicted under Section 217 IPC by judgment and order dated 13th December, 2006 and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment as well as fine of Rs. 25,000/-, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkar Dooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') on the ground that there was a 5-1/2 months delay in registering the FIR. 2. As per the facts of the case, in the intervening night of 24th and 25th August 1987, two persons Mahender and Ram Kumar were admitted in SDN hospital having sustained injuries ostensibly due to beatings. Mahender was shifted to LNJPN hospital where he died at about 2.00 pm on 25th August 1987. As it appeared an unnatural death, area SDM S.S. Rathore conducted inquest proceedings and foun...

Teej Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C., Icd, Tkd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby Hydro-generated Vegetable Oil (Vanaspati Ghee) valued at Rs. 1,46,79,214.30 was confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act on the ground that the same is adulterated as per the norms laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Commissioner of Customs ordered the release of the same for the purpose of re-export on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.3. Contention of the appellants is that Vanaspati Oil is imported from Sri Lanka and as per quality certificate given by the exporter, Melting Point is 40 Max. Contention is that as per the norms laid down under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act & Rules melting point of vanaspati oil should be between 30C to 41C. Contention is that the sample taken from the consignment and the same was test...

Ramesh Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant at present is an Executive Engineer, working in the CPWD, the respondents herein. While working as a regular Assistant Engineer, he was posted at Sub-division-II under PWD Electrical Division-III. It came to be noticed that during the period from 09.11.1992 to 26.02.1994, there were certain lapses in the matter of his work.2. A memo is seen to have been issued to him under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 07.02.2001. There were three articles of charge, as raised in the memorandum of charges, and after noticing his stand; it had been decided to appoint an Inquiry Officer to look into the matter. The proceedings indicate that the Inquiry Officer found Article-I was not proved but Articles-II and III stood proved. The disciplinary authority, however, was of the view that in respect of Article-I, further examination might be necessary and he had recorded his disagreement and placed the files with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The report of the Inquiry Officer, the ...

Bharat Bhushan S/O Late Shri B.N. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Rejection of request for compassionate appointment vide order dated 3.5.2007 is the grievance of applicant. On the death of the government servant in 2000 a request made to the respondents for appointment of son in Group 'C' post when turned down in 2004, a direction was issued by the Tribunal in OA-276/2007 on 19.2.2007 to inform applicant of his subsequent consideration against the vacancies arisen later on and circulation of the case amongst Ministries/Departments. As a result thereof, the request has been turned down on the ground that as no vacancy exists in Group 'C', the claim of applicant cannot be considered.2. Learned Counsel of applicant, resorting to the information received through Right to Information Act states that in 2005 there were about 36 vacancies in Group 'C' whereas out of which at least two are to go to general category on compassionate appointment, which has not been considered and as applicant was at serial No. 6, non-consideration of his claim is bad in l...

Smt. Sushila Bhatia W/O Late Shri Vs. Employees State Insurance

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A. applicant, who is widow of the employee late Shri Amar Nath Bhatia, has challenged order dated 21.12.2005 with a further direction to the respondents to accept the medical claim of the employee and to reimburse the full amount along with interest to her.2. It is stated by applicant that her husband retired from the ESIC Directorate (Medical) as Head Clerk. The ESIC Directorate (Medical) issued an identity card P-267 on 22.6.1993 valid for whole life. The applicant's husband was a heart patient and was receiving treatment from the ESIC dispensary at Okhla, New Delhi regularly. He was erlier referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, Sector-3, New Delhi for his Echo to be conducted as the same facility was not available with the ESI Hospital, Badsaidapur. He was again referred for Echo, which was conducted on 23.1.2003 at ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur, New Delhi as the facilities were then available there.3. On 15.4.2005 the applicant's husband got severe chest pain, incl...

Mr. Ravi Kr. Mathur and Mr. Kishan Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT660; 2008(102)DRJ227; 2009(2)SLJ317(Delhi)

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Mr. R K Mathur and Mr. K L Sharma are members of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services (hereinafter referred to as RHJS, for short). Both of them were appointed as Presiding Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunal at Delhi. Notifications appointing them as Presiding Officers stipulated that they were appointed for a period of 5 years from the specified dates or till they attained age of 62 years, whichever was earlier.2. By two separate letters dated 6th July, 2006 and 21st July, 2006, High Court of Rajasthan sought repatriation of Mr. R.K. Mathur and Mr. K.L. Sharma, respectively from their posting as Presiding Officers to RHJS. Pursuant to these letters, the Central Government informed the appellants that their posting as Presiding Officers was terminated and they stand repatriated.3. The appellants challenged their repatriation to RHJS by filing writ petitions. By the impugned judgment dated 7th September, 2006, the writ petitions have been dismissed. Learned Single Judg...

Sharda Nath Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT1; 2008(102)DRJ249

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The appellant, Ms. Sharda Nath, has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal impugning the judgment dated 12th December, 1996 dismissing her Writ Petition No. 1026/1981. The appellant in the said writ petition had challenged order dated 30th March, 1981 issued by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA, for short) restoring sub-lease deed dated 17th July, 1965 executed in favor of Mr. Dharam Chand and cancelling the lease deed dated 5th July, 1973 executed in her favor. Both the aforesaid lease deeds pertain to a plot No. C-70 (new No. G-20) located in Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, measuring 800 square yards. The above two sub-lease deeds were tripartite documents executed by the President of India, Maharani Bagh Co-operative House Building Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society, for short) and Mr. Dharam Chand in respect of sub-lease dated 17th July, 1965 and Ms. Sharda Nath in respect of sub-lease dated 5th July, 1973.2. The Pre...

Baldev Singh Dhiman and ors. Vs. Snc-lavalIn Europe B.V. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR125(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ?the Act?) has been preferred by the petitioners with a prayer to restrain the respondents No. 1 and 2 from invoking a bank guarantee bearing No. 24/93361/07 dt. 11.9.2007 and restraining the respondent No. 3 from making payment thereof till the adjudication and resolution of the disputes and differences as envisaged in the Agreement dated 18.7.2007 and an ex parte order is sought to the same effect.2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioners entered into a share purchase agreement with the respondent No. 1 on 18th July 2007. At the time of executing this agreement, the petitioners had also directed its banker to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1.5 crore valid up to 10th March 2008 in favor of respondent No. 1. This bank guarantee was conditional bank guarantee and was executed in terms of Clause 3.5 of the Agreement. The bank guarantee was executed to secur...