Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

S.P. Mandal (Dr.) Vs. A.K. Sharda and Another.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. In spite of service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. This petition is against the impugned order dated 15th April, 2008 passed by the District Forum whereby the application of the petitioner seeking an independent expert medical opinion was dismissed on the ground that jurisdiction of the District Forum cannot be used for creating evidence. The impugned order, on the face of it, suffers from inherent infirmity and illegality in consonance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have also taken consistent view that wherever expert opinion, particularly, in the case of medical negligence is required, it is the duty of the District Forum to obtain such expert opinion to arrive at just and material decision. By not allowing the application on the premise that the District Forum cannot be used for creating evidence, the District Forum fell in grave error. Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act which pert...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Mohinder Singh (Dr.)

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Respondent obtained medi-claim policy from the appellant which was effective from 10.7.2000 to 9.7.2001 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. On 22.10.2000 i.e. after three months, respondent felt some chest pain in his both arms, he was immediately taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where angioplasty was carried out on left artery and stent was placed. He was discharged on 24.10.2000. Admittedly he incurred expenses of Rs. 1,34,148 and after discharge he filed the claim for reimbursement of the insurance amount. The claim was repudiated on the ground of concealment of factum of pre-existing disease for which he had taken treatment hardly 20 days before the taking of policy. Consequently he filed the instant complaint before District Forum. 2. Vide impugned order dated 7.1.2008, the District Forum held the repudiation of the claim as unjustified and without any basis. The District Forum allowed the complaint by giving following directions to the appellant: (i) To pa...

F.C. Bazaria S/O Late Shri K.R. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Letter dated 19.1.2007 is challenged by the applicants, whereby their grievance for extending the recommendation of the V Central Pay Commission (V CPC) for upgradation of their pay scale to Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with all consequential benefits has been referred to VI CPC.2. Applicant No. 1 is a Storekeeper, whereas applicant No. 2 is an Accountant at Directorate of Plant Protection. They were earlier working in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300.3. As per the recommendations of V CPC, contained in paragraph 46.10 of the Report, post of Head Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300, Office Superintendent Level-II in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 in non-Secretariat organization, without having any supervisory functions, have been merged into a common pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, which was accepted by the Government. Applicants instead of being granted pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 have been granted a replacement pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. However, the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 as ...

Shri Purshottam Dass S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This is second round of litigation by the applicant, who has challenged order dated 15.2.2007, whereby applicant's salary has been reduced with retrospective effect (page 91).2. It is stated by the applicant that he was initially appointed as Assistant Wireman (hereinafter referred to as AW) with effect from 1.2.1986 in the scale of Rs. 210-270 vide order dated 28.2.1986 (page 23). However, subsequently letter dated 15.11.1990 was issued from the office of the Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow wherein it was clarified that the post of J.E., Technicians, Wireman etc. were sanctioned by the PMG Lucknow on 19.6.1979 for the maintenance of Electrical installation in postal building. A list of candidates approved for appointment as Assistant Wireman Khalasis prepared by the S.E. (E) New Delhi was sent to Director Postal Services Lucknow, Kanpur, Dehradun and Allahabad. It is presumed that appointments have been made from that list. It was further clarified there is no ban o...

Chhttar Pal Vs. the Lt. Governor, National

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Chhattar Pal, who was at the relevant time holding the post of Foreman Instructor and has since superannuated, has filed present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 questioning the order passed by disciplinary authority dated 27.0 7.2004 removing him from service as also appellate order dated 05.11.2004 vide which, even though findings of disciplinary authority with regard to the charge against him have been confirmed, the punishment has been reduced from removal to reduction by five stages in the time scale of pay till date of his retirement.2. The case as set up by the applicant in his Application is that he was serving as Foreman Instructor in 1998 at ITI Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. On 27.09.1998 a news item was published in a weekly newspaper 'Singhal Sandesh with the headline 'SABZIMANDI PRSHIKSHAN KENDR MAIN SHIKSHA KE NAAM PAR LOOT'. In the said news, it was alleged that two persons namely, S.S. Gaba, S.I. and Prahlad Singh, C.I. of IIT Sabzi Mandi...

Dr. Amrit Lal Garg and anr. Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ65

Manmohan, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.) against the order dated 28th February, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding framing of charges against the petitioners under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). 2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioners are the inlaws of the complainant. The complainant was married to Dr. Ritesh Garg son of the petitioners on 29th August, 1999. It is stated that after marriage the newly wed moved to Devengiri in Karnataka for their higher medical studies. After completing the course, husband of the complainant came back to Delhi and joined PGIMS at Rohtak in July 2001. Complainant also, after completing her course, joined her husband and took up a job there. It is further stated that the relation between the complainant and her husband were not cordial and complainant refused to stay at the rente...

C.G.H.S. Chemist Association (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Ministry of Health a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ436

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Central Government Health Scheme provides comprehensive medical care facilities to central government employees, pensioners and few other categories of individuals. The scheme envisages, among other benefits, free supply of medicines and drugs to the patients. With a view to ensuring timely supply of such medicines and drugs to the beneficiaries of the scheme, the Government empanels local chemists found eligible to make the supplies on the stipulated terms and conditions. 2. Bids for empanelment of chemists for supply of medicines and drugs to CGHS dispensaries situated in Delhi, Noida, Gurgaon, Faridabad and Ghaziabad were invited by the Additional Director (MSD), CGHS, New Delhi from chemists eligible to do so. Aggrieved by the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender document, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing some of the terms incorporated in the same. The challenge primarily proceeds on the ground that t...

Attar Chand (Decd. Thr. Lrs.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT242; 2008(103)DRJ425

Veena Birbal, J.1. Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 10.6.1971 and 25.8.1975 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. 2. Briefly, the facts as alleged in the petition are that one Amir Chand, predecessor in interest of the present petitioner was a displaced person who had left behind agricultural land at West Pakistan. On that basis in the year 1950 he was allotted rural agricultural land in all measuring 18 bighas 12 bids was bearing khasra No. 2010/4(4-16), 10/8 (4-16), 10/13 (4-16) 43/17(2-3), 43/18(2-8) at village Khureji Khas, Delhi. Land allotted to Amir Chand was evacuee property vested in the custodian of evacuee property. Subsequently, by a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 12 of Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the above land was acquired in the year 1955. It is stated tha...

Sudhir Malhotra Vs. Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ86; 2009(238)ELT46(Del)

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The Petitioner was employed as Assistant Grade II with the Airport Authority of India (AAI) constituted by an Act of Parliament, to manage Airport and related services including of cargo handling. The Petitioner, between 19th January 1998 to 16th May, 1998 was posted at the Import Counter of the Cargo Terminal at IGI Airport, New Delhi. On 17th June 1998 i.e., after the Petitioner had been transferred from the Import Counter, two consignments of goods imported in the name of Marita Enterprises and S.N. Impex from Hong Kong were seized by the Custom Authorities and were found to contain goods and of the value, otherwise than declared. Investigations revealed receipt by AAI, between December 1997 and 17-06-1998 of 65 other consignments from the same consignor in Hong Kong to different consignees in Delhi. However, the AAI neither had the said consignments nor had any record of delivery thereof. The said 65 consignments had simply disappeared. The role of the Peti...

Saroj Bhatnagar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ429

Veena Birbal, J.1. Present is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein prayer is made for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ against the respondents for quashing and setting aside the acquisition proceedings initiated after the issuance of notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and all subsequent proceedings arising thereafter including award dated 7.9.2007 in respect of land measuring 445.85 sq. metres at Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi in village Chandrawali, Shahdara. 2. The facts alleged in the petition are that the petitioners are owners of land measuring 445.8 sq. meters forming part of Khasra No. 1796/651 min./1 in village Chandrawali, Shahdara. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 i.e. MCD has been running a veterinary hospital and MCD store on the said piece of land. Petitioners as owners had filed a suit for possession in the year 1991 against the MCD i.e. respondent No. 4 and had obtained de...