Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Smt. Manju Rani W/O Sh. Mangal SaIn Vs. Inderjeet Singh S/O Sh. Hira L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi206; 2008(103)DRJ365

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal under Section 173 of Motors Vehicles Act, 1998 (for short as 'Act') has been filed by the appellant (who is the owner of offending vehicle) against the judgment dated 25th November, 1997 passed by Sh.H.S.Sharma, Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal'), Karkardooma Court, Delhi and also against the order dated 2nd January, 1998 on the application of the appellant for reviewing of the judgment dated 25th November, 1997.2. Brief facts are that, Smt. Sulochana Devi, aged about 29 years who was employed as a teacher in primary school of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and was earning Rs. 2,814/- per month met with a fatal accident on 27th July, 1998. Her legal heirs, that is, her husband and her children who are respondents 1 to 4, herein, have filed claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act for grant of compensation.3. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal passed award for a sum of Rs. 3,56,200/- along with 12% interest f...

Ms. Sangeeta Sayal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3574; 2008(104)DRJ374

ORDERVipin Sanghi, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed to seek quashing of criminal complaint No. 1461/2001 titled as 'MCD v. Sangeeta Sayal' pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. The complaint has been filed under Sections 347 and 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act).2. The petitioner was running a shop under the name and style of M/s. Geetu Fashions/Petitioner obtained the certificate of ad hoc registration of commercial units/ business under registration policy of the year 1994 issued by the MCD. This registration was granted by the Central Licensing and Enforcement Cell. The certificate when translated reads as 'Certificate of Ad hoc Registration of Commercial Unit/Business Working in Non-conforming Area under Special Registration Scheme, 1994.' When the registration was firstly obtained, it was valid till 31-3-1999. and thereafter upon payment of the requisite fees, the same was extended year af...

Mahender Singh (Ex. Const) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ749

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule D.B.2. At request of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in BSF on 1.10.1992. When the petitioner was deputed on duty on 25.10.1992, an incident took place resulting in a charge sheet against the petitioner dated 8.12.2003. A record of evidence was prepared wherein the petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that it was SI Chattar Singh and HC Bala Ram who had abused the petitioner and assaulted him. On a fresh charge sheet dated 30.5.2004, Summary Court Force proceedings were held. On 7.6.2004, the petitioner is alleged to have pleaded 'guilt' to the first three out of the four charges while pleading 'not guilt' to the fourth charge.4. The evidence was recorded on the fourth charge and the petitioner was held guilty of all the four charges and imposed with a sentence of dismissal from service. The DIG, BSF, however, while upholding the conviction on the first thre...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. R.N. Goel, Astt. P.F. Commissioner ( ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(3)SLJ277(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Union of India, through this writ petition assails the order/judgment dated 4.3.2002 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1634/2001 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order). The Tribunal, vide the impugned order, directed the petitioners herein to treat the date of the respondent's birth as 8.12.1940 instead of 1.4.1940 and to pay him all allowances as also retiral benefits on the basis that the applicant retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.12.2000. Further the petitioners were directed to pay interest on the aforesaid amounts @ 10% per annum from due date upto the actual date of payment. The Tribunal proceeded on the ground that order dated 19.1.2001, passed by it in O.A. No. 172/2000, holding that there were no irregularities on the part of applicant insofar as the date of birth is concerned, had not been challenged in appeal, and was, therefore, final.2. Facts culminating in the fili...

D.C.M. Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. Employees Insurance Court and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR726]; (2008)IIILLJ837Del

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, it is a fit case to remand the matter for proper adjudication by the Competent Authority under the ESIC Act, 1948.2. Since I am remanding the matter, lest any observation made by me prejudicially affects either party 1 shall be extremely brief.3. It all commenced when the respondent issued a communication to the appellant on July 8, 1982 informing as under:Regional OfficeEmployees' State Insurance Corporation'Emca House': 23/23-B: Ansari Road:Darya Ganj: New Delhi 2No. D/Ins.I/11-223-11 Dated: July 8, 1982 M/s. Delhi Cloth and Gen. Mills Co. Ltd.(Br. Office/Sales Office)Bara Hindu RaoDelhi 110006Subject: Inspection of records/Rectification of discrepancies.Dear Sir,As a result of inspection of your records for the period from January 28, 1968 to December 31, 1978 in respect of Textile Marketing Organisation and Branch Office/Sales Office conducted by the Insurance Inspector on March 16/22,1982 it has b...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. R.N. Goel, Asstt. P.F. Commissioner ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR665]

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Union of India, through this writ petition assails the order/judgment dated 4.3.2002 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1634/2001 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order). The Tribunal, vide the impugned order, directed the petitioners herein to treat the date of the respondent's birth as 8.12.1940 instead of 1.4.1940 and to pay him all allowances as also retiral benefits on the basis that the applicant retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.12.2000. Further the petitioners were directed to pay interest on the aforesaid amounts @ 10% per annum from due date upto the actual date of payment. The Tribunal proceeded on the ground that order dated 19.1.2001, passed by it in OA No. 172/2000, holding that there were no irregularities on the part of applicant insofar as the date of birth is concerned, had not been challenged in appeal, and was, therefore, final.2. Facts culminating in the filing...

Satish Batra and anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]154CompCas453(Delhi)

C.M. No. 554 of 2008 and C.M. No. 555 of 2008:1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties on these applications filed by the appellants praying for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in these applications, delay in filing and refiling the appeal stands condoned.2. The applications stand disposed of.Co. App. No. 1 of 2008 and C.M. No. 552 of 2007:3. The appellants are the directors of M/s. Vimal Plast (India) P. Ltd. In an inspection carried out under Section 209 of the Companies Act, 1956, it was observed that the company has accepted huge amounts from the directors, shareholders, corporate bodies (companies) and from public ever since 1999. It was observed that there is no resolution of the board passed at any point of time authorising the management, i.e., the managing director and the whole-time director (WTD) to receive the application money. It was observed that the allotment of shares in the company cannot be done by the managing...

Shri Shyam Kishore S/O Shri Chotte Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this transferred application, applicant had challenged advertisement dated 8.4.2003 whereby post of O.T. (Technician) was advertised. He had sought a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint him as OT (Technician) as he was declared suitable for the said post by the DPC held on 1.12.2001. He has also sought a direction to the respondents to pay him officiating allowance from 3.12.2000 till date for the post of OT (Technician).2. The brief facts, as submitted by the counsel for the applicant, are that he was appointed to the post of O.T. (Assistant) in Lala Ram Sarup Institute of Tuberculosis and Allied Diseases (hereinafter referred to as LRSITAD) on 14.5.1996 as he had the requisite qualification, namely, High School Examination with a certificate in Operation Theater Technology Course. Petitioner was working to the fullest satisfaction of his seniors and was applauded by one and all. Looking at his performance, on 3.2.2002, petitioner was handed over the additional char...

H.C. Bakshi S/O Shri Ram Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant has claimed the following relief in the OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: (i) Declare that the constitution of the enquiry committee in the instant case is bad in law; (ii) Declare that the proceedings of the enquiry committee is unsustainable in law because violation of the principles of natural justice as well as failure to follow the procedure laid down under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; (iii) Quash and set aside the report of the Enquiry Committee dated communicated to the applicant through memorandum dated 2.6.2006 (Annexure A-13) as well as the impugned order dated 20.3.2007 at Annexure A-1; (iv) Direct to respondent to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits to the applicant as if the impugned order had never been passed along with all consequential benefits; (v) Direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks with effect from the due date as if...

Ravindra Nath Mishra S/O Dina Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Since both these OAs are clubbed together and a common question of law is raised, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common judgment and for the purposes of narrating facts, OA No. 227/07 is taken as a lead case.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was working in the Commercial Department of the Railways and was declared pass as Clerk, vide letter dated 27.4.1981 (page 18 at 20). Applicant was at S. No.79. He was immediately promoted as Commercial Clerk and asked to work on the said post. In October, 1981, direct recruits were empanelled.Since as per Rule 128 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual volume- I direct recruits are required to undergo training, naturally they completed their training subsequently and were promoted as Clerks.3. Inviting our attention to para 128 of IREM, counsel for the applicant submitted that though there was a specific mention made about period of training for the direct recruits on the post of Commercial Clerk, but no such training...