Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Subbalakshmi Mohan W/O Harkishan Vs. Union Public Service

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Subbalakshmi Mohan, a Stenographer Grade-II in the Ministry of External Affairs, the applicant herein, appeared in the Combined Section Officers/Stenographers (Grade 'B'/Grade-I) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 2004. For appearing in both the categories only one application form was required to be filled up and in the said application form the order of preference for each category was to be indicated in the coded form. Admittedly, the applicant indicated her first preference as Stenographer, and the second preference as Section Officer. She qualified, as per marks obtained by her, for selection in both categories. She endeavoured to change the preference after the examination to make her second choice as first and the first choice as second. Having failed in her said endeavour, the applicant has filed present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question letter dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure A-1) vide which her representation da...

Constable Manoj Kumar (Pis No. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Sequel to a regular departmental enquiry, the applicant has been visited with forfeiture of two years' approved service vide order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 4.2.2005. Even though, the appellate authority confirmed the finding of guilt against the applicant, but punishment was reduced to forfeiture of one year's approved service, vide order dated 19.4.2005. Challenge in the present Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to the report of enquiry officer dated 23.11.2004 as also the two orders referred to above.2. Whereas Shri Anil Singal, learned Counsel representing the applicant, in his endeavour to set aside the impugned orders would contend that it is not safe to rely upon testimony of a solitary witness belonging to the department and that some corroboration to his statement was required to return a finding of guilt, Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned Counsel representing the respondents, would contend that be it a criminal trial...

Mr. Anil Nanda Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ54

Manmohan, J.1. The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of summoning order dated 31st August, 2007 as well as for quashing of criminal complaint being CC No. 941/2007 hereinafter referred to as the 'said complaint'.2. Briefly stated, the material facts of this case are that the Respondent No. 2 has filed the said complaint against the Petitioner for alleged violation of Section 42 of the Companies Act 1956. The said section renders any allotment or transfer of shares by a company to its subsidiary as void ab initio.3. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner states that the said complaint is grossly barred by limitation as it has been instituted much beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C. He contends that the trial court while taking cognizance of the alleged offence and issuing the summoning order ...

Radhey Shyam Garg Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT310; 2008(104)DRJ286

Vipin Sanghi, J.Crl. M.A. No. 5674/2008 in Crl. M.C. No. 1522/2008Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Crl. M.C. No. 1522/2008 & Crl. M.A. No. 5673/20081.The petitioner challenges the order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) filed by the petitioner/accused, praying that the complainant, who has filed his evidence on affidavit, may be summoned to examine him as to the facts contained therein. Section 145 of the Act reads as follows:145. Evidence on affidavit(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the evidence of the complainant may be given by him on affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the said Code.(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accu...

Saurabh Kumar Mallick Vs. the Comptroller and Auditor General of India ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT261

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner herein, who is an employee of Indian Audit and Accounts Service (IA&AS;) and is holding the position of Director, is facing the charge of sexual harassment at workplace. Disciplinary proceedings on this charge are instituted against the petitioner on the basis of complaint dated 12.4.2007 by one of his senior officers, namely, Ms. Geetali Tare. A committee constituted by the disciplinary authority with one Ms. Pravin Tripathy (IA&AS;) had been constituted to look into the allegations and the inquiry by the said committee is underway. We may mention at this stage that an FIR No. 75/2007 dated 31.3.2007 is also registered against the petitioner under Section 451/354 of the IPC. The petitioner was also placed under suspension with immediate effect vide orders dated 3.5.2007. The petitioner is not satisfied with the manner in which the Inquiry Committee is holding the inquiry and thereforee, he filed OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal B...

Muktesh Sawhney Vs. D.T.C. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ422

Rajiv Shakdher, J.CM No. 1723/19991. This is an application effectively under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the Appellant for adducing additional evidence. The additional evidence which the Appellant seeks to produce are seven bills issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The bills span over a period commencing from 3.11.1988 to 9.9.1990. These bills are for various services rendered by the hospital to the Appellant herein; including two bills for laboratory and pathological facilities provided to the Appellant.2. It is the case of the Appellant that these bills pertain to the treatment rendered to the Appellant during the period of his hospitalization and the expenses incurred by him.3. The Appellant in the application has averred that due to the accident suffered by him he underwent physical and mental trauma which resulted in his inability to run his factory. The closure of the factory resulted in the bills in issue being misplaced. He further avers that t...

Sanjay Goyal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ378

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by several owners of industrial units situated on plots falling within the Jhilmil Industrial Area. The Petitioners have sought a Declaration to the effect that Notification dated 14.10.2005 under Section 4, Declaration under Section 6 dated 15.10.2006, and Notification dated 9.11.2006 under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act for short) in respect of the lands and built-up structures should be struck down for the reason that they are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners have also prayed for compensation and for allotment of alternate plots. The Petitioners have alleged malafides against the Respondents so far as the need behind the acquisition is concerned. Interim Orders directing the parties to maintain status quo were passed on the first date of hearing, have been extended from time to time, and subsist till date.2. Briefly stated, the Respondents ...

Dr. Manoj K. Patairiya, Scientist Vs. Agricultural Scientists'

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1 By this OA applicants have challenged the Score Card Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as SCG) prepared by the respondents for the post of Project Director, Directorate of Information and Publications of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as DIPA), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to ICAR) in the pay scale of Rs. 16400-22400 and order dated 24.4.2007 (page 26) whereby applicant No. 2 has been informed that as per the Score Card evaluation, he secured marks below the cut off marks up to which the candidates have been called for interview, hence they could not be called for the interview.2. It is submitted by applicant No. 1 that he is presently serving as Scientist-F in the National Council for Science and Technology Communication, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi and possesses high qualification and rich professional experience whereas applicant No. 2 is serving as Assistant Editor (H) T-9 in DIPA, ICAR and is hold...

Shri Mahinder Singh, Ldc Vs. Vice-chairman, Delhi

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This matter has been placed before me as a third member because there has been difference of opinion in the Division Bench. Hon'ble Member (J) has quashed the impugned orders on the ground that disciplinary authority had issued the show cause notice with pre-determined mind inasmuch as disciplinary authority had already made up his mind to impose the penalty, therefore, show cause notice has violated the mandate of the Constitution whereunder only findings are required to be communicated and penalty can be imposed only after considering the representation. It has thus caused prejudice to the applicant.2. It was also been held that appellate order is a non-speaking order and since earlier statements were relied upon without furnishing the same to the applicant, it would vitiate the enquiry. Accordingly, it was held that applicant would be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with rules and law. On restoration of position as UDC from LDC, the interregnum period and al...

Maqbool Fida HusaIn Vs. Raj Kumar Pandey

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4107

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Pablo Picasso, a renowned artist said, 'Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art.'2. Art, to every artist, is a vehicle for personal expression. An aesthetic work of art has the vigour to connect to an individual sensory, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. With a 5000-year-old culture, Indian Art has been rich in its tapestry of ancient heritage right from the medieval times to the contemporary art adorned today with each painting having a story to narrate.3. Ancient Indian art has been never devoid of eroticism where sex worship and graphical representation of the union between man and woman has been a recurring feature.1 The sculpture on the earliest temples of 'Mithuna' image or the erotic couple in Bhubeneshwar, Konarak and Puri in Orissa (150-1250 AD); Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh (900-1050 AD); Limbojimat...