Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Dharambir Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ404

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. In a judgment dated 11th March, 2008 in a batch of cases (Crl.M.C. 1775/2006 Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation), this Court issued certain directions in regard to supply of documents to the accused persons at the pre-charge stage. In regard to the four cases in respect of which the said judgment came to be passed, it was directed by this Court that: 'the arguments on charge thereafter be positively concluded in all the four cases on or before 30th April, 2008 and orders on charge be passed on or before 31st May, 2008. Each of the learned Counsel will cooperate in this entire exercise.' 2. In all the four cases, after completing the exercise of supply of documents in terms of this Court's judgment dated 11th March 2008, the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ms. I.K. Kochhar finally heard the arguments on charge and reserved orders before 30th April 2008. In the Lift Case orders on charge were passed on 8th April 2008. In the DLF case, orders on charge were ...

Sh. Rajesh Katial Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ228

Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner, Rajesh Katial has filed this petition under the provision of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for grant of probate of will dated 9.6.1990, executed by his uncle, (father's first cousin), late Sh. Murari Lal Katial who died at Delhi on 7.1.1992. Sh. Murari Lal Katial, was a bachelor and was not survived by any Class I heir. The deceased testator is said to have only one relation, whose name is given in Annexure `E' to the petition. The said relation is Smt. Jeevani Bai Sehgal, the aunt (sister of the father) of the deceased testator.2. The present petition seeking probate of the Will of the deceased testator was filed by the petitioner on 19.5.1992. The petition was registered vide order dated 27.5.1992, when notice was issued to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, and the near relatives of the deceased. Citation was also directed to be issued, which came to be published in the daily newspaper `Statesm...

Madan Lal Kapoor Vs. Rajiv Thapar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4788; 150(2008)DLT744; 2008(105)DRJ531

Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) to impugn the order dated 07.08.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 75/1999 'Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar etc.', whereby the the learned ASJ has discharged the accused in the aforesaid complaint case filed by the petitioner under Sections 304B/498A/406/109/120B IPC.2. The daughter of the complainant/ petitioner herein, Monica, was married to respondent No. 1 on 30.11.1991. She was a medical doctor having MBBS degree. At the time of death and she was doing a diploma course in Gynecology and Obstetrics at New Civil Hospital, Surat. Respondent No. 1 Rajiv Thapar was then posted as Assistant Director in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the father, brother, sister-in-law and mother, respectively, of the respondent No. 1. On 26.09.1992 Monica died while living with her husband ...

R.S. Sharad and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ169

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. The petitioners who were directly recruited as Asstt. Company Commander in I.T.B.P. in 1974 were further promoted as Company Commanders and confirmed as such in the year 1980. On the other hand, respondents No. 3 to 18 (hereinafter referred to as private respondents) were recruited as Assistant Company Commander in the year 1980 and were promoted to the post of the Company Commanders/Dy SP in the year 1984.2. The promotional post from the post of Company Commander/Dy. SP is that of Asstt. Commandant (Re-designated as Deputy Commandant). The second petitioner was promoted to the post of Asstt. Commandant (Deputy Commandant) on 06.5.1988 while the first petitioner was promoted to the said post on 06.7.1989.3. Later a Writ Petition (CWP No. 885/89) was filed by R.S. Pathania i.e. the private respondents challenging the promotion of certain Subedar/Inspector (non gazetted) (their juniors other than the petitioners) to the post of Asstt. Commandant/equivalent post. In ...

J.K. JaIn (Dr.) Vs. Krisnaram Baldeo

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ616; (2008)151PLR4

Veena Birbal, J.1. By way of present petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 11.1.2008 whereby petitioners' application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC for recalling of PW1, Sh. P.K. Ram for his cross-examination has been dismissed.2. It is stated that respondent who is plaintiff before the learned trial Court has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,69,636.04 against petitioner/defendant. The pleadings are complete. Issues have already been framed and the matter is at the stage of evidence. It is stated that the matter was fixed for respondent evidence on 23.8.2007, i.e plaintiff's before the trial Court. On the said date, Counsel for petitioner/defendant had to appear in a case pending in this Court. The details of said case are given in the petition. On the said date, apart from present case, Counsel for petitioner/defendant had also to appear at Tis Hazari Court in a case where matter was fixed for arguments on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read...

Rameshwar Prasad S/O Shri Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant has challenged seniority list dated 1.6.2007 with direction to the respondents to restore the earlier seniority list dated 13.11.2002.2. It is submitted by the applicant that a provisional seniority list was issued on 13.11.2002 for Semi Skilled Fitter (hereinafter referred to as SSF) (Electrical) wherein applicant was shown at Sl. No. 6 while respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the present OA, were shown at Sl. No. 7 and 8. Applicant was promoted on 7.4.1999 and was made regular in 1985 whereas respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were not even made regular in 1985.Moreover, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had not even filed any objections against the said seniority list, therefore, seniority list dated 13.11.2002 should have been declared as final seniority list. However, another provisional seniority list was issued on 21.2.2007 wherein applicant was shown at Sl. No. 3 while respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were shown to be placed above him at Sl. No. 1 and 2 (page 29). Being aggrieved, applicant...

Dr. S.C. Bansal S/O Sh. Kunwar Pal Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Govt. of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 19.04.2007 repatriating him to his parent department. Applicant has also prayed for direction to permanently absorb him on the post of Deputy Director (Entomology) in the Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine & Storage under the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation and further direct the respondents to extend his deputation period till the decision in the present case is taken. Applicant was holding the post of Assistant Director (S&R) in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/- in the Department of Food & Civil Supplies. On 29.09.2000, on the recommendation of UPSC, he joined the post of Deputy Director (Entomology) on deputation in the Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine and Storage (PPQ&S) under the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation from the Storage & Research Division of Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. 17. Applicant was granted extension on deputa...

Ashok Kumar Aneja S/O Shri Kundan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is an IRS officer of 1973 batch. During the time of filing the OA, he was working as Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, Thiruvananthapuram. The next promotional post, which might have been available to him, is that of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.2. In September, 2006, a DPC had been convened. It is averred that later on, the applicant came to know that his name had not been recommended but some of his juniors had been considered for promotion as Chief Commissioners. As disclosed in the application here, he came to understand that his ACR in respect of the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 showed him as 'Good' although in the previous years he had been awarded 'Very Good'. The DPC had taken into consideration the ACRs of immediate preceding five years, of all eligibles, and had adopted a criteria of four 'Very Good' gradings for recommending a candidate as fit for promotion. The entries as above, which downgraded him, saw to it, that he was sidelined. The submissions of...

Mrs. Madhu Bala W/O Shri S.S. Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nct of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A minor penalty under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 had been imposed on the applicant, by Annexure P-I proceedings. It seems that she had represented against the order to various officers, and the Regional Director, Directorate of Education had considered the representation received by him as an appeal and had, by a speaking order Annexure P-2 dated 6.3.2007, rejected the appeal. Essentially, the challenge is against the above orders.2. A show cause notice had been issued to the applicant, on 30.12.2005 (Annexure P-5) where under she had been asked to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against her. It had been suggested that the Directorate had issued a circular on 23.9.2005 whereby it had been notified that each school having yoga teachers was to arrange for participation, in the zonal yoga competitions, to be held shortly. The notice alleged that in spite of the instructions, the applicant, who is a yoga teacher attached to RSBV, Kalyan Vas, did not make a...

Sh. Shiv Dutt Sharma S/O Sh. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The Delhi Development Authority, first respondent herein, had issued a Press Note on 20.10.1992 inviting applications to fill up five posts of Junior Law Officer through direct recruitment. The candidate was to have Degree in Law from a recognized University or equivalent, and minimum five years experience at the bar. Experience in dealing with civil cases, land, revenue, service matters, etc. were noted as desirable qualifications. Those already in employment were to submit applications through their employer. It had also been indicated that a written test will be conducted in the course of the selection. The applicants, seven in number, submit that they were working as Legal Assistants, in Delhi Development Authority and coming to know of the proposed direct recruitment had made representations, for considering them for promotion. It is submitted that consequential steps had been, therefore, kept in abeyance but after some time, steps were restarted and it had been proposed to ho...