Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

North Delhi Power Limited Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ271; 2008LC(DEL)583

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Respondent No. 2 is deleted from the array of the parties.2. This is a petition directed against the order dated 24th August, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ') (Electricity) in S.C. No. 05/06 arising out of the FIR No. 299/06 under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 ('IE Act') registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi to the extent that while acquitting the accused in the case, a direction was issued to the complainant, North Delhi Power Limited ('NDPL') the Petitioner here 'to file a complaint in respect of the third raid within ten days from today positively.'3. The background to the filing of the present petition is that the raid was conducted on 16th September 2006 by an authorized inspection team of NDPL at the premises No. 21, Raj Niwas Marg, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi on a suspicion that theft of electricity was taking place. The inspection revealed that one Mohd. Aslam was indulging in theft of electricity. ...

Major Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ347

A.K. Sikri, J.1. One of the common issues which arises in all these petitions is - 'Whether it is necessary for the respondents to communicate the Annual Confidential Report to the concerned employee if in a particular ACR, not otherwise adverse, the employee is downgraded as compared to his previous ACRs?' This is the central issue which arises in these petitions and further course of action as well as outcome of the cases at hand would have bearing on the decision of this issue.2. We may point out at the outset that the cases at hand are not of civilian employees in the Government. The petitioners/appellants are either members of defense services. Whether different principle of law is applicable in cases of such employees belonging to disciplined forces would be the related question. For determining this question, we may discuss the facts of LPA No. 148/1997. This we do so for the reason that this LPA filed by Major Bahadur Singh was earlier decided in his favor by a Division Bench o...

Sh. Rajinder Singh Verma, Vs. the Lt. Governor (Administrator) Nct of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ686

A.K. Sikri, J.1. These are four petitions filed by four petitioners, who were the members of Delhi Higher Judicial Service (in short the 'DHJS'). All of them have been compulsorily retired from service invoking the provisions of Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, albeit on different dates. All have challenged orders of their compulsory retirement from service. Though result of each case would depend on its own facts, in view of commonality of submissions on legal aspects, we bunched these cases and heard together, one after the other and thereforee, propose to deal with them by this common judgment for the sake of avoiding repetitiveness of legal principles. However, we propose to consider each case on its own merits. With these introductory remarks, we start with the first writ petition.WP(C) No. 2157/20022. Shri Rajinder Singh Verma, who is the petitioner in this petition, started legal practice, after completing his graduation in Law, in the year 1980 after enrolling himself as an...

Shri Ramesh Gupta Vs. Shri Ram Awadh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ201

Rajiv Shakdher, J.CM No. 6493/20081. An application for bringing on record the Legal Representatives of appellant No. 2 Smt. Maya Devi has been filed today in Court. The application is taken on record. The Registry is directed to number the same.2. In the application it is averred that Appellant No. 2 Smt. Maya Devi expired on 16.8.2002. In Paragraph 3 the names and the relationship of the Legal Representatives with late Maya Devi has been detailed out. The application is also accompanied by attested photocopy of the death certificate issued by the office of the Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. The date of death of the Appellant is indicated as 16.8.2002. I am informed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr.O.P.Mannie that the name appearing in the death certificate i.e Maya Devi Singhal is the same individual whose name appears as Appellant No. 2 in the Appeal pending before this Court.3. For reasons stated in the application, I allow the applicatio...

Cpl. Jitender Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ517

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision dated 11.6.2003 and 14.1.2004 of the respondents vide which his request for the grant of out of turn promotion on account of his having been awarded gold medal while playing for Air Force has been rejected. There is a practice/policy of the respondent-Air Force to grant out of turn promotion to the sports persons who excelled in the field of sports while playing for the Air Force. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the said policy, he is denied out of turn promotion whereas such promotions have been given to other employees/sports persons in the Air Force and therefore, he is discriminated against.2. The respondents, on the other hand, while accepting that there is such a policy, contend that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the said policy. Whether it is the petitioner or the respondent who is justified in taking the respective stands is the question which needs determination. For this purpose we shall have ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dev Musco Lighting P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]316ITR209(Delhi)

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated March 3, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', in I.T.A. No. 2338/ Del/2001 relevant for the assessment year 1996-97.2. The assessee had entered into an agreement with an American company called Musco to assist in the execution of a project. The project was for lighting the cricket stadium at Mohali. Musco had entered into an independent agreement with the Punjab Cricket Association for this purpose. In terms of the agreement between the assessee and Musco, the assessee was to act as an intermediary and a local supervisor for execution of the project. Any amounts that were to be paid by the Punjab Cricket Association to Musco were routed through the assessee. The remuneration that the assessee was to receive for the services rendered by it from Musco was Rs. 8 lakhs.3. According to the Assessing Officer, the entire contracted amount (less expenses incurred) between Musco and the Punjab Cricket Association was t...

Ex. Ct. (Exe.) Prem Kumar S/O Late Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Thro ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The services of Prem Kumar, applicant herein, appointed as Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police w.e.f. 27.3.2006, have been terminated when he had not even put in one year of service, vide order dated 1.2.2007 (Annexure-1) under rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Aggrieved, the applicant made representation dated 13.2.2007, which was rejected vide order dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure-2). It is against these two orders that the present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed.2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the Application reveal that the applicant applied for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police in the year 2005. He successfully cleared the written and physical tests and was selected for the post. It is the case of the applicant that in the month of September, 2005 he received summons issued by the Court of Shri S.K. Aggarwal, MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Copy of the summoning order dated...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanshi Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2808; 2008(103)DRJ45; [2008(118)FLR816]

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The instant appeal filed by the insurance company limits challenge to the order dated 11.9.2006 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation insofar it hold that 12% interest on the compensation amount with effect from the date of the death of the deceased workman shall be borne by the insurance company. 3. It is urged at the hearing today that there is no statutory liability cast by any law requiring insurance company to pay interest and that the policy of insurance does not contain a covenant requiring insurance company to pay interest if a claim is allowed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Second contention urged is that the liability to pay compensation accrues on the day the same is adjudicated and hence the interest becomes payable with effect from the date liability is adjudicated upon. 4. While fastening liability to pay interest the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation has noted a decision of the Hon'ble...

Subodh Kumar JaIn Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ337

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seek the quashing of Complaint Case No. 1814 of 1995 titled S.C. Gupta v. Subodh Kumar Jain and Anr. pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), New Delhi under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and all proceedings consequent thereto including the summoning order dated 22nd February, 2003 passed by the learned MM. The petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1372 of 2006 is Subodh Kumar Jain, who is Accused No. 1 in the Complaint. The petitioner in Crl.M.C. 4536 of 2005 is Paresh Kumar, who is Accused No. 2 in the Complaint.2. The complaint states that the complainant S.C.Gupta is the Chief Accountant of the East West Medical Centre ('hospital') owned by Dr. N.P.S. Chawla. Accused No. 1 Subodh Kumar Jain is described as Director of Niryat San Apparels (India) Ltd. Accused No. 2 Paresh Kumar is stated to be 'in the employment of accused No. 1 as Translator of ...

Harpal Singh Arora and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)DMC826; 2008(103)DRJ282

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The facts leading to the filing of this petition and the issues that arise for determination are set out in a detailed order passed by this Court on 24th April 2008 the following order which reads as under:1. The challenge in the instant case is to an order dated 3rd August 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), New Delhi directing registration of the FIR and investigation into the allegations made in the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 wife complaining of harassment and demand for of dowry by the Petitioner No.1 husband and his relatives.2. The marriage of the Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner No.1 took place on 19th September 2004. She filed a complaint on 24th April 2006 with the police which was taken up by the Crime Against Women ('CAW') Cell on 24th April 2006. The CAW cell examined the matter, looked into the evidence produced by the parties and on 5th December 2006 a report was prepared by the Sub Inspector ('SI') that the case w...