Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

National Open School Society Vs. VipIn Sharma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Respondent is student of the appellant school, he appeared in the examination in October/November 2003 of Economics subject for the Xth Class. The result of the examination was not given on the internet. He again appeared in March/May 2004, the result of which was also not given on the internet on account of this the respondent wasted two years. He sent a letter to appellant but no response was given by the appellant. Consequently he filed the instant complaint before District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 5,000 2. Vide impugned order dated 25.1.2005, the complaint was allowed as the appellant was found deficient in service and was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation. 3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. The District Forum has referred to a letter written by the respondent in this regard which did not evoke any response. District Forum also referred to the permission of the appella...

Class Iii Service Association, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Class-III Service Association in Survey of India, working as Survey Assistant, Senior Reprographer and Store Assistant were recommended the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and in respect of Grade-II staff a pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. The grievance of applicants is that for an anomaly and its correction thereof, the matter is not being referred to VI Central Pay Commission (VI CPC). Accordingly, it is stated that in similar facts Anomaly Committee after deliberations recommended the higher pay scales to the various categories, including categories in the present OA.2. It is contended that in respect of Surveyors working in the office of the respondents while the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 was recommended, Madras Bench of the Tribunal in its order dated 4.5.2007 in OA-747/2006 Sundaram Balasubramanyam and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 4.5.2007, issued directions to take appropriate decision on the pay scale of Surveyors and Office Surveyors independently and without referrin...

Vinod Kumar JaIn S/O Shri Hari Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, an Assistant Foreign Language Examiner (hereinafter referred to as AFLE), which belongs to language cadre of Cabinet Secretariat by virtue of this OA has sought the following reliefs: It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the amended Recruitment Rules for the post of Under Secretary in the Language Cadre may be declared quashed as illegal. Respondents may be directed to not to fill-up the vacant posts of Under Secretary in the Language Cadre as per the existing RRS especially when the year wise vacancies have not been identified separately and Respondents may have decided to merge the posts of DFLE and AFLE, they may further be directed to hasten the process of merger. Having decided to merge the AFLE and DFLE, the respondents deptt. may further be directed to prepare a combined seniority list of AFLE and DFLE on the basis of their date of promotion/appointment and to make promotions in accordance with this combined seniority lists. Any other relief which this Hon'bl...

Anil Kumar Panwar S/O Shri Karan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, through this OA, assails an order dated 13.10.2005, whereby his request for relaxation of age for appointment to the post of Engineer Equipment Mechanic (EEM) has been turned down. Applicant, who alleges to be from an OBC category, had completed successfully the apprenticeship training in 510 Army Base Workshop from 3.6.1991 to 1.6.1993 and approached the respondents for appointment. However, applicant was called for a trade test on 16.11.1998. However, the applicant has objected this to, but he was denied appointment on the ground of being over-aged. OA No. 1384/98 filed before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal was disposed of on 16.1.2004, with a direction to the respondents to re-consider applicant for relaxation of age. The decision of the respondents to deny age relaxation to applicant gives rise to the present OA.2. Learned Counsel of applicant contended that whereas in Ordnance Factories rules have been amended to raise the age for Mechanic to 30 years, whereas ...

Punjab National Bank and ors. Vs. Aaifr and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi192; [2009]149CompCas390(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition involves the interpretation of Section 15(1), 2nd Proviso of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA), which reads as follows:15. Reference to Board.-- (1) When an industrial company has become a sick industrial company, the Board of Directors of the company, shall, within sixty days from the date of finalisation of the duly audited accounts of the company for the financial year as at the end of which the company has become a sick industrial company, make a reference to the Board for determination of the measures which shall be adopted with respect to the company:..Provided also that on or after the commencement of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 where a reference is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction such reference shall abate if the secured creditors, represent...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shri R.C. Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ550

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner-Union of India assails the judgment/order dated 14.8.2007 passed in O.A No. 2192/2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the application of the respondent herein Mr.R.C.Gupta, for quashing the Memorandum dated 29.8.2001, issued under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging misconduct against him and the penalty of reduction of pay by three stages in the time scale of pay till his retirement, with cumulative effect, imposed vide order dated 2.8.2006. The Tribunal while allowing the OA of the respondent held that findings recorded by Inquiry Officer suffer from material irregularities resulting in miscarriage of justice.2. Brief facts of the case are:i) Respondent was posted and functioned as Superintending Engineer during the period 19.12.1996 to 28.2.1997 having within his jurisdiction among other works, the construction of residential quarters at IGNOU, Maidan Gari, New Del...

India Habitat Centre Through Its Director Vs. Ms. Sunita Aeren,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(2)379

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The plaintiff society has filed this suit claiming that it was owner of 'India Habitat Centre' with a logo vide Registration Certificate numbers 854734, 854735 and 854736 in respect of Paper and Paper Articles, Printed Matter, Newspaper and Periodicals Books, Photographs, Stationery, Office Requisites, Instructional and Teaching Material; Furniture, Articles of Wood, Cane and Wicker; and Bed and Table Covers.2. The defendant was coming up with a 'Habitat Centre' named as 'Indirapuram Habitat Centre' and the defendant was using a logo similar to that of the plaintiff. The prayer of the plaintiff is that the defendant be restrained from reproducing logo of plaintiff in any material form and thereby infringing plaintiff's copyright in the logo. The other claim of the plaintiff is that the defendant be restrained from using word 'Habitat Centre' coupled with 'Indirapuram'. The plaintiff states that 'Habitat Centre' was a unique combination of words and serve...

National thermal Power Corporation Limited (Ntpc) Vs. Gammon India Lim ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR94(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Sections 28(1)(a) & (3), 31(3) and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 21st October, 2004 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of disputes/differences arising out of contract dated 17th February 1988 entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 for construction of two Natural Draft Cooling Towers for petitioner's project at Kawas, Gujarat.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that petitioner/NTPC invited tenders on 3rd October 1986 for construction of above two cooling towers and claimant/GIL (respondent No. 1 herein) submitted its tender on 18th December, 1986. After negotiations in respect of final bid price, the offer made by the respondent No. 1 was accepted by the petitioner vide its telex message dated 20th October, 1987 and the contract for lump sum value of Rs. 5,70,07,000/- was awarded to the respondent/GIL. The petitio...

Surinder Kumar and anr. Vs. Madhu Bala and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT521; 2008(105)DRJ519

S.L. Bhayana, J.1. This appeal has been filed by defendant No. 2 arising out of a suit for possession which was decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The facts giving rise to the filing of the suit may be summarized as under:2. The suit property bearing plot No. 10 measuring 333 sq. yds. situated in Khasra No. 93/9/1 at C-51, Vijay Vihar, Phase-II , Village Rithala, Delhi, originally belonged to Vijay Singh,PW-1 as a part of his ancestral property.3. Briefly stated the plaintiff's case is that she had purchased the suit property on 23.01.1984 vide a registered sale deed from Vijay Singh for Rs. 6000/-. The plaintiff further stated that a boundary wall demarcated the suit property and five rooms were constructed on the plot. It was further stated that she along with her husband regularly visited the suit property for the purpose of looking after the property. In the year 1989, defendant No. 1-respodnent No. 4 Gurdeep Kaur filed a suit for permanent injunction against the p...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 152(2008)DLT268; 2008(104)DRJ361; [2008(119)FLR184]

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The above captioned appeals lay a challenge to an order dated 24.12.2001 and order dated 30.01.2003 dismissing two petitions filed by the appellant under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. In the petition filed before the learned Judge ESI Court which is the subject matter of FAO No. 88/2002 a challenge was made to an order dated 5/11.12.95 passed by the competent authority under the ESI Act 1948 followed by a letter dated 27/28.5.1996 stating that the demand raised vide order dated 5/11.12.1995 has to be satisfied. In the petition filed before the learned Judge ESI Court which is the subject matter of FAO No. 375/2003 challenge was to an order dated 13.5.1996. 2. Since the facts of both cases are near identical, at the hearing held on 5.5.2008, learned Counsel for the parties stated that reference may be made to the facts of FAO No. 88/2002. It may be stated that the dispute between the parties pertained to 2 LPG bottling plants of the appel...