Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Raghuvir Singh Verma Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged orders dated 08.9.1999 and 15.12.1999 with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate him service w.e.f. 15.12.1999 till he attained age of superannuation and pay him all the arrears and consequential benefits alongwith interest @18%.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was appointed as a Counter Clerk on 16.4.1968 in Station Canteen Meerut Cantt. He was confirmed and promoted to the post of Sales Clerk on 27.9.1994 and further promoted as Head Cashier.3. A show cause notice dated 16.7.1999 was issued to the applicant for financial irregularities calling upon him to explain cause of difference and to compensate the losses.4. Applicant paid a sum of Rs. 40000/- and deposited balance of Rs. 36855.80 also on 24.7.1999 as directed by respondents.5. Without holding an enquiry he was reverted to the post of Sales Clerk w.e.f. 01.8.1999 vide order dated 08.9.1999. Being aggrieved applicant filed Writ Petition No. 51930/1999. Order dated...

Mrs. Pamela Manmohan Singh Vs. Mrs. Harnam Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT371; 2008(104)DRJ221

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These three contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioner invoking the provisions of inter alias Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it ought to be mentioned that on account of the fact that the lower limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court had been raised from Rs 5 lakhs to Rs 20 lakhs, the suit [CS(OS) 695/1990] stood transferred to the District Court and the same is pending before the court of the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari. The suit has been renumbered as Suit No. 609/2006. Had the present petition been only under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, the same would also have had to be transferred to the District Court. However, since the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have also been invoked, this petition has been treated by this Court as o...

Ashok Kumar Dua Vs. Ranbir Kumar Dua and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi171; 151(2008)DLT469; 2008(104)DRJ662

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the will dated 28.07.1998 is the last legal and valid testament executed by late Sh. Nand Lal Dua. 2. Late Sh. Nand Lal dua (hereinafter referred to as the testator) expired on 10.01.1999 was survived by three sons namely, Sh. Ashoka Kumar, Sh. Ranbir Kumar and Ranjt Kumar and three daughters namely, Smt. Ved Puri, Smt. Darshana Gulati and Smt. Subhash Kumar. Testator's wife had predeceased him. 3. On 08.01.2002 Ranbir Kumar filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking probate of the will purported to have been executed by the testator on 28.07.1998. 4. The will dated 28.07.1998 is a registered document typed in English bearing the signature of the testator in Hindi and attested by two witnesses namely, Sh. P.C. Khanna, Advocate and Sh. Gurbachan Singh, Advocate. 5. The will reads as under:WILLLife is but short. God knows what time or when may it come to an end.I Nand Lal Dua aged 86 years. ...

Colonel R. Jayaprasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT435

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 commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Army under the Technical graduate course scheme in August 1987 and was granted a permanent commission on 11.6.1988.4. The petitioner attained his ranks of promotion and was serving as a Lt. Col. in the Army when an option was given to him to join the project team at Kazakhistan on deputation. The petitioner exercised the option and joined the project team on 26.11.2003. The petitioner returned from the foreign deputation on 6.4.2005 after about an year and a half service. The petitioner on his return was promoted a Colonel on 14.6.2005.5. The petitioner applied for premature retirement on 9.4.2007 on account of family problems arising from his ageing and ailing parents and the requirement to take care of his property. The said application was however, rejected on 17.5.2007 on the ground that 'the...

Era Infra Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Del)103; [2008]14STJ223(Delhi); 2008[11]STR3

ORDER1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.CM stands disposed of.WP (C) No. 3048/2008Rule D.B.CM No. 5864/2008(Stay)The challenge in the writ petition is to the Explanationn to Seriall No. 7 in the Notification being General Exemption No. 10 dated 1st March, 2006.2. According to the Petitioner, for the purposes of levying Service tax the Respondents can only include the service element provided for in the contract that the Petitioner enters into with other parties, in this case the other contracting party being NTPC. It is the case of the Petitioner that materials that are supplied free of cost by NTPC to the Petitioner for the purposes of completing the contract cannot be included in the gross amount charged by the Petitioner for the purposes of determining the Service tax payable.3. In the Explanationn to Seriall No. 7 in the aforesaid Notification it is mentioned as follows:Explanation - The gross amount charged shall include the value of goods and materials supplied or provide...

Akhilesh Pratap Singh Vs. Director General, I.T.B.P.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR344]

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule DB.2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner joined the services of the ITBP as a Constable/GD on 19.11.2002 and is aggrieved by the action of the respondent in removing him from service on the ground that the had given false information at the stage of his enrolment while filling up the character verification form on 14.12.2002.4. The petitioner was a witness in a murder case against one Shri Harkesh Bahadur Singh for murder of the uncle of the petitioner. Shri Harkesh Bahadur Singh made a complaint on 30.10.2002 to the effect that there was a murder attempt on him by the petitioner. On the said complaint being made, FIR No. 315/2002 under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC was registered at P.S. Lal Ganj, District Pratapgarh, U.P. The I.O. was deputed to investigate the matter and on investigation found, after recording of statements of witnesses at the place of occurrence, t...

Akhilesh Pratap Singh Vs. Director General, Itbp

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ433; 2009(3)SLJ281(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule DB.2. At the request of the learned Counsels for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner joined the services of the ITBP as a Constable/GD on 19.11.2002 and is aggrieved by the action of the respondent in removing him from service on the ground that he had given false information at the stage of his enrollment while filling up the character verification form on 14.12.2002.4. The petitioner was a witness in a murder case against one Shri Harkesh Bahadur Singh for murder of the Uncle of the petitioner. Shri Harkesh Bahadur Singh made a complaint on 30.10.2002 to the effect that there was a murder attempt on him by the petitioner. On the said complaint being made, FIR No. 315/2002 under Sections 307/504/506 of the IPC was registered at P.S. Lai Gary, District Pratap Garh, U.P. The IO was deputed to investigate the matter and on investigation found, after recording of statements of witnesses at the place of occurrence, that i...

Tapan Kumar Dass, Interchange Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Selection held for the post of Assistant Secretary, Group 'B', Class-II and subsequent appointment of respondent No. 3 on provisional basis have been assailed by the applicant.2. Applicant, working as Interchange Inspector in Group 'C' post has acquired eligibility for being considered for the post of Assistant Secretary in Indian Railway Conference Association (IRCA) applicant appeared in the written examination and also faced viva voce. However, respondent No. 3, Smt. Asha Lakhan Pal, an erstwhile Chief Office Superintendent, IRCA when promoted, gives rise to the present OA.3. Learned Counsel of applicant states that the procedure adopted by the respondents in a selection post in forming the panel and placing respondent No. 3 on the top is on the basis of seniority, whereas the merits obtained have not been adhered to, which is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in M. Ramjayaram v. General Manager, South Central Railway 1996 (1) SC SLJ 536. Learned Counsel would contend t...

Devender Kumar Sharma Vs. Airport Authority of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR87(Delhi)

ORDERPradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Appellant had responded to a notice inviting tender floated by the respondent for execution of works at I.G.I. Airport. On 6.9.2000, first respondent communicated acceptance of appellant's offer requiring appellant to execute an agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 20/-. The work was to commence on 18.11.2000 and was to be completed in 3 months i.e. by 17.3.2001. There was a dispute between the parties with respect to the site and execution of a formal agreement. First respondent issued a show cause notice and proceeded to forfeit the earnest money deposited by the appellant. 3. The appellant disputed the entitlement of the respondent to forfeit the earnest money and determine the contract. The appellant not only sought refund of the earnest money but demanded compensation for loss of profit alleging that had he been permitted to complete the works he would have earned, if not more, at least 15% profit on t...

Surinder Kumar and ors. Vs. Swarn Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT294; 2008(104)DRJ93

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 24th January, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the plaintiff's is No. 3002/2000 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') seeking to amend the plaint in CS (OS) No. 166/1997.2. The aforementioned suit was filed by the respondent plaintiff on 25th January 1997 against the appellants defendants for specific performance in relation to an agricultural land in Village Malikpur Kohi alias Rangpuri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereafter the property). The case set up by the plaintiff was that the total sale consideration had been agreed at Rs. 29,25,000/-. According to the plaintiff, he had paid Rs. 6,00,000/- on 16th June, 1993, Rs. 5,00,000/- on 11th December, 1993 and Rs. 17 lakhs on 11th January, 1995. He claimed that on each of these occasions receipts-cum-agreements had been executed. Although Rs. 28 lakhs had been paid to the defendants, no regular receipts were issued but a formal rec...