Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

Sh. Chaman Prakash S/O Late Sh. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A. applicant (Chaman Prakash) has impugned the following orders: 2. Applicant is aggrieved against the above mentioned orders vide which he has been awarded penalty of compulsory retirement. Applicant was appointed as Primary Teacher in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 w.e.f. 26.10.1995 under Central Tibetan Schools Administration (CTSA) New Delhi. He was made substantive against the said post along with 20 others with immediate effect vide order dated 09.01.2002. Though the probation period of two years had expired on 25.10.1997, yet an order dated 11.08.1998 was issued for termination of his service even without service of notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. Also this order was issued by an authority not competent to issue the same. Applicant submitted his representation in November 1998 to Chairman, CTSA against the termination. In response to the same, an order dated 30.03.1999 was issued under which the termination order dated 11.08.1998 was withd...

Shri Joginder Nath S/O Late Shri Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant has sought direction to the respondents to restrain them from making any recovery from the applicant's pension without putting him on notice and the recovery made from his pension may be refunded.2. The admitted facts of the case are that on applicant's retirement, his pension was fixed at Rs. 2012/- which was revised on 10.10.2000 with effect from 1.1.1996 at Rs. 2197/-. However, subsequently O.M.11.5.2001 was issued by the Government deciding therein as to how pension has to be fixed (page 24) whereupon applicant's pension was once again reduced as earlier fixed, i.e., at Rs. 2012/-.3. It is stated by the applicant that the Bank where his pension is deposited on their own made certain recoveries from applicant's pension even though there was no such order issued by the Ministry. Moreover, no such recoveries were made from any other person, who was similarly situated, therefore, he gave a representation on 5.11.2007 to the Branch Manager, P.N.B., Extension Cou...

S. Puttaswamy at the Time of Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant herein S. Puttaswamy has impugned Notification No. DPAR 61 SAS 2006 dated 01.02.2007 (Annexure A/5) vide which appointments from the Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS) to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) have been made against the vacancies for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. The names of the officers contained in the select lists for these 4 years have been indicated therein and all of them have been impleaded as respondents in the present O.A.2. Applicant filed two O.As (No. 2465/2006 and No. 1352/2007. By O.A.No. 2465/2006, the applicant challenged the select list prepared by the Selection Committee selecting respondent Nos. 5 to 15 for their promotion to I.A.S. from Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS). By the present O.A. No. 1352/2007, applicant has challenged selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 5 to 15 into IAS.3. As the cause of action in both the OAs w...

Anil Nanda and anr. Vs. Escorts Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT594; 2008(104)DRJ478

1. These applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In is No. 9339/2005, the defendant No. 1 has sought the rejection of the plaint on the plea that the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by law inasmuch as it is alleged that the condition precedent of taking leave of the court under Section 92, CPC has not been fulfilled. The plaint is also sought to be rejected on the ground of limitation and acquiescence. In is No. 9359/2005, the defendant No. 2 has sought the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action. The plea of limitation has also been taken.2. Dr. Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the defendant No. 1 / applicant, drew the attention of the court to the various averments made in the amended plaint. In paragraph 7, it has been mentioned that in the year 1981, the Escorts Heart Institute ...

East India Hotels Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ430

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the cancellation order / letter dated 11.04.2005 issued by the Deputy Land & Development Officer on behalf of the Government of India whereby the allotment of 2.762 acres of land situate between Oberoi Hotel and the Blind Relief Association on Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg for construction of a hotel by virtue of the allotment letter No. L-III/8/13(16)/82-187 dated 27.06.1995 was cancelled and withdrawn. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to execute the license in favor of the petitioner No. 1 in respect of the said plot of land in terms of the allotment letter dated 27.06.1995 and to issue necessary clearances and grant a No Objection Certificate in favor of the petitioner No. 1 for construction of a budget hotel on the said land.2. On 18.06.1983, the Government of India conveyed the sanction of the President of India for the allotment of the said land to Delhi Tourism & Transportation Devel...

M.R. Krishnamurthi Vs. Chandan Ramamurthi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT463; 2008(104)DRJ487; (2008)152PLR49

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), the defendant No. 1 has prayed for the rejection of the plaint on three counts:(1) Limitation ;(2) The plaint does not disclose any cause of action ; and(3) The suit is vexatious and frivolous.2. The main prayer in the suit is for declaring the compromise decree dated 30.01.1987 passed by this Court in Suit No. 1970/1986 filed by the plaintiff's mother (Ms Shyamla Pappu) against Late Mr M.K. Ramamurthi (MKR) as being null and void. A declaratory decree is also sought declaring that defendant No. 2 is not the daughter of MKR and that the defendant No. 1 was not the wife of MKR. Interestingly, a declaration is also sought that the decree dated 18.12.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dissolving the marriage between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is null and void. Several other prayers have also been made, but these are the m...

Uppal Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhinav Cooperative Group Hous ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR64(Delhi); 2008(104)DRJ468

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the setting aside of the award dated 30.06.2005 made by an arbitral tribunal comprising of three arbitrators. The challenge is essentially to the question of arbitrability of claim No. 1 which has been decided by the arbitral tribunal in favor of the claimant (respondent No. 1) herein. The petitioner has also raised issues with regard to limitation and has urged that part of the claim was time barred. It was also contended that the payments which had been made to the petitioner upon certificates issued by the architect cannot be overturned inasmuch as the architect has acted as an agent of the respondent No. 1. Lastly, it was contended that the decision making process of the arbitrators turned out to be a travesty of justice inasmuch as the majority view on the question of arbitrability decided as per the order dated 09.09.2004 had been notified only by the presiding arbit...

N.G. Desai Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ1

Sanjiv khanna, J.1. The petitioner, Dr. N.G. Desai, has challenged by way of the present writ petition appointment of Dr. D.C. Jain, the respondentNo. 4 as the Director of the Institute of Human behavior and Allied Sciences, the respondentNo. 3. The post of Director of the respondentNo. 3 had fallen vacant on 15th September, 2007, when the tenure of the last Director came to an end. 2. RespondentNo. 3 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1861 and is governed by it's Memorandum of Association. The main object of the respondentNo. 3 is to promote growth and development of mental health, Neuro Sciences- Somato- Behavioural and Allied Sciences, to develop and to provide state of art facilities for diagnosis, investigation and treatment in the field of mental health, Neuro Sciences etc. The respondentNo. 3 association has a general body and an Executive Council. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is the President of the general body and the Chief Secretary, Vice-Chanc...

S. Narendra Kumar and Co. Vs. Everest Beverages and Foods Inudstries a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2009(1)37; 2008(37)PTC497(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. is No. 2463/2008 has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark 'EVEREST' in respect of any of their products falling under Classes 29 and 30 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trademark Rules, 2002 inasmuch as such use allegedly amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's alleged registered trademark 'EVEREST'. By an order dated 25.02.2008 this Court had granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants in respect of the use of the said mark 'EVEREST'. The defendants, after notice of the said order dated 25.02.2008, have not only filed their written statement in the suit and reply to the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC but have also filed an independent application (IA No. 3031/2008) under Order 39 Rule 4 seeking vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction gra...

In Re: Apeejay Surrendra Hotels (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]89SCL252(Delhi)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This is an application by M/s. Apeejay Surrendra Hotels (P.) Ltd. (hereafter 'the applicant company/2nd transferor-company'), under Sections 391(1)-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking directions for meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors. The applicant seeks approval of a proposal for a scheme of amalgamation between the applicant, the 1st transferor-company, the 1st transferee-company, Apeejay Surrendra Corporate Services (P.) Ltd. and Apeejay Surrendra Holdings (P.) Ltd.2. The registered offices of the applicant companies is at Pragati Bhawan, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110 001, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Board of Directors of the applicant company has passed a resolution on 28-4-200S, approving the composite scheme of arrangement between the applicant company and the other participant companies. A copy of the resolution has been filed on record.3. The applicant company has filed...