Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

Sanjeev Kumar Saxena Vs. State Government of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ415

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. In this case, the petitioner was apprehended carrying Heroin. He has been charged with a recovery of net quantity of 107 grams of Diacetylmorphine under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. Admittedly, in this case, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. The accused has been in judicial custody since 13.8.2007. All the witnesses that have been named by the prosecution are police officials; two of them have already been examined. As per the status report, the accused is found to have no previous criminal involvement. The chargesheet has been filed in the Court. 2. Mr. Sanjay Lao, appearing for the State, has opposed this petition on only one ground. For this, he has relied on the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Mahesh Pal Singh v. State 2006(2) JCC 108 to contend that in such matters, while considering the question of bail, what must be seen is whether the time spent by the accused in custody while under trial, bears the same proportion to the max...

Madras Petrochem Ltd. and anr. Vs. B.i.F.R. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas402(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 4th February 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the AAIFR') wherein while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner M/s. Madras Petrochem Ltd. and Anr. it was held that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the BIFR') had made all efforts to secure the rehabilitation of the petitioner company and the scheme sanctioned in 1991 and 1996 had failed. It was concluded by the AAIFR that the petitioner is heavily indebted and there was no possibility of rehabilitating it. It was held that prolonged proceedings in SICA would no further serve any purpose and would serve the private interests of the guarantors. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the divesting of the jurisdiction of the BIFR and the AAIFR in these proceedings. The re...

Mayur Recreational Dev. Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]313ITR190(Delhi)

1. This appeal, which has been filed by the assessee, is against the Tribunal's common order dated December 12, 2002, in respect of I.T.A. No. 2967/Del/95 and I.T.A. No. 5036/Del/97, both in respect of the assessment year 1992-93. The appellant had, simultaneous to the filing of the present appeal, also filed an application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Tribunal claiming that the material on record had not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated December 12, 2002. The said application was numbered as M. A. No. 143/D/2003.2. The Tribunal disposed of the said application by accepting the contentions raised by the assessee and by recalling the impugned order dated December 12, 2002. Thereafter, the Tribunal reheard the appeals and passed an order dated June 11, 2004, in favour of the assessee.3. The Revenue, being aggrieved by both the order dated March 16, 2004, and June 11, 2004, preferred two appeals, being I.T.A. No. 491 of...

Anoop Kumar (Roll No. 434444) S/O Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Throu ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Desiring to be a constable in Delhi Police, Anoop Kumar, the applicant herein, filled up his application form on 24.3.2006 clearly disclosing that a criminal case FIR No. 526/04 Under Section 308/325/34 IPC was registered against him and pending trial. He was provisionally selected having qualified the physical, medical, written examination as well as interview/personality test. While those who successfully competed for the post of constable were being appointed, the applicant, however, received a show cause notice dated 11.12.2007 (Annexure A-1) for cancellation of his candidature on the ground that he was acquitted of the charge since witnesses turned hostile, and that it was not an honourable acquittal. The applicant responded to the show cause notice vide his reply dated 26.12.2007, and as the same was not found convincing, his candidature has been cancelled vide order dated 8.1.2008 (Annexure A-2). It is this order that has been called in question in the present Original Appli...

Surinder Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(234)ELT232(Del); 2009[13]STR16

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Vide judgment dated 21st August 2001, the Division Bench of this Court had given the following directions:We are informed at this state that both Enquiry and Presentation Officers stood appointed to conduct the inquiry against the petitioner, that being so, this petition could be disposed of to the mutual satisfaction of both parties by providing thus:Petitioner shall have four weeks time from today to submit his reply to charge sheet in the absence of copies of his pre recorded statements under Section 108 and without prejudice to his contentions in this regard. However, Respondents are directed to furnish these statements to him two weeks before prosecution evidence commences. Enquiry officer shall be at liberty to proceed with enquiry after expiry of three weeks from now and which he shall conclude within six months from the date petitioner is asked to appear before him.2. The petitioner filed this contempt petition that he was not being supplied the copie...

Dr. Suresh Kumar Vs. Ntpc Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ133

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, is aggrieved by an order of his transfer dated 25th June, 2008 transferring him from N.T.P.C. Hospital, Vidyut Nagar, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P) to R.G.P.P.L. site at Mumbai on secondment basis. He has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/orders or directions against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 quashing the transfer order dated 25th June, 2008.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Medical Officer (E.N.T.) in N.T.P.C. vide appointment letter dated 13th August, 1993 and consequent upon his said appointment he was posted to Rihand Super Thermal Power Project, P.O. Rihand Nagar, Distt. Sonbhadra (U.P.). Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from there to his present place of posting at N.T.P.C. Hospital, Vidyut Nagar, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P). He has now been transferred to R.G.P.P.L. site at Mumbai on secondment basis vide transfer order dated 25th June, 200...

Asulal Loya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 154(2008)DLT314; 2008(106)DRJ100

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The respondent-Bharat Aluminium Company Limited is no longer a Government of India undertaking and was privatized pursuant to a tripartite share purchase agreement dated 2nd day of March, 2001. The petitioner, Mr. Asulal Loya had filed the present writ petition on 28th September, 1991 challenging his order of termination of service by the respondent company. A preliminary issue has been raised by the respondent company that the present writ petition is no longer maintainable and no relief can be granted against the respondent company as it is not a 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the writ petition when it was originally filed against the respondent company was maintainable and it would be unjust and unfair to 'non-suit' the petitioner after so many years. It is also stated that ordinary rule of litigation is that rights of the parties stand crystalised on the date of commenc...

Reliance Polycrete Ltd. Vs. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)154PLR28

ORDERED TO ATTEND IN PERSON UNLESS RESIDENT WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS.No one shall be ordered to attend in person to give evidence unless he resides:(a) within the local limits of the Court's ordinary original jurisdiction, or(b) without such limits but at a place less than one hundred or (where there is railway or steamer communication or other established public conveyance for five sixth of the distance between the place where he resides and the place where the court is situated less than [five hundred kilometer] distance.Order 16 Rule 10 deals with situation where a witness fails to comply with the summons issued by Court; it provides for the mode of enforcement of attendance and reads as follows:10. PROCEDURE WHERE WITNESS FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SUMMONS:(1) Where a person whom a summons has been issued either to attend to give or to produce a document, failed to attend or to produce the document in compliance with such summons, the court:(a) shall, if the certificate of the serving offic...

M.K. Khar Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Chairman and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ136

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the 'Act') has been filed against the award dated 04.10.01 passed by Sh. G.P. Mittal, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as the 'Tribunal'), New Delhi for enhancement of compensation.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.02.92, Appellant along with his sister was travelling in D.T.C. bus No. 6185, route No. 405. Since the bus was over crowded, he was standing near the emergency door of the bus. When the bus reached the crossing of Zoo and Mathura Road, it took a very sharp turn, as a result of which emergency door flung open. He fell down from the said emergency door and sustained injuries on the right lumber area, left knee and left wrist etc. He was removed to AIIMS and made a report to the police as well as to the D.T.C.3. The Appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Delhi Transport Corporation and driver of D.T.C. bus No. 6185 for having caused injuries...

Surender Kumar Sand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Present case is a classical example where one may excel in performing his duties, appreciated and commended by all concerned, but where luck may yet elude him in getting any reward for the same.Surender Kumar Sand, an Inspector in Delhi Police, who has filed two Original Applications bearing No. 2138/2006 and 2393/2006 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, appears to have extremely impressive service credentials. In recognition of his meritorious service, he was indeed accorded out of turn promotion on the post of Inspector as well, but the same, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, has given him no substantial advantage. Despite the orders of his out of turn promotion, he has yet been promoted on turn on the basis of his seniority, as in view of the facts and circumstances, the out of turn promotion may turn disadvantageous to him. In OA No. 2138/2006 filed by him, the applicant seeks promotion and thus fixation of seniority from the date ...