Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

Ex. N.K. Dilbag Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ865:2009(3)AIRKarR268(F.B).

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. We are called upon to impart an interpretation on the words - 'a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service', as occurring in Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (for short 'Pension Regulations'). Reference to the Full Bench was originally necessitated because of the divergence of opinion of two Division Benches, in terms of the Order dated 9.3.2006 in WP(C) 11128/2005 titled Sunita Devi v. Union of India passed by the Bench comprising Mukul Mudgal and H.R. Malhotra, JJ. Our learned Brothers detected diametrically different dialectics of Division Benches, the unreported decision in WP(C) 4619/1993 titled Ex Sepoy Vijay Pal Singh v. UOI and in Ex Singnalman Shri Bhagwan v. UOI : 103(2003)DLT269 . The cause has become even more confounded and complicated owing to yet another decision of the Division Bench comprising Swatanter Kumar and G.S. Sistani, JJ. decided on 19.10.2006 reported as Jitendra Kumar v. Chief of Ar...

D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. R.K. Towers (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR507(Delhi)

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This common order is made on AA. No. 415/2006 filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator and OMP 362/2006 under Section 9 of the said Act for interim measures during the proposed arbitration proceedings.2. The petitions are opposed on the grounds (i) that the claims for the adjudication of which appointment of arbitrator is sought, are barred by time; (ii) that the petitioner did not raise the claims now being raised, in spite of being so entitled to, at the time of earlier arbitrations arising out of the same agreement; (iii) on the ground of estoppel, waiver and constructive res judicata; (iv) on the ground of the petitioner having no locus to raise the disputes alleged. If there is to be no arbitration, the question of interim measures does not arise. 3. For adjudication of the aforesaid disputes, reference may be made to the agreement between the parties. The petitioner as the owner of a plot of lan...

Virender Yadav Vs. Aerosvit Airlines and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR445(Delhi); 153(2008)DLT250

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present application is filed by the defendants No. 1 and 2 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') praying inter alia for rejection of the plaint and for reference of all the disputes between the defendants No. 1 & 2 and the plaintiff to arbitration on the ground that the parties are governed by an arbitration clause, in terms of Article 8 of the Agreement. 2. A brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for permanent and mandatory injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 appointed the plaintiff as its Sole Carrier Cargo Sales Agent in the Indian territory for a period of four years vide Carrier Cargo Sales Agent Agreement dated 20.10.2004. The grievance of the plaintiff is that during the currency of the Agreement, the defendants No. 1 & 2 have appointed the defendant No. 3 as their Cargo Agent within entire Indian ter...

Shri Jatinder Singh Bhatia Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2009Delhi54; 153(2008)DLT633; (2009)153PLR3

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner seeks probate of the registered Will dated 15th May, 1994 of his father Shri Joginder Singh Bhatia. Under the said Will the petitioner is the only beneficiary. The four brothers and one sister of the petitioner have been impleaded as the respondents/close relatives. Objections have been filed by each of the four brothers of the petitioner. The sister of the petitioner has filed Testamentary Case No. 42/1995 with respect to a Will dated 15th November, 1994 of the said Shri Joginder Singh Bhatia, as executor appointed under the said Will.2. The Will dated 15th May, 1994, subject matter of this petition, is purported to be witnessed by Shri Ravinder Pal Singh and Shri Yoginder Singh Bhatia. The present petition has been verified, besides by the petitioner, by Shri Yoginder Singh Bhatia as one of the attesting witness to the Will. The petition was also accompanied by the affidavits of both Shri Ravinder Pal Singh and Shri Yoginder Singh Bhatia affirm...

Mrs. Sapna Gupta Vs. Jagran Publications (P.) Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Delhi

1. This is a petition filed under section 250 read with section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) seeking for rectification of the register of members of M/s. Jagran Publications Private Ltd. (the company) by striking out the name of the 2nd respondent from the register. 2. The facts of the case are that the company was incorporated on 16-9-2005. It had two groups of shareholders, namely, UP group consisting of lineal descendents of late P.C. Gupta and M.P. Group constituting the lineal descendents of G.D. Gupta. The petitioners represent MP group and they collectively hold 30 per cent of the paid up capital of the company. The rest of their group holds further 30 per cent. This 60 per cent shares constitute 50 per cent voting rights in the company. The balance 40 per cent of shares is held by the 2nd respondent representing UP group, however, with 50 per cent voting rights in the company. Thus both the groups hold 50 per cent voting rights in the company. The tota...

S.i. Dr. Mohinder Pal Bhardwaj S/O Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Lt ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. We had heard Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Ajesh Luthra, for the respondents. There is not much of dispute on the facts of the case. We may narrate the relevant facts as hereinbelow.2. The applicant had been appointed as Head Constable, in the Ambulance Wing of Delhi Police. He had been promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector, the name of post being Senior Accident Service Technician.The position as above had become vacant because of the unexpected death of one Sub Inspector Vinod Kumar. A person who had come over to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector was entitled to the pay scale of Sub-Inspector on completion of three years. However, later developments, according to the applicant, had not been duly taken notice of, since it would have been possible for the respondents to give him a notional date of 29.12.1987 as his date of promotion as Sub Inspector, and this would also have enabled him to get his pay fixed on an earlier date completion...

Shri V.K. Sinha, Secretary Vs. Shri Brahm Dutt, Secretary,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. On consent of parties, the CP had been taken up, although a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent only on this day.2. O.A. 73 of 2008 has been disposed of, on 12.03.2008, whereby the respondents had been directed to post the applicant back as Additional Director General, in the Ministry of Transport within a time specified.Initially there was an extension of time applied for, and it was granted. In the meanwhile, a writ petition was filed to challenge the order. On 23.05.2008, the High Court had upheld the order. Contempt application is filed on 30.6.2008, justifiably alleging that there was ex facie contempt, as no steps were being taken by the respondents to comply with the orders.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant, however, invited our attention to the additional affidavit filed and the order passed on 25.07.2008, which indicates that consequent to an order passed on 22.07.2008, posting the applicant as Additional Director General, he had been allotted works of a speci...

Mahendra Singh S/O Pyare Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Mahendra Singh, the applicant herein, is a Government of India employee in the Ministry of Labour and Employment (Directorate General of Employment & Training), the 4th respondent herein. He was promoted to the post of UDC on 1.8.1995. His principal employer forwarded his application for consideration of his posting on deputation on the post of Accountant, to Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), the first respondent herein. He joined the Ministry of Commerce and Industry as Accountant on deputation basis.The order appointing him as Accountant on deputation basis dated 21.6.2004 has been placed on record at Annexure A-3. It inter alia records that the applicant had been selected for the post of Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 on deputation in the office of Chief Controller of Accounts (Supply), New Delhi, and his appointment would be governed by the terms and conditions as laid down in Ministry of Finance OM No. 10(24) Est...

Devi Dayal S/O Sohan Lal, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Devi Dayal, the applicant herein, who superannuated from the post of Booking Supervisor with the Indian Railways, has filed two Original Applications bearing No. 1765/2008 and 1771/2008. Inasmuch as, in both the Applications the plea of the applicant is to quash the charges framed against him due to delay in finalising the enquiry proceedings, we propose to dispose of both the Applications by this common order.2. The facts as may be relevant for deciding the two Applications reveal that the applicant is facing two departmental enquiries.Whereas, the first enquiry was initiated by issuing him a charge memo dated 8.1.2003, the other was initiated vide charge memo dated 16.6.2006. The statement of article of charge framed against the applicant annexed with the memorandum dated 8.1.2003 as Annexure-I, reads as follows: The said Shri Devi Dayal, Booking Supervisor/Karnal while working as such on 07-06-2000 in Karnal Booking Office was subjected to a vigilance check and was detected to h...

Sh. Deen Bandhu Gupta S/O Sh. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Directorate General of Works, CPWD by Office Order No. 99 of 2006, dated 12.05.2006, had proposed promotions and posting, inter alia to the cadre of Executive Engineers in the Central Civil Engineering Service, Group 'A'. It was to be on ad hoc basis. The order indicated that this course had been resorted to because of pending legal proceedings. The promotions were also stated to be subject to final outcome of Writ Petitions pending before the Delhi High Court. The applicants here are working as Assistant Engineers in the CPWD. They felt aggrieved about the order, when it was found that persons, who were junior to them in the seniority list and who were also lesser qualified had been conferred with promotion as Executive Engineers. All of them stand overlooked. Order dated 12.05.2006, according to them, requires to be appropriately modified, so as to reflect their just claims.2. Averments in the OA show that applicants had commenced service as Junior Engineers. At the time of their...