Delhi Court May 2009 Judgments

Karawal Nagar Road Market Welfare Association and ors. Vs. Union of In ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 165(2009)DLT50

1. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on 29.1.2007 in respect of the land situated in the revenue estate of Village Mirpur Turk, Biharipur, Mustafabad and Dayalpur for the purpose of constructing an 80 ft. wide road. The affected parties including the petitioners filed objections under Section 5A of the said Act. After consideration of the objections, a declaration was issued under Section 6 of the said Act on 17.10.2007 and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award dated 19.3.2009. The present writ petition seeks to raise a challenge to the said acquisition proceedings.2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the acquisition proceedings are malafide for the reason that there is no need to extend the road but the same was being done with the object of favouring the influential owners of some banquet halls which were earlier functioning on this road and now stand clos...

Ajay Kumar JaIn Vs. Baljit Kaur Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT401

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent / wife filed a suit under Section 18, 23 and 28 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 against the appellant / husband seeking grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month with the declaration to have a right of residence in her matrimonial home on the first floor of D - 291, Defence Colony, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as, 'the suit property' ) as also for restraining the appellant from dispossessing her from the said premises. The respondent also filed an application for interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month as well as for interim relief in respect of the suit property. The suit and the interim applications were contested by the appellant. In terms of the impugned order dated 02.07.2007 apart from the admitted rental income of Rs. 22,500/- per month of the respondent, the appellant was directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 22,500/- per month as interim maintenance. A further direction was issued restraining ...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. M.K. Ghuman and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ391

J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellants have challenged the award of learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum has been awarded to claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 5.2. The accident dated 27.1.1986 resulted in the death of Major Surenderjit Singh Ghuman. On 27.1.1986 at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased was driving his two-wheeler scooter bearing No. CHH 8818 near Army Headquarters, Delhi Cantt. when he was hit by Army Matador No. DEP 7980 resulting in grievous injuries. The deceased was removed to the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. and was admitted in ICU where he expired on 5.2.1986.3. The deceased was survived by his widow, two minor children and parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.4. The deceased was 38 years old at the time of the accident. He had completed NDA and, thereafter, IMA (Indian Military Academy), Dehradun and was commissioned on 21.12.1969. The deceased was earning Rs. 4,000 per month apart from...

N.N. Sarkar Vs. Union of India Service to the Effected Through Secreta ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: Dr. N.N. Sarkar, applicant herein, filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2493/2000 before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking to quash appointment of Dr. Anand Kumar, third respondent herein, as Professor, Reproductive Biology, in the department of Reproductive Biology. During the pendency of the Writ, it appears, preliminary jurisdiction to decide this matter came to be vested with this Tribunal. That being so, present matter has come to be transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No. 677/2009. 2. It is the case of the applicant that as per advertisement and rules, for medical candidates, requisite qualifications are (i) a medical qualification included in Schedule I and II or part II of the third Schedule of the Indian Council Act of 1956; (ii) a post graduate qualification e.g. M.D./M.S. or equivalent thereto in the discipline; and (iii) experience of fourteen years teaching and/or research in a recognized institution in the subject of s...

Ranjana Mehta Vs. Union of India Through the Chief Secretary and Anoth ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: When confronted with the position that present Original Application is barred by time as provided under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the same is not even accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay, counsel states that there are sufficient reasons for condonation of delay but somehow the applicant missed out to file the application. He, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw this Original Application with liberty to file fresh one for the same cause of action which shall be accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. 2. With leave and liberty, as asked for, this Original Application is dismissed as withdrawn....

Cit Vs. Concorde Capital Management Company Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]183TAXMAN172(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.ITA No. 185/20091. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I against the Order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the ITAT. The Tribunal had dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue assailing the Order of the CIT(A), who had deleted the addition of Rupees 68,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act. Both the Appellate Authorities had concluded that no incriminating material had been collected in the course of a simultaneous search under Section 132 carried out on 24.11.2000 on the Assessee along with allegedly connected concerns including Nopani Group and Mourya Investments Pvt. Ltd.. Revenue had endeavoured to rely on materials and statements recorded of a third party, namely, Shri Sushil Kumar Tulsian during a consequent survey under Section 133A. Predicated on this Statement an inference was drawn, nay it was taken as having been proved, that the Assessee was e...

Sham Lal Goel Vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi Through Commissioner and ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Meera Chhibber, Member (J) This matter was transferred from Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 18.2.2009 with a direction to the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 19.3.2009. On the said date no one was present on behalf of the parties. Therefore, in the interest of justice, registry of the Tribunal had issued fresh notice to the applicant on 27.3.2009 informing him to appear before the Tribunal on 20.5.2009. 2. We are informed by the Court Officer that notice was issued on 15.4.2009 to the applicant to appear on 20.5.2009, therefore, service is deemed to be complete. In spite of it, none is present for the parties even today, which shows applicant is not interested in prosecuting this case. TA is accordingly dismissed for default and non-prosecution....

Raghubir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others Through the Secretary and ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

N.D. Dayal, Member(A) We have heard the learned counsel and perused the pleadings. When this matter was taken up for hearing on 06.05.2009, it was found that no reply had been filed and the right to file the same stood forfeited in terms of orders passed on 24.04.2009. Liberty was granted by Court for written arguments/documents to be submitted. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has at the outset emphasized that the main relief being sought in this O.A. is for extension of the benefits of judgment dated 20.12.1990 in OA-145/1990 to the applicant, however, subsequently it was submitted that the relief’s contained in Para-8 of the OA for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.06.2007 as well as for restoration of increments withdrawn in August 1987 were also being pressed. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant stated that by OA-145/1990 decided on 20.12.1990 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam has granted certain benefits which the applicant is also see...

K.K. Tikoo Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Others

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A) The applicant in this O.A. is seeking the following reliefs:- (a) To quash and set aside the order No A/24321/199/OS-8C(ii) dated 29.1.2009 of Revisionary Authority by which Recovery of Rs.59,331/- from pay and allowances of the applicant has been effected. To pass such an order and further directions which Hon’ble Tribunal may feel fit and proper. 2. The respondents have opposed the claim of the applicant. A copy of the counter reply filed by them had already been received as informed by learned counsel for the applicant. Copies of the same were produced in Court and taken on record. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings. 4. The applicant submits that he is a Civilian Store Keeper and presently serving in COD Delhi Cantt. He has an unblemished service of nearly 30 years. It so happened that as per issue voucher No. GS-113189 dated 07.12.1988 quantity 13 of Member Shoes and free wheel Cat part No. 2520-001318 were ...

Sh. Jai Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary and Oth ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

N.D. Dayal, Member(A) The applicant was initially engaged as Daily Rated Mazdoor and after 10 years regularized on 01.04.1993. He was promoted as Phone Mechanic in July 1996 and posted under SDO Phones, Nehru Place. When Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) was created in November 1998 along with others the applicant also exercised option whether to remain in D.O.T. or to go to MTNL. The applicant opted for D.O.T. At that time he was working under SDO Phones Division-V, under GM South-II MTNL and he was allowed to continue to perform his duties under MTNL. 2. It is submitted that although other Phone Mechanics who were working in D.O.T. and had opted for MTNL were absorbed according to their option, the respondents did not transfer the applicant to D.O.T. and he continued working in MTNL performing the same functions as were being done by other Phone Mechanics who had been absorbed in MTNL. 3. After some time the respondents started giving pay scale to the applicant on the basis of...