Delhi Court January 2010 Judgments

Colonel Harvinder Singh Kohli Versus the Union of India Through the Se ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the finding and order of the Court Martial dated 06.08.2004 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service in gross violation of Army Rule 52 and 54 and also the subsequent orders dated 18.03.2008 and 20.02.2009 passed by Union of India on the post confirmation petition and also the order dated 20.02.2009 of Union of India declining to interfere with the sentence awarded to the petitioner. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that from the date of his entry in the Artillery Regiment he worked with all sincerity and dedication in field areas and at high altitude. ACR.s dossier also reflects his outstanding performance. The petitioner assumed command of 175 Field Regiment on 01.04.2000 and was also empanelled for promotion to the rank of Colonel by a duly constituted Selection Board and was promoted to the rank of Colonel on 01.09.2000. The petitioner remained in command of the said unit. In December 2003, he commanded successfully and apprehended num...

Ex. Hav. (Opr) Gian Singh Versus Union of India Through Secretary, Gov ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. Challenge is against the order dated 31.03.1993 passed by the fourth respondent, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for four months and to be reduced to the ranks and also the subsequent orders dated 15.12.1993 and 28.4.1994 passed by the third respondent in appeal. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Sepoy in the Regiment of Artillery on 31.12.1976. Subsequently, he was given promotion to the rank of Lance Naik, Naik and Havildar. In August/September 1992, the petitioner was directed to take over charge from Naik PSS Reddy. The petitioner checked all the stores physically and attempted to verify them with stock ledger but found deficiency of many items. The petitioner requested that the reported deficiencies should be counter-signed by some senior officer so that in future he may not have to bear the brunt. The petitioner feeling that no senior officer is prepared to counter sign those deficiencies refused to take over the charge and the keys of the Signal Stores. ...

Era Infra Engineering Limited Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT402

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.I. Reliefs sought1. The petitioner is praying for the quashing of the letters dated 03.02.2009 and 05.02.2009, whereby, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) informed the petitioner that its tender had been rejected and that they (DDA) had decided to recall the tender. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that despite its price bid being the lowest (L-1) for the project, the same was rejected and, that too, at a belated stage and without assigning any reasons. Alleging mala fides on part of the respondents, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court that the turnkey project in question be awarded to the petitioner and also that an independent agency be asked to investigate the matter.II. The facts2. Before we go into the questions that arise for consideration, an examination of the facts of the case is necessary. On 24.06.2007, the DDA, through a notice published in the Hindustan Times, invited .Expression of Interest. from interested agencies in respect ...

Munchur Industries Ltd. Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT546

ORDER SHEET OF THE 18TH HEARING HELD AT 4.30 P.M. ON 17TH FEBRUARY, 1998 AT MY RESIDENCE PRESENTBENCH Mr. Justice Charanjit Talwar... Umpire ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT Mr. Daljit Singh, Senior AdvocateMr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, AdvocateMr. Ajay Malhotra, Advocate Mr. Rajan Sharma ...

Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Meetco (London) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT631

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The claim of each of the decree holders in the two executions and the petitioner/relator in the CCP, in these three matters taken up together, is for the monies, earlier in the bank account of M/s. Meetco (London) Ltd. (hereinafter called Meetco) with Bombay branch of Bank of Baroda, respondents/alleged contemnors in the CCP (hereinafter called Bank). The two decree holders and the petitioner/relator in the CCP claim preference to the said monies, in satisfaction of their respective claims against Meetco. What falls for adjudication is inter alia, the priority of their respective claims and the effect of attachment before judgment and axiomatically whether the same has any preference over attachment and/or payment in execution.2. Proceeding chronologically, the Special Organizing Committee for the 9th Asian Games, 1982 (hereinafter called SOC) on or about 2nd November, 1982 instituted CS(OS) No. 1475-A/1982 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 inter al...

Suresh Jindal and ors. Vs. Delhi Financial Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT462

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition originally filed by three Petitioners is for a direction to the Respondent No. 1, Delhi Financial Corporation (DFC) not to arrest and detain the Petitioners 1 and 2 for the recovery of the amounts due to the DFC in proceedings under Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (SFC Act) and the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1887 (PLR Act). A further prayer is for the declaration that the PLR Act does not apply to Delhi and for quashing the proceedings taken thereunder. The Petitioners also seek a complete statement of accounts of the amounts due and recovered by the DFC.2. On account of the failure of the Petitioner No. 3 Aar Em Alloys Pvt. Ltd., to repay the loan borrowed by it from the DFC, the latter invoked Section 32(G) of the SFC Act, and a recovery certificate dated 18th February 1998 was issued by the competent authority appointed in terms of the said provision. This certificate addressed to the Collector (Reco...

Canara Bank Vs. Arjun Dass

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The short facts of the case are that the respondent complainant had opened two accounts in the Canara Bank, Raja Garden Branch No. (i) CAN SI A/c 87/92 and (ii) Saving Bank Account No. 13634 in the month of November 1992 with the appellant OP bank which the complainant operated till middle of 1993, but as averred, since he became ill he lost his memory, and was not able to operate the accounts for 12 years. Therefore, the complainant approached OP in the month of March/April, 2005, to find out, the balance in his accounts and the bank replied, that the records of the bank were destroyed. The bank further averred that after a lapse of 8 years from the year of non-operation of the accounts the records of the said accounts are destroyed. 2. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the bank ombudsman, and the ombudsman, after hearing both the parties found no deficiency on the part of the bank. 3. The complainant ultimately, therefore, fil...

Moon Beverages Ltd. Vs. Vinod Gupta and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The respondent complainant purchased four bottles of Maza drinks manufactured by appellant OP-3 company from the shop of OP-1 Sri Surender Babu Gupta, the distributor of which is OP-2 M/s. Kohli Soft Drinks (P) Ltd. and in one of the bottles two dead Flies were discovered, fortunately before consumption. The respondent complainant claimed compensation of an amount of Rs. one lac and litigation cost from the opposite parties and the District Consumer Forum awarded Rs. 5,000 to him as damages to be paid by OP-2 and directed the OP-3 manufacturer company appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. one lac with State Consumer Welfare Fund (Legal Aid, New Delhi). 2.The OP-3 manufacturing company has come in appeal. 3.None has appeared on behalf of the appellant at the time of hearing. We have heard the respondent complainant Sri Vinod in person, and perused the record including the Memo of Appeal very carefully. 4.It is a case of ab initio loquitur, the manufact...

Chinta Mani JaIn Vs. Pramod Kumar Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. Short facts of the case are that the complainant appellant hired a bus for carrying marriage party of his son on 22.1.2007, from Delhi to Agra and back on 24.1.2007. The amount agreed between the two was Rs. 16,250 out of which the complainant paid to the OP Rs. 2,000 in advance while the remaining amount of Rs. 14,250 was to be paid on the return of the marriage party from Agra. OP had issued a receipt No. 115 dated 24.11.2006 with regard to this agreement. Complainants grouse is that the OP did not provide him the bus as agreed and also refused to make alternate arrangement and, therefore, the complainant had to hire six vehicles on payment of Rs. 4,500 each spending in all Rs. 27,000 for to and fro of the marriage party. 2. Complainant thereafter filed a complaint before the District Forum against the OP with a prayer that the OP be directed to pay him Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation and also the litigation costs. 3. The OP opposed the claim of th...

Ex Sep R.S.N.Rajana Versus the Union of India Through Its Secretary Mi ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. This petition is brought for quashing the order dated 09.04.2008 passed by Summary Court Martial (SCM) whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s.52(b) of the Army Act 1950 for committing theft of medicines from Army Hospital (R and R) Delhi Cantt. and also for the offence u/s.63 of the Army Act for his acts which were prejudicial to good order and military discipline. He was sentenced to undergo 28 days imprisonment in military custody and also dismissal from service. The findings of SCM was challenged by the accused/appellant by contending that the inquiry as contemplated under Army Rule 180 was not conducted by the respondents before initiating criminal proceedings against him. Further whatever inquiry has been asserted by the respondents in view of Army Rule 22 was itself deficient as the Commanding Officer arbitrarily dispensed with calling of the witnesses. In the absence of the witnesses the conduct of enquiry under Army Rule 22 would itself vitiate as there was...