Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 11 of about 223 results (0.024 seconds)Om Pati Vs. Dtc
Court: Delhi
Manmohan Singh, J.1. In the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 14.5.2004 and 7.11.2006 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the impugned order, the Labour Court by an order dated 14.5.2004 directed the respondent to make the payment of the back wages due to the workman on the basis of last drawn salary from the date of his termination till the date of superannuation of 15.4.1994.2. As the workman Dharampal died subsequently on 24.1.2000, the case was pursued by his wife Smt. Om Pati thus, as per order, the respondent was directed to make the payment to Smt. Om Pati widow of the deceased who has filed the present petition. The case of the petitioner is that late Dharampal was an employee with the respondent Delhi Transport Corporation from 1.10.1958.His services were terminated on 4.10.1971.3. The husband of the petitioner was chargesheeted and pursuant to the charges,...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumari Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2008 the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.2. Trial of two juvenile co-accused was referred to the Juvenile Court as they were juvenile.3. On 30.6.2001 at about 6:50 PM information was received at PS Bawana through PCR that something lying in a gunny bag near a Johad near Sharma Colony was attracting dogs. SI Mukesh Kumar accompanied by HC Rajender and Const. Anand reached the spot and from within the gunny bag recovered the dead body of a male. The dead body was badly mutilated being eaten by maggots. FIR for the offence of murder was got registered.4. It was a blind murder. Nobody could throw light on even the identity of the person and hence on 5.7.2001 postmortem of the unidentified dead body was conducted. After 72 hours thereof the body was disposed of.5. One Ratan Lal went missing. The circumstances of his missing have been deposed to by his brother-in-law Paras Ram...
Tag this Judgment!3398223 M Sep Jagjit Singh Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. In all these applications, the question of jurisdiction of this bench has been challenged from the side of the Union of India as the impugned order passed by Court Martial (CM)/General Court Martial (GCM)/ Summary Court Martial (SCM)/District Court Martial (DCM) pertained to the area which falls within the jurisdiction of different Benches established under Section 4 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (which is hereinafter referred as The Act). It is also said that the orders passed on non statutory complaint, statutory complaint or petition made to Govt. of India against the findings and the conviction recorded by any Court Martial or pendency of representation would not confer any cause of action or a part of cause of action for the purposes of hearing of appeal against conviction under Section 15 of the Act. However, in view of provisions as contained under Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 for the convenience of the appellant past, present posting a...
Tag this Judgment!Ex Naik Rishi Pal Singh Versus Union of India Through the Secretary Mi ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This application, under Sections 14 and 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, has been brought to set aside the impugned order of the Summary Court Martial dated 26.12.2006, wherein the petitioner was dismissed from service, as well as the Ministry of Defence, Government of India impugned order dated 28.1.2008 rejecting his post confirmation appeal. The petitioner also seeks to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was tried for an offence under Army Act Section 69. The charge against him reads as follows: Army Act Section 69 COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT IS TO SAY USING CRIMINAL FORCE TO A WOMAN WITH INTENT TO OUTRAGE HER MODESTY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 354 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE In that he, At New Delhi, on 18 September 2006, at approximately 1830 hours used criminal force to Ms. A (henceforth referred to as victim woman to maintain anonymity) IDES (Probationer) at Room No. 5, Chitrakoot Guest House, by putting his one hand on her mout...
Tag this Judgment!ic 34650a Brig. (Retd) R.R Sinha Versus Union of India Through the Sec ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The challenge in this petition centres round the order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the Chief of Army Staff wherein he has not confirmed the decision given by the General Court Martial (GCM) on 12.9.2009 wherein they held the trial of the petitioner to be barred by limitation. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the capacity of Commanding Officer, the petitioner initiated Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of Maj. Rajan Batta for the year 1987-88. The said ACR was sent to Maj. Batta for obtaining his signatures at the place of attachment. Maj. Batta is alleged to have retained photocopy of the said ACR and returned the original duly signed by him through courier. In September 1999, based on records, including the ACR mentioned above, Maj. Batta was empanelled for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Subsequently in 2001, he was not empanelled for the rank of Colonel. Lt. Col. Batta preferred a non-statutory complaint ...
Tag this Judgment!Complete Dewatering Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and an ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner employer, by this writ petition impugns the order dated 20th May, 2004 of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioner employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of its order dated 13th February, 2003 of discharging the respondent No. 2 workman from employment. The Industrial Tribunal held that the petitioner employer had conducted a valid and proper inquiry before discharging the respondent No. 2 workman from employment. Though upon returning such finding, the application under Section 33(2)(b) ought to have been allowed but the Industrial Tribunal still held the petitioner employer to be not entitled to the relief for the reason that the application under Section 33(2)(b) had been filed by the petitioner employer after about 9 months of the date of the order of discharge of the respondent No. 2 workman from employment. The Industrial Tribunal held that though there is no limitation pre...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Leela Dhameja Vs. Smt. Bela Dhameja
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. In this suit, the relief claimed is partition and mandatory injunction against the defendant.3. The suit contends that by a Perpetual Sub-lease dated 15.10.1968, (executed by the President of India, in favor of Sh. Ishwar Das Dhameja), the lease held rights in respect of suit property, D-5/16, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, a 400 square yard plot were allotted to late Sh. Ishwar Das Dhameja. It is further contended that the said Sh. Ishwar Das Dhameja, on 10.08.1969, executed a Will, by which he bequeathed the property to his two sons - Sh. Vinod Kumar and Sh. Vijay Kumar. Sh. Ishwar Das Dhameja died on 02.11.1969, and at that time, was survived by his widow, Smt. Shanti Devi Dhameja; three sons - two sons mentioned above and Sh. Rajinder Kumar, and four daughters. It is submitted that all the four daughters are not residing in India and are now U.S. citizens.4. The plaintiff contends that the third son, Sh. Rajinder Kumar died on 27.02...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Nct of Delhi Vs. Hira Singh Rawat
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.C.M. 3661/2010Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.W.P. (C.) No. 1842/20101. This writ petition has been filed to assail the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 17.10.2008 in O.A. No. 531/2008 and order dated 22.09.2009 in R.A. No. 82/2009. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.10.2008 gave the following directions:The prayer made in this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is for declaration to the effect that the action of the respondents in not allowing the applicant to join his duties to the post of Lab Assistant is illegal. There is no dispute on facts that the applicant was promoted as Lab Assistant but was not allowed to join his duties only for the reason that he was not matriculate. It has been the case of the applicant that he had done matriculation and the stand taken by the respondents that the certificat...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Kohli Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered Pushpa at around 8:00 PM on 26.12.2005 at House No. B-155, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi; for which offence the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. It may be noted at the outset that when the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he admitted that there used to be tension between him and Pushpa over the children and that the appellant used to beat her due to which Pushpa left with her children. But, all other incriminating evidence including the fact that along with her children Pushpa started residing at B-155, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi was denied by the appellant.3. Appellant's conviction has been sustained on the basis of the testimony of Nitin PW-1, the eldest child of Pushpa who was aged 12 years when he deposed in Court on 7.12.2006. The date of the crime being 26.12.2005, it is apparent that Nitin was aged 11...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Sehgal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. At the hearing of the above captioned appeal held on 19.4.2010, learned Counsel for the appellant conceded that there was sufficient evidence to hold that the appellants, who are father and son and juvenile co-accused Karan Sehgal were the ones who brutally assaulted deceased Gurvinder Singh at about 8:30 PM on 4.3.2004. The only issue requiring consideration was whether the acts of the appellants and their juvenile co-accused Karan Sehgal constitute the offence of murder or the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. At the conclusion of the hearing on 19.4.2010 following order was passed:1. With reference to the testimony of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 learned Counsel for the appellant concedes that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant and juvenile co-accused Karan gave a merciless beating to deceased Gurvinder. Only submission urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of the testimony of the said witnesses; no we...
Tag this Judgment!