Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments

In the Matter Of: Ex Sub Mohan Singh Versus Union of India and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. The applicant filed a writ petition (civil) No. 8240 of 2009 in the Honble Delhi High Court for quashing his discharge order dated 1.6.2005 on the ground that he is a battle casualty and for reinstating him with all consequential benefits. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 12.10.2009. 2. Brief relevant facts of case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 17.9.1980. During his service he was promoted to the rank of Subedar (Sub). The applicant states that during the period 2000 2003 while serving with 13 Rastriya Rifles (13 RR) in high altitude areas of Jammu and Kashmir (JandK) he was exposed to extreme cold and developed frost bite which led to gangerene and subsequently his toe was amputated. The medical case sheet dated 3.6.2003 is at (Annexure P-1). The applicant was placed in low medical category P2 (permanent). 3. The applicant was transferred from 13 RR to his new unit (12 KUMAON) in a peace station. The applicant requested Officer-in-Cha...

Vikrampal Singh Versus Union of India and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. All these cases relate to the personnel subject to the Navy Act. In these cases, common question of law with regard to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal has been raised and so they all are taken together for disposal on the preliminary issue. It was contended on behalf of the Union of India that prior to the enforcement of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 all such matters were filed in High Courts under Writ jurisdiction and there was no opposition from the side of Union of India with regard to entertaining petitions under Article 226. It is now contended that in view of the special provisions contained in the Navy Act, 1957, except for an error of jurisdiction or an order which per se would be perverse, this Tribunal cannot interfere with the finding or orders passed by the Court Martial or the Appropriate authority under the Navy Act. Emphasis has also been laid that the provisions of Section 160 of Navy Act contemplates judicial review which is in the form of appeal wherein all th...

Marico Limited Vs. Agro Tech Foods Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2010(2)14

Rajiv Shakdher, J.IA No. 11037/2009 (Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by Pltf.) & IA No. 11538/2009 (Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC by Deft.)1. By the present order I propose to dispose of the captioned interlocutory applications (hereinafter referred to as TAs'). The plaintiff, in support of his case has filed IA No. 11037/2009 under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'), while the defendant has filed IA No. 11538/2009 under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for vacation of the interim order dated 28.08.2009. By order dated 28.08.2009 the defendant, its agents, assigns and all others acting for and on behalf of the defendant were restrained from using the trademark LOW- ABSORB and LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff and in relation to its goods.2. For the purposes of disposal of the applications, the following facts are...

Babita Das Vs. the Secretary Ministry of Public Grievances Amd Adminis ...

Court: Delhi

Manmohan Singh, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of letter bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2006-Exam-III dated 17.02.2008 issued by respondent No. 2 can celling the candidature of the petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared as OBC candidate in the SSC Combined Matric Level (Preliminary) Examination conducted by respondent No. 2 on the basis of advertisement published in Employment News in early 2006.3. The application for the said examination was filed by the petitioner along with OBC certificate dated 23.11.2004 issued by the District Magistrate, Kishangarh, Bihar. The result of the preliminary examination was declared and the petitioner was declared successful in the said examination. The petitioner submitted the application form for main examination of Matric Level Examination 2006.4. On 12.05.2007 and 13.05.2007, the main examination of Matric Level (Main) Examination was ...

Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Kedi Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. Mr. Vinay Kumar the petitioner, has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the summoning order dated 28th March, 2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, taking cognizance and issuing summons to appear in a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2, International Travel House Limited, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). In the said complaint, it is alleged that M/s Kedia Power Limited, accused No. 1, had issued a cheque for Rs. 5 lacs dated 24th September, 1996 but on presentation the cheque was not honoured and was returned back with the remarks 'payment stopped by the drawer vide note dated 25th September, 1996'. It is stated in the complaint that the said cheque was issued by accused No. 1 company, i.e., M/s Kedia Power Limited. With regard to the present petitioner, allegations are made in paragraphs 3 and 15 of the...

Sh. Harbir Singh Vs. Shaheed Udham Singh Smarak Shiksha Samiti and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of these three appeals filed by the appellant against the order dated 11th February, 2010 passed in three application being IA No. 11323 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code; IA No. 11324 of 2008 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an Administrator and I.A No. 12251 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code in a suit for Declaration and Perpetual injunction filed by the appellant.2. FAO (OS) No. 273/2010This appeal under Order XLIII and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the order dated 11th February, 2010 passed in I.A. No. 12251 of 2008 in CS (OS) No. 1957 of 2008. The prayers made by the appellant under the said IA are as under:a. To stay the operation of the notice dated 18.9.2008b. To stay the holding of the proposed general body meeting dated 19.10.2008 as proposed in the notice dated 18.9.2008c. To direct that the office bearers elected by the i...

Umakant Vs. D.T.C. and anr.

Court: Delhi

J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/- has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount.2. The accident dated 10th July, 1989 resulted in the death of Dr. S.B. Chikkodimath. The deceased was survived by his widow, one minor son and mother who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.3. The deceased was aged 43 years and 6 months at the time of the accident. The deceased was M.Sc. and Ph.D in Mathematics. The deceased worked as Director of Research Institute of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Hubly, Karnataka from 1976 to 1985 at a salary of Rs. 3,200/- per month. Thereafter, the deceased worked as Senior Assistant Professor in Mathematics in Ethiopian Air Force Academy at a salary of 1635 Birr (equivalent of approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month). The contract of the deceased with the Ethiopian Government is Ex.P-5 according to which the deceased was ent...

Umesh Dutt Vs. State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. The appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment dated 06.04.2009 in Sessions Case No. 150/2008 FIR No. 162/03 convicting the appellant on the charges under Section 302 IPC and Section 307 IPC and the consequent order on sentence dated 13.04.2009.2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that in the morning of 13.3.2003 at around 9.20 a.m., deceased Kavita and her daughter Nikita sustained fire burn injuries at their house in Village Pandwala Kalan, Delhi. At that time, they were alone in the house. The mother-in-law of the deceased Gyanwati (PW-4) who had gone to provide water to her buffalo returned home almost at the same time and she noticed the deceased lying in burnt condition in the courtyard. She tried to put off the fire by throwing water on her. In the meanwhile, Nagender(PW-1) husband of the deceased also reached there and on seeing his daughter Nikita aflame, he picked her up and dipped her in the water tank to put off the fire. Thereafter,...

Food Corporation of India Vs. Mahesh Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') challenging the arbitral Award dated 16th June, 2003 passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr. Justice (Retd.) N.G. Das. It is pertinent to mention that the matter was referred to the learned Arbitrator by the Indian Council of Arbitration.2. The relevant facts of this case are that petitioner-objector floated a tender dated 11th August, 1999 for disposal of more than two years old 'D' category rice lying at its various depots. On 23rd September, 1999, the tender was awarded to respondent-claimant. However, as respondent-claimant failed to deposit 10% of the costs within a period of seven days, petitioner-objector issued a telegram dated 01st October, 1999 informing the respondent-claimant that EMD deposit had been forfeited and that rice stocks would be sold at the respondent's risk and costs as per the tender terms and conditions.3. Though the...

People for Animals Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Admit.2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, we are taking up the matter for final disposal at this stage itself. The People for Animals is the petitioner which had filed the Writ Petition (C) 2491/2000. In that writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for issuance of appropriate writ directing Union of India (respondents in Writ Petition) not to authorize issuance/renewal of licences under the Arms Act, 1959 in respect of guns for sport as well as for crop and cattle protection. This writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 30th July, 2002 inter alia, issuing the following directions:.we direct having regard to the provisions of the Arms act, not to authorize, issuance or renewal of a licence of any prohibited arm or ammunition for the purpose of sport (shikar) or cattle and crop protection from wild animals except under very strict conditions. We also quash entry No. 1(3) of Schedule II of the notification bearing No. GSR No. 988 dated 13.07.196...