Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 3 of about 157 results (0.015 seconds)Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Chander Mohan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner/Union of India has assailed the judgment dated 11.11.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 1373/2007, whereby the benefits of the judgment delivered by the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in S.C. Panda v. Union of India and Ors. O.A. No. 463/PB/2002 decided on 19.12.2002 and upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP-14378/2003 vide order dated 11.09.2003, were also extended to the respondents.2. Briefly stating, the facts of this case are that:(i) The respondents, who are the officers of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service, on being denied consideration for in situ promotion to the grade of Joint Director on completion of 7 years of service, have approached the Tribunal by claiming parity as such benefit was given to Ors by the authorities relying upon a judgment delivered by the Punjab and...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. L/Nk Vimal Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Gita Mittal, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner assails an order and sentence dated 17th February, 1999 passed by the Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to 'SSFC' for brevity) finding the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to 'BSF Act' for brevity) and the sentence of dismissal from service. The petitioner also assails the action of Deputy Inspector General, respondent No. 2 in countersigning the dismissal order on 8th April, 1999 and the order dated 13/16th August, 1999 whereby the petitioner's revision petition under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act was rejected by the respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner was enrolled on 1st April, 1986 into the Border Security Force. In 1995, he was promoted as a lance naik and finally posted to 130Bn B.S.F. located at Salbagan, Tripura in which position he was serving at the time of the incident resulting in the passing of the impugned orders.3. It is alle...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Shivraj Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
A.K. Sikri, J.1. In this appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, the appellants impugned the validity of orders dated 11.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No. 168/2007. That was an application preferred by the respondent herein (plaintiffs in the suit, hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint. By the aforesaid reasoned order dated 11.03.2010, the learned Single Judge has accepted the prayer made by the plaintiffs in the said application, which permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint as desired. The appellants herein are the defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants'). Their submission that the suit had become infructuous; the amendments pleaded and further relief sought based thereon furnished afresh cause of action, which could be agitated by filing fresh suit, has not been accepted by the learned Single Judge. Arguments in the appeal remain the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Prem Mehta Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. Vi and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner working as a nurse in the hospital of respondent No. 2 MCD has preferred this petition with respect to the order dated 30th March 1999 of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. The petitioner vide the said application under Section 33C(2) was seeking enforcement of the award dated 13th May, 1988 published on 17th June, 1988. Vide the said award, all the Grade 'B' Staff Nurses working in the hospitals of the respondent MCD, who were posted against the post of Grade 'A' Staff Nurses and had completed three years were held entitled to the pay of Grade 'A' Staff Nurses for the period during which they worked against the post of Grade 'A' Staff Nurses w.e.f. 27th June 1979 (the date of that reference). The application under Section 33C(2) was preferred by the petitioner claiming pay/emoluments of Grade 'A' Staff Nurse for the period from 1st August, 1988 to 31st March, 1992. The Labour C...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Dhawan Vs. D.D.A. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Mukta Gupta, J.1. The Appellant was appointed as a Tracer on 12th November, 1956 by the Indian Railways and after confirmation was promoted as Junior Draftsman-B with effect from 20th February, 1960. On 1st June, 1970 he was duly confirmed as Draftsman-A. The Respondent No. 1/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had called for applications for eligible candidates to fill vacancies for the post of Junior Engineer. Pursuant to an application filed through proper channel the Appellant was selected and on 14th July, 1981 was relieved from the Indian Railways. Before joining the DDA the Appellant had furnished an undertaking that he would not claim any benefit whatsoever regarding seniority, promotion or pay fixation on the basis of his past services rendered in other departments from DDA. On 15th July, 1981 on joining the DDA the Appellant was placed under probation. However, his lien was retained in the Indian Railways for a period of two years. Thereafter, he applied for voluntary retiremen...
Tag this Judgment!Apeejay School Vs. Sh. Darbari Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner school has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 26th November, 1999 of the Labour Court in a reference of an industrial dispute at the instance of the respondents 1 to 3. The respondents 1 to 3 claimed to be the employees (non-teaching) of the petitioner school and contended that the petitioner was neither issuing them identity cards nor giving them any legal benefits and asking them to render duties under fictitious names and on their refusal to do so, the petitioner school had refused work to them.2. The petitioner contended before the Labour Court that it was a recognized private unaided school within the meaning of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (School Act); that Section 8(3) of the said Act provides the remedy of appeal before the Delhi School Education Tribunal (School Tribunal) to any employee of the school against any order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; that in view of the existence of the specific...
Tag this Judgment!Tinna Overseas Limited Vs. Krm International Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2007 whereby the suit of the plaintiff (the appellant herein) for recovery of Rs. 6,96,062/- along with interest was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.2. The facts of the case, as alleged in the plaint, are as follows:The plaintiff had placed orders on the defendant No. 1 for the purchase of 12,000 sq.ft. of Cow Softy Finished Leather. The quantity of goods was subsequently increased to 24,000 sq.ft. of the said leather. It was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff will obtain a Letter of Credit in favour of the defendant No. 1 (the respondent No. 1 herein) for the payment of the goods to be supplied by the defendant No. 1. The goods were to be supplied by the defendant No. 1 as per the specifications of the plaintiff and the payment was to be obtained by the defendant No. 1 by invoking the said Letter of Credit, the invocation being commensurate to the value of the goods supplied by ...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. There is some confusion, but it hardly matters, whereas Vijay Bhandari PW-5 (father of deceased Vikas Bhandari) deposed that when he could not locate his son Vikas till it became dark on 13.11.2000 he lodged a missing person?s complaint by ringing up the police control room; HC Veer Singh PW-6 deposed that on 14.11.2000 Vijay Bhandari came to PS Anand Vihar at 10:30 AM and got recorded his statement which was straight away reduced into a First Information Report Ex.PW-5/S. The fact of the matter remains that Vikas Bhandari left his house at around 4:30 PM for taking tuitions and never returned home. On 15.11.2000 his dead body was found in District Ghaziabad UP.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants and their co-conspirator Romil Sharma, who has turned approver and has earned a pardon, conspired to kidnap Vikas Bhandari and extract ransom from his father to release Vikas, who was known to appellant Rajneesh since Rajneesh had in the past taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Samarth Trust a Registered Trust Working for Public Good as a Non Gove ...
Court: Delhi
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The questions for our consideration are culled out from two orders passed by this Court on 14th September, 2009 and on 27th January, 2010. The two questions are:a. What is the nature, scope and methodology of a public hearing held in accordance with the notification dated 14th September, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short MOEF). It naturally follows from this question whether the public hearing conducted in the present case conformed to the nature, scope and methodology as postulated.Our answer to the consequential question is in the affirmative.b. Whether the Petitioner (Samarth) has filed this writ petition as a bona fide public interest litigant.In view of our above conclusion, we do not propose to answer this question.2. The two orders dated 1 4th September, 2009 and 27th January, 2010 read as follows:14th September, 2009Amongst other issues, two issues of general public importance arise for consideration in the present writ petit...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Jayesh Kanaiya Lal Shukla, Managing Director of Parth Parenteral ...
Court: Delhi
Mukta Gupta, J.1. The Respondent No. 1 herein had filed a civil suit being CS (OS) No. 40/2010 against the Appellants and the Respondent No. 2 herein inter alia seeking the following prayers:i) a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was the rightful proprietor of trade mark CAPSOLA, CAPSOLA GOLD AND CAPSOLA PREMIUM in relation of animal feed supplement and the stock of CAPSOLA branded goods transferred to Vetnex Animal Health Ltd. by the plaintiff were legitimate goods, manufactured and marketed in accordance with law;ii) a decree for declaration that defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3, on expiry of agreement dated 20.11.2006, have no right to use or claim proprietary right in the trade mark CAPSOLA and any such use thereafter constitutes acts of passing off;iii) a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 from manufacturing, promoting, marketing, distributing, advertising, packaging, selling or offering for sale, directly or indirectly dealing in anima...
Tag this Judgment!