Delhi Court June 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 10 of about 102 results (0.021 seconds)Prem Nath and Others Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The 24 petitioners seek the relief of regularization of their services with the respondent ONGC with all consequential benefits and an order restraining the respondent ONGC from terminating their services and further a direction for payment to them equal wages as being paid by the respondent ONGC to the other regular employees. During the pendency of the petition, CM.No.1817/2006 was filed by the petitioners and by interim order dated 14th February, 2006 thereon, status quo was directed to be maintained in respect of the petitioners' employment. The said order has continued in force till now.2. The petitioners joined service of respondent ONGC in the year 1984- 86 at the Jwalamukhi Project of the respondent ONGC. It is the case of the petitioners that inspite of permanent and perennial nature of the w...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Khurana Vs Lokeshwar Nath Gulati and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. This appeal has been preferred by the owner of a car bearing No.DL-1C/D-7676, involved in an accident and causing injuries to a two-wheeler driver. The main contention of the appellant is that he had given his car for repairing to a garage owner. He was not in control of the car at the time of accident and the garage owner had sent one of his boys for trial of the car, who was driving the car at the time of accident. The appellant was not aware if the car had been taken for trial. The Tribunal wrongly disbelieved the plea of the appellant on the ground that no bill for repairs was proved and the garage owner was not examined.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that on 18th September, 2004 at about 11:30 a.m., the aforesaid car owned by the appellant being driven by one Sh. Umesh Kumar, respon...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Mehra Vs Pritpal Singh
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.Should the court in a case where an arbitral award is silent with regard to the payment of interest from the date of the award till realization, direct payment of interest for the said period @ 18% per annum having regard to the provisions of Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?The above, in short, is the point in issue. It is not in dispute that in the case in hand, the arbitrator has simply awarded a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- towards rectification of defects and other miscellaneous claims, with a direction for payment of the Ex. same within 30 days of the receipt of the award, but with no further direction for payment of interest from the date of the award till realization. The award in question was challenged before Additional District Judge who dismissed the same, against...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Steel Inc. Vs Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. During pendency of this appeal, this Court considered that the LRs/dependents of deceased were liable to receive at least the compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act out of the amount already deposited by the appellant.2. It seems to be a case where deceased was working with the appellant and he got killed while driving the scooter owned by the appellant company. Evidently, the deceased was going for some work of the company, otherwise the company would not have provided him a scooter. The age of the deceased was 28 years. His annual salary has been mentioned as Rs. 39,000/- on the date of accident which is less than minimum wages of a person. I consider that the deceased was liable to draw minimum wages at the time of accident.3. The proper principle amount under the Workmen Compensation Act payable to the LRs of ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Freight Carriers Pvt Ltd Vs Kusum Lata and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? YesORDER.(ORAL)This appeal has been preferred against the notice dated October 03, 2008 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, calling upon the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.3,17,086/-, failing which, the notice goes on to say that the amount will be recovered through arrest warrants or attachment. The impugned notice is a sequel to an order dated August 04, 2008 passed by the Commissioner under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 granting in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 a sum of Rs.1,04,120/- as interest on the amount of compensation awarded to the said respondents on account of death of Shri Pratap Singh, husband of respondent No.1 while he was in employment with the appellant and also granting a further sum of Rs.1,58,500/- by way of penalty.At the outset, i...
Tag this Judgment!Narmala Devi and ors. Vs Subey Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. By this judgment I shall dispose of the above two appeals arising out of an award dated 6th October, 1995 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Appeal No. 31 of 1996 has been filed by claimants seeking enhancement in the compensation and Appeal No. 108 of 1996 has been filed by the owner of offending vehicle assailing the award on the ground that there was no negligence of the driver and that the Tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Both these appeals have been contested by the insurance company, who supported the order of the Trial Court on the issue of its liability being limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-.2. Brief facts necessary for deciding these two appeals are that on 7th June, 1985 Devinder Kumar, police Constable, aged 22 years was hit by Truck No. DEG 3386, while he ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Bhupender Kumar Vs Shri Vinod Etc
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant assailing the award dated 11th February, 2010 on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and insufficient.2. The claimant suffered a permanent disability of 37% in relation to his right leg in the accident which took place on 4 th April, 2005. He was awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- by the Tribunal. In the appeal the plea taken by the appellant is that the Tribunal wrongly considered his disability of 37% in the right leg as over-all disability of 20% and awarded compensation on the basis of 20% disability. It is submitted that the appellant was working as a cook just before the accident and his leg was an important aspect of his profession because a cook has to work standing. The appellant also contended that the amount of Rs. 8,000/- a...
Tag this Judgment!Diamond Copy House Vs M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? 1. This application has been moved by the appellant for condonation of 685 days delay in filing the appeal. The Award was passed on 23rd March, 2007. The appeal against the Award has been filed on 11th May, 2009. While stating the grounds of condonation of delay, it was stated that appellant was residing and working for gain in Chandigarh. He had entrusted the work of defending his interest through a counsel Mr. H.S. Pahwa, Advocate. Mr. Pahwa, Advocate did not inform the appellant about the passing of the Award and as such the appellant could not prefer appeal within time. The appellant got the knowledge of passing of the Award in the year 2008. The appellant tried to contact Mr. Pahwa, Advocate but could not ascertain the position. He got back the file of the case from Mr. Pahwa, Advocate in the month of February, 2009. The...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Raj Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be reported YES in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of the charge sheet dated 28th February, 2002 served on him and of the departmental inquiry instituted against him for the reason of it being based on the same facts on which he is being prosecuted for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the list of documents and list of witnesses appended to the charg sheet is identical to the list of witnesses and list of documents in the criminal prosecution. It is further contended that if the departmental proceedings are permitted to proceed, the petitioner would be compelled to disclose his defence in the criminal prosecution and which would prejudice the petitioner in the criminal prosecution. It is further contended that the offence with...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mst. Suraiya Begum and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?1. The New India Assurance Company Limited by way of present appeal has assailed an award dated 28th November, 1994 wherein learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- in favour of the claimants and directed the insurance company to pay the entire award holding that the insurance company had failed to prove that its liability was limited.2. It is not disputed by the Appellant Company that it has not brought on record of the Tribunal the insurance policy. It is submitted that the insurance company could not produce the carbon copy/original insurance policy in question as the same got misplaced and was not traceable. However, the same got traced after passing of award and was being filed along with the appeal and a prayer was made that this carbon copy should be considered by the Court under ord...
Tag this Judgment!