Delhi Court June 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 8 of about 102 results (0.025 seconds)Sh. Ram Singh Vs the Presiding Officer, Labour Court
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 petitioner workman by this writ petition impugned the award dated 22nd January, 1997 of the Labour Court holding the removal by the respondent no.2 DTC of the petitioner workman from service as illegal and unjustified but granting relief of lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- only to the petitioner workman in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. It is the plea of the petitioner workman that the Labour Court having found his removal from service to be bad, the relief of reinstatement with back wages ought to have followed and the relief granted of compensation of Rs.50,000/- only is illusory and not even adequate compensation in lieu of the relief of reinstatement and / or back wages.2. Rule was issued in the writ petition on 7th July, 2000. The petitioner workman died on 23rd September, 2002 lea...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ifci Limited
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? no3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? no ORDER1.In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act), the revenue has called in question the legal sustainability of the order dated 31st October, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the tribunal) in ITA 4664/Delhi/2007.2. At the very outset, it is apposite to note that the tribunal was dealing with two appeals, one preferred by the assessee which pertained to assessment year 1996-97 and the other preferred by the revenue, i.e. ITA No. 4507/Delhi/2007 which related to assessment year 1998-99.3. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the only issue that emerged for consideration before the tribunal pertained to confirmation of penalty in respect of investments written off. The said claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. In course of asses...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Sh. Veer Bahadur and anr
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 petitioner MCD seeks a writ of certiorari quashing / setting aside of the award dated 12th August, 1996 of the Labour Court on the following reference:"Whether Shri Veer Bahadur has abandoned his services or his services have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the Management and if so, what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" 2. The petitioner MCD though had filed a reply / written statement to the claim of the respondent no.1 workman before the Labour court but failed to lead any evidence. The Labour Court has held that the termination of the services of the respondent workman was in violation of Section 25F of the ID Act and thus illegal. Accordingly, the petitioner MCD has been directed to reinstate the respondent workman but with back wage...
Tag this Judgment!Dilbhag Singh Vs D.T.C. and anr.
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 in the Digest? NoORDER.1. The petitioner workman by this writ petition impugns the order dated 10th May, 2001 of the Industrial Tribunal allowing the application of the respondent no.1 DTC under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act and thereby approving the action of the respondent DTC of removal of the petitioner workman from service. The petitioner workman contends that the said application of the respondent DTC under Section 33(2)(b) is liable to be dismissed and consequently the petitioner workman entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity etc.2. The petitioner workman was working as a Conductor with the respondent DTC; it is his case that he was on 24th March, 1989 implicated in a false case on the basis of the report of the Checking Staff. A charge sheet dated 10th April, 1989 was issued to the petitioner workman. In...
Tag this Judgment!Balwinder Singh Vs Union of India and ors.
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 in the Digest? Yes ORDER1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the findings and sentence dated 14th October, 1997 of the Summary Security Force Court (`SSFC' hereafter) as well as the order dated 26th September, 2007 passed by the Director General of the Border Security Force, respondent no.2 herein, upholding the same.2. The petitioner was enrolled as a constable with the Border Security Force Court on or about 26th/27th December, 1988. In the year 1996, the petitioner was posted at the Station Headquarters, BSF Siliguri and was attached to the 137 th Battalion of the BSF. While so serving with the 137th Battalion, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 12th April, 1996 issued by the commandant of the battalion under Rule 53(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1969 (BSF Act, 1969 h...
Tag this Judgment!The Hindustan Times Limited Vs Sh. Arun Kumar 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 petitioner employer by this writ petition impugns the award dated 4th January, 2002 of the Labour court on reference dated 11 th March, 1992 as follows:-"Whether Sh. Arun Kumar abandoned his services or his services were terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"The Labour Court held that the respondent no.1 Arun Kumar had not abandoned his services; that his services were terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the petitioner. The Labour Court granted the relief of reinstatement with back wages, consequential benefits and the other benefits which the respondent no.1 had been deprived of since his illegal termination.2. At the outset, it may be clarified that the respondent no.1 i...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Hav/Clk (Sd) Khyali Singh Versus the Union of India ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The original application was filed by the applicant on 11/11/2009 at the Armed Forces Tribunal. The applicant has challenged the refixation of his seniority consequent to the merger of Clerks Staff Duties (SD) with Clerks General Duties (GD). 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army as clerk on 10/3/86. After 14 weeks of technical training the recruits were tested and divided into two categories. The applicant contends that the toppers were assigned the trade of Clerk (SD) and the remaining were nominated as Clerk (GD). The former category were retained in the Army Clerks Training School for four additional weeks special training. The applicant contends that cadre management of both categories of clerks continued according to separate seniority lists. 3. The applicant maintains that he was posted to various assignments and was promoted Havildar (Hav) on 10/2/93. His less competent batch mates, who were assigned the trade of Clerk (GD), were however promoted Hav/Nb Sub, much ahead t...
Tag this Judgment!Grasim Industries Ltd Vs Uoi 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 the judgment should be reported in Digest ORDER(ORAL)Allowed subject to all just exceptions.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.12.2009 issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The petitioner had claimed rebate in respect of central excise duty paid on raw materials as well as in respect of central excise duty paid on the final products. The petitioner's claim in respect of the rebate qua final products has been allowed by the authorities below. However, the rebate in respect of duty paid on raw materials has been disallowed. It is because of this that the petitioner is before us by way of this writ petition.2. The petitioner manufactures man-made fabrics as well as polyester/ viscose blended yarn falling under Chapter 55 of the Sche...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjit Singh and ors. Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The petitioners by way of present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to challenge the notification dated 04.03.2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act for short) and the declaration dated 04.02.2004 under Section 6 of the said Act in respect of the lands situated in Village Bhalswa, Jahangirpur, Delhi. The public purpose of acquisition, as indicated in the notification, is rehabilitation of JJ clusters.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the persons who had occupied public land cannot be rehabilitated at the cost of the petitioners by acquiring their land.3. During the course of hearing of the present writ petitions, strong reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners inter alia on the judgment of the Division Bench of this ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Indus Valley Estates and Farms ... Vs Secretaries and Exchange Boa ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?ORDER.The revisionist has challenged the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed in C.C.No.02 of 2009, titled as 'Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) & another v. M/s Indus Valley Estates & Farms Ltd', rejecting the application moved on behalf of the petitioner/accused No.1 for summoning the witness in respect of audit carried out by the auditor of the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) & another. Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint under Section 24 (1) & 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992 against the revisionist and another alleging violation of the directions given by respondent No.1 vide Notification dated 7th December, 2000, directing the revisionist to refund the money collected under the Collective Investment Scheme, within a period of one month.On the alleged failure of the revisionist to comply with...
Tag this Judgment!