Delhi Court October 2012 Judgments

Deepika Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for calling the record of execution petition no. 224 of 2008 titled as, “Kartar Singh and Others vs. Union of India”, from the court of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Addl. District Judge (hereinafter called “ADJ”), Rohini Courts, Delhi, and to invoke the powers of superintendence of this Court in order to adjudge the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 08.07.2010, vide which the said execution petition was dismissed as being barred by time, and to set aside this order, as being illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. The facts of the case are that a piece of land measuring 6 bighas, 2 biswas was owned by Sh. Kartar Singh, who held 50% share, and Joginder Kumar, Deep Chand (deceased) and Ramesh Kumar (deceased father of the Petitioner), who jointly held the rest of the 50% share. In the year 1981, the Land Acquisition Controller (hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) ...

Shri Kishan Kant Vs. Professor Sameer Kumar Bharamchari, the Director ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

(ORAL) Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) The Contempt Petition No.406/2012 has been filed by the original applicant alleging non compliance of the Tribunals directions in the OA No.3737/2010 passed vide its order dated 25.02.2011. 2. The OA had been allowed and disposed with the following directions :- 12. In view of the above, the O.A. is allowed. The charge sheet issued vide order dated 22nd December, 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. If on account of the pendency of the proceedings the applicants promotion/advance increments has been withheld or the recommendations kept in sealed cover, the same shall be activated and further action taken on the basis of the recommendations, without being influenced by the issue of the charge sheet. This exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 3. While filing the CP, the applicant has contended about non action on the part of the respondents in grant of promotion/advance incremen...

Sh. Sanjay Jain, Ae (Electrical), Office of Superintendent Engineer (E ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

(in Circulation) Shri G. George Paracken: This Review Application has been filed by the applicant in MA 1047/2012 in OA 2947/2009 which has been allowed vide order dated 24.07.2012. The relevant part of the said order read as under: 6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the MA and grant further four months time to the respondents from 02.04.2012 to complete the proceedings without fail. We make it clear that no further extension shall be given to the respondents to complete the proceedings. The applicant shall also cooperate with the respondents fully so that no further time is wasted in completion of the proceedings. 2. The applicant has sought review of the aforesaid order on the following grounds: (1) The Tribunals observation in its order dated 24.07.2012 that the applicant was not co-operative and that he applied for change of the Inquiry Officer or postponement of the Inquiry is factually wrong, in that the applicant never asked for a change of Inquiry Of...

Rajiv Ranjan Vs. Union Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Shri Rajiv Ranjan, an Officer of 1988 Batch of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service (DANIPS), the applicant herein, being a regular Junior Administrative Grade I (JAG-I) of DANIPS and holding the post of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Security (Headquarter, Delhi Police) has been aggrieved by the letter dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure A-1) issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) wherein it was intimated that IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 did not provide for suo motto review of a select list after the same was approved by the Commission and follow up notification issued by the Government of India. It is the case of the applicant that his name came within the zone of consideration for promotion/induction into IPS for the vacancies of 2010, as the Government of India (Ministry of Home Affairs) vide letter dated 30.03.2011 determined 30 vacancies for promotion to the IPS of the Union Territory (UT) Segment of Joi...

Kapil Wadhwa and Others Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The interesting issue, in the field of the Trade Mark law, which arises for consideration in the instant appeal has an immense bearing on trade and commerce in India. This perhaps is the reason why the learned Single Judge has laboriously dealt with the issues and has painstakingly coalesced the arguments and collaged the ratio of law in 30 judicial pronouncements. While chartering the voyage the learned Single Judge has steered the ship in the choppy waters guided by what he saw to be lighthouses. Since we are renavigating the same waters, our job in appeal would be to see: Whether what were perceived to be lighthouses were actually mirages, and due to which, on the wrong belief that these were rocky areas, the course of the ship was steered in a wrong direction to reach a wrong port of destination. 2. The waters are that the respondents (‘Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.’) and ‘Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.’) are companies incorp...

Sunil Kumar Vs.

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Obtaining six days casual leave on the ground of his aunt being unwell, the petitioner, a Constable with Central Reserve Police Force, proceeded on leave on April 16, 1998, requiring him to report back on April 23, 1998. The petitioner did not report back till May 03, 1998 and the Commandant of the concerned battalion issued a letter dated May 04, 1999 directing the petitioner to report forthwith for duty. The petitioner did not report back. Being subject to the discipline of a Central Para Military Force where a Constable cannot simply desert, the Commandant moved an application before the Court of the concerned Magistrate within whose territorial jurisdiction the petitioner permanently resided to apprehend the petitioner and produce him before the Commandant of the nearest CRPF Battalion. A warrant of apprehension was issued on June 22, 1998, but could not be executed. 2. The petitioner reported for duty on August 28, 1998 and on September 23, 1998 a charge s...

Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(5)CTC(IP)22

SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the illegal opinion of the Vice Chairman IPAB wherein the Vice Chairman has rejected the papers of specialized experience of the petitioner for appointment of the post of Member Technical (Trademarks) under section 85 (4) (b) of Trade Marks and Merchandise Act of 1999. II. Issue a writ of Certiorari directing the Respondent to quash the appointment Notice No. 7(1) 2010/IPR./PAB published in Times of India and other leading Newspapers dated 16th April 2011 inviting fresh applications for the Post of Member Technical (Trade Mark) of IPAB and summoning all records from the respondent in respect of all the prior appointments made from 2005 onward. III. Issue a writ of prohibition directing the respondent to not select or to carry out appointment process for the selection of new candidate for the post of Member Technical (Trademarks) in Intell...

Cpi India I Ltd Vs. Bptp Ltd and Others

Court: Delhi

ORDER 1. By this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’), CPI India I Limited (‘CPI’), a company organized under the laws of Mauritius and having its registered office address at Ebene in Mauritius, has sought interim reliefs against BPTP Ltd. (‘BPTP’) (Respondent No. 1), an Indian company , and twenty-four other Respondents in relation to the disputes that have arisen between CPI and the Respondents from the Share Subscription Agreement (‘SSA’) dated 10th August 2007; Shareholders’ Agreement (‘SHA’) dated 10th August 2007 as further amended by the Amendment Agreement dated 9th July 2008 (‘Agreement’) and a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) dated 19th December 2009 entered into between CPI and the Respondents. 2. The background to the present petition is that the Respondents 2 and 3 are the Promoters of BPTP, Respondent No. 1. An SSA was entered into betwee...

Smt. Shakuntla Kalra Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secre ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

(ORAL) Shri G. George Paracken: This is the second round of litigation by the applicant seeking a direction to the respondents to grant her re-employment w.e.f. 01.09.2010 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. 2. Earlier, she had filed OA 3485/2010 challenging the Annexure A-3 order of the respondents dated 23.08.2010 rejecting her application dated 02.08.2010 for re-employment on the ground that her previous work and conduct were not found satisfactory. The applicant had submitted in the said OA that there were three grounds taken by the Principal stating her work and conduct report was not satisfactory, namely (i) that she had gone abroad without getting the leave sanctioned and a show cause notice was served upon her in that regard but she did not bother to submit the reply to the same; (ii) that she had threatened the Principal for not considering her request for re-employment and a memorandum was served upon her in that regard but she refused to ...

R.K. Anand Vs. Shri P K Tripathi and Another

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

(ORAL) Shri G George Paracken: This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the common order of this Tribunal dated 18.04.2012 in OA No. 1266/2012 and OA 1267/2012. The petitioner was the Applicant in OA No. 1266/2012 (supra). The relevant part of the said order reads as under:- 3. In my considered view, both these OAs can be disposed of at the admission stage itself by directing the respondents to consider the aforesaid representations of the applicant and dispose them of by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the rules, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They may also consider these OAs as supplementary representations on behalf of the applicant. Accordingly, both these OAs are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 4. Let a copy of this order be placed in the file of OA No.1267/2012. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Tribunal, the respondents have passed order No.F....