Delhi Court July 2012 Judgments

H.D. Mahi, Ex. Assistant Director, Utcs Govt of Delhi, New Delhi Vs. L ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

ORDER (ORAL) G. George Paracken, J. 1. By this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order of the Lt. Governor of Delhi in his capacity as disciplinary authority under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 ( for short `1965 Rules) imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service served upon him, vide the Annexure A-1 letter No. F.3/5/99/DOV/Pt-IV dated 23.09.2008 of the Addl. Secretary (Vig.), Directorate of Vigilance.  He is also aggrieved by the Annexure A-2 letter No. F.No. 14033/6/2003-Delhi-II dated 25.05.2012 issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India rejecting his appeal dated 16.05.2012 filed under Rule 23/24 of the 1965 Rules against the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority stating that as per Rule 25 of the 1965 Rules, an appeal against the order of penalty has to be filed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order but in the present case, the appeal has b...

M/S. Shri Guru Containers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Oral Order No. Per Archana Wadhwa: 1. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pet jar falling under Chapter 39 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They were registered for their unit located at C-254, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi. Their factory was shifted to E-174, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi on 16.3.2009, in the jurisdiction of the same Range. The appellant filed an intimation to their jurisdictional proper officer on 13.4.2009, for change of address in their registration certificate. Such request was accepted by the Revenue and their registration certificate was amended with new address on 1.5.2009. 2. The appellants were issued two show cause notice. First show cause notice dated 9.2.2010 proposed to deny the Cenvat credit of Rs.1,05,345/- involved in the inputs and capital goods shifted from the earlier address to the subsequent address. The notice also proposed recovery of Central Excise dut...

Roma Henny Security Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. Central Board of Trustees, E ...

Court: Delhi

A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein various prayers are made which include a declaration that provisions of Section 7-Q of the Employees‟Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as „the PF Act‟) are ultra vires. However, the theme of the petition is to challenge the interest levied or received under Section 7-Q of the PF Act amounting to Rs.4,53,886.00 on 3.2.2011and Rs.13,775.00 on 21.7.2007 mainly on the ground that when the damages for late payment of provident fund dues are recovered from the petitioner by passing orders under Section 14 of the PF Act, the interest as prescribed under Section 7-Q of the PF Act cannot be independently charged as that is inbuilt in the slabs of damages and charging of this interest would amount to double payment by the petitioner. The petitioner is an establishment engaged in supplies of manpow...

Mcd Vs. Pushpa Rani and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(4)LLN210

A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. 1. The respondents in all these appeals were working on casual basis in different capacities with MCD. They were all engaged on daily wages. After some time, services of the two respondents were regularized as well. They worked for few years in this capacity. However, thereafter, their services were terminated on different dates sometime in January, 2007 and February, 2007. The main reason for termination of their services, as per the MCD was that they had entered the services on the basis of forged appointment letters and were never recruited after any selection process or by any competent authority even on casual basis. We may mention at this stage that there were large scale of appointments with the MCD with forged/bogus appointments letters and this racket was unearthed. In fact, as would be noted in detail hereinafter, a Public Interest Litigation was also filed in this Court wherein the Court had given directions to the MCD to investigate into th...

Davinder BhasIn Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Delhi

A.K.SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. 1. In this writ petition, which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents for compulsory basic life support training to be given to all the personnel working in all the Hospitals in India and also to personnel of military, para military, fire fighting agencies, police etc. According to the petitioner the bitter experience he had, while is mother Mrs. Raj Kaushlaya Bhasin was getting treatment has come to fore, the necessity of such a training to each and every employee working in the hospitals. He has mentioned in the writ petition as to how the lack of training with hospital attendant who are deputed to take care of his mother led to her unfortunate death. The narration given by the petitioner in this behalf, in the writ petition is as under:- “The petitioner’s mother aged 86 years, was admitted to Max Hospital, 1 Press Enclave Road, Saket, New Delhi for the treatment of pneumoni...

Lg Electronics India Pvt Ltd Vs. Bharat Bhogilal Patel and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(5)CTC(IP)1

ManmohanSingh, J. 1. By this order, I shall dispose of IA No.19079/2011 filed in the CS(OS) No.2982/2011 by the plaintiff under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and I.A. No.19081/2011 filed under Section 80(2) CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are referred as under: 2.1 The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking declaration and consequential reliefs of injunction on the premise that the complaint preferred by the defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff before the defendant no. 2 on the basis of which, the defendant no. 2 is acting upon and interdicting the consignments which are being imported by the plaintiff without preferring an infringement action in accordance with Patents Act 1970 amounts to groundless threats and ought to be prevented by the court. 2.2 The plaintiff claims the following reliefs in the suit: a) An order of declaration, declaring that the complaint filed by the Defendant no. 1 dated 29th September 2010 before Defendant No. 2 for an alleged infringement of Patent no. 1890...

Dabur India Ltd. and Another Vs. Hansa Vision Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Respondent No.1 Hansa Vision Ltd. filed a suit seeking decree in sum of Rs.43,85,605/-. It pleaded being engaged in the business of marketing T.V. serials and advertising on television. It pleaded that Dabur India Ltd., defendant No.1, had appointed Adbur Pvt. Ltd., defendant No.2, as its agent to advertise its products and in turn Adbur Pvt. Ltd. had appointed M/s A.V. Communications, defendant No.3, as the sub-agent, which defendant, in said capacity i.e. of a sub-agent, approached M/s Hansa Vision Ltd. to advertise products of the first defendant during telecast of various programmes by various television networks and for which defendant No.3 issued release orders on April 06, 1995 and April 26, 1995 as also a release order dated nil, pursuant whereto, Hansa Vision obtained slots in various programmes aired by various T.V. networks in which advertisements of defendant No.1 were aired and for which it was pleaded that as per the agreement a sum of Rs.47,13,89...

Shri Zahid Parwez Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

A.K. SIKRI Acting Chief Justice. 1. The appellant was issued a show cause notice dated 20.4.1994 under Section 68H(1) of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the „NDPS Act‟) stating that he was covered under Section 68A(2)(d) of the NDPS Act and had acquired certain properties specified in the said notice illegally within the meaning of the said provision of Section 68B(g) of the NDPS Act. After receiving the reply, the Competent Authority passed the orders dated 16.10.1997 holding that the properties were acquired illegally, which were forfeited by the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Competent Authority for the forfeited properties was dismissed. Challenging that order, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 21.10.2011. It is against this order, the present Letters Patent App...

Ram Rattan Vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi

A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. 1. By means of judgment dated 25.3.2011 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant herein. In the said writ petition the appellant had made a grievance that he was wrongly denied promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the Scheduled Caste Category in the years 1992-93 and 1994 and sought mandamus to promote him as Senior Assistant from the post of Assistant (Typist). The learned Single Judge, for the reasons stated in the said order held that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion because of his non-selection in each of the years and did not find any fault with the selection process. The promotion policy of the respondent was taken note of which provided that selection is to be made on the basis of seniority, qualification and work record and also the appraisal criteria and weightage is to be given in respect of each of the aforesaid components namely, seniority, qualification and work record. On reading thereof, t...

Om Bir Singh, Balabgarh Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Del ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 20.11.2009 whereby he was compulsorily retried from service by the disciplinary authority (page 30), order dated 13.9.2010 (page 32) whereby appellate authority reduced the punishment as follows:- (i) Cash debar till retirement (ii) Reduction to the lowest grade in the same time scale till retirement, i.e., 30.6.2015 with cumulative effect. and order dated 28.2.2011 (page 34) whereby revisionary authority upheld the punishment imposed by the appellate authority. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant are that he was served with a charge sheet dated 2.12.2000 with the following Article of Charges:- Article No.1 He is responsible for producing Rs.2250/- short in his government cash with unconvincing reason. Article No.2 He had been issued eleven (02 Major and 09 Minor) charge sheets in the past for committing irregularities as such deliberately violating the rules, excess and shortage in the government cash a...