Delhi Court July 2012 Judgments

Sudhirkumar C.S. New Delhi Vs. the Union of India, Represented by the ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A): 1. The applicant in this OA was working as Assistant Station Master in `C Cabin of Ernakulam Junction Railway Station of Trivandrum Division of Southern Railway. He was issued with major penalty charge sheet on 04.11.2005.  He denied all the seven charges against him and Inquiry Officer was appointed vide orders dated 10.02.2006.  According to the applicant, at the time of the 8th sitting of the inquiry, he fell ill and submitted a Medical Certificate to this effect but the 8th sitting was held ex parte.  For the 9th sitting also, he sent a message for postponement of date on account of his illness but the inquiry was held ex parte. The applicant filed his defence statement on 20.03.2007 and requested for conducting the inquiry from the stage it was held ex parte but this request was not acceded to.  The inquiry report was finalized and copy sent to the applicant on 02.05.2007.  Some pages were illegible and the report was not...

Ravi Kumar, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Applicant has challenged Notification dated 7.1.2010 and orders dated 24.8.2011 and 5.10.2011 with a further prayer that respondents be directed to make such a criteria in the Notification dated 7.1.2010 that even those employees who are working in the Electric Loco Shed, Tughlaqabad with effect from 1996 should be given relaxation on the pattern of those employees who were employed on or before 12.8.2002 since they were required to have educational qualification only up to 10th standard, so that applicant may be considered by the respondents in accordance with law and give him promotion, if he is found suitable otherwise. 2. The brief facts stated by the applicant are that he was appointed Khalasi in the year 1993 through direct recruitment and was posted at Patiala, Punjab in Diesel Component Work Establishment.  In 1996, applicant was transferred at Tughlaqabad in Electric Loco Shed and since then he has been working in the above said Loco She...

Dr.(Ms.) V.L. Bhargava and Another Vs. Shri Balwant Singh and Another

Court: Delhi

ANIL KUMAR, J. This judgment shall dispose of the suit of Dr. Bhargava and Anr., hereinafter referred to as 'owner's'/Plaintiff; suit for recovery of Rs.22,69,894.50 with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the cross suit of Balwant Singh, hereinafter referred to as 'Builder'/Defendants for recovery of Rs.2,67,150/- with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 24 % per annum on the principal amount from 1.5.2003 till the decision of the suit. CS(OS) No.1530/2003 1. The owners contended that plaintiff No.1 is a well known gynecologist and plaintiff No.2 is a retired Army Officer and brother of plaintiff No.1. They jointly purchased a land measuring 743.15 sq.mtrs. bearing No.49 on Pine Drive in Malibu Town, District Gurgaon, Haryana, by a registered sale deed dated 29th March, 2000. The physical possession of the plot was handed over on 5th May, 2000. After getting the possession, the plaintiffs contemplated the construction of a residential house o...

Union of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(3)KLT52(SN)(C.No.52)

ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Union of India, seeking the quashing of the order/judgment dated 8th August, 2006 passed by respondent no.1, Central Information Commission, directing the production of the document/correspondences, disclosure of which was sought by respondent no.2, Shri C. Ramesh, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2, Shri C. Ramesh, by way of an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 sought the disclosure from the Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as „CPIO‟) of all the letters sent by the former President of India, Shri K.R. Narayanan, to the then Prime Minister, Shri A.B. Vajpayee, between 28th February, 2002 to 15th March, 2002 relating to „Gujarat riots”. 3. The CPIO by a communication dated 28th November, 2005 denied the request of respondent no.2 on the following groun...

Mohd. Saleem @ Salim Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order on sentence dated 31st May, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the Appellant and the co-accused for offences punishable under section 392/397/34 IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the Appellant and the co-accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The co-accused Mohd. Aslam had already served the sentence awarded to him by the learned Trial Court thus Crl. Appeal No. 503/2000 preferred by him stands disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 17th May, 2012. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based upon conjunctures and surmises and is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the factual matrix of the case and ign...

Twentieth Century Fox Film Vs. Zee Telefilms Ltd. and ors

Court: Delhi

ANIL KUMAR, J.1. These are the applications by the plaintiff/applicant under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and under Order 26 Rule 9 seeking interim injunction against Zee Telefilms Ltd from making, telecasting or broadcasting or in any other manner communicating to the public the television serial/cinematograph film titled `Time Bomb' and not to do anything without obtaining a license from the plaintiff and for directions to the defendants, their partners, servants, agents, representatives to hand over possession of the infringing copies and all other incriminating material including the original script and all plates for production of cinematograph film titled `Time Bomb' in a suit for permanent, I.A Nos. 4776, 4777/2005 in C.S (OS) 868/2005 Page 1 of 85 mandatory injunction and rendition of accounts for the alleged infringement of copyright of the plaintiff.2. The suit was initially filed against M/s.Zee Telefilms Ltd. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application be...

C.S. Kapoor, Delhi Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Mahanagar T ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J): 1. By way of present Original Application, applicant has espoused his grievance against refusal to restoration of his pay in the pay scale of Rs.7450-225-11500 and denial of benefit of Notification dated 2.03.2009. As can be captured from the Original Application, the applicant who was initially appointed as LDC, earned regular promotions and was finally promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer in the year 2004. On the recommendations of Vth Central Pay Commission, pay scale of Assistant Audit Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer was revised from Rs.2000-3200 to Rs. 6500-10,500. In terms of Office Memo dated 28.02.2003 issued by  OA 1708/2011 the Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, the pay scale of some of the posts and their equivalent in Organized Accounts Cadres in various Ministries/Departments of the Government of India was upgraded on notional basis w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and actual payment in upgraded scale was to be made w.e.f. 19.02.2003. The pay ...

K. Kannan, Peon Mts New Delhi and Others Vs. the Chairperson, National ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. Six applicants (two LDCs and four Peons) working from July, 2008 on ad hoc basis in the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) whose temporary service has not been extended, have joined together in the present OA seeking following relief(s): 8.1  To direct the respondent to consider the applicants for appointment on regular basis in the cadre of LDCs and Peon at par with the similarly circumstances officials who have been offered regular appointments; 8.2  To set aside the impugned order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the respondent thereby not extending and terminating the ad hoc service of the applicants; or 8.3  In the alternative to direct the respondent to consider extending the ad hoc service of the applicants till the regular appointees join the posts; 8.4  Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate, in the circumstances of the case. 2. Brief factual matrix of the case would disclose t...

Vinod Kumar Sandlesh, Director, Indian Cultural Centre, Consulate Gene ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Per Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. These three Original Applications and the Contempt Petition of the same applicant/petitioner, with almost the same set of respondents (except in the last third OA filed on 21.01. 2012 in which the name of the private respondent/Respondent No.3 was added) came to be heard together and are, therefore, being disposed of through a common order. OA No.4640/2011 2. The applicant of these three OAs is a permanent Central Government employee, in the Central Translation Bureau, Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. He responded to an advertisement floated by Respondent No.2, the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR, in short) for being appointed as Director of the Indian Cultural Centre at Johannesburg (ICCJ, in short) in South Africa. He had earlier worked in a similar capacity under the ICCR itself at Port of Spain. In view of his past experience in the field, his application was viewed favourably, and the ICCR recomm...

Uoi and Others Vs. Engineering and Ind. Corporation Pvt. Ltd

Court: Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Save and except one issue, various issues raised in LPA No.415/2005, LPA No.1125/2007, LPA No.1233/2007, LPA No.134/2008, LPA No.301/2008, LPA No.381/2008, LPA No.468/2009, LPA No.581/2009, LPA No.397/2011, LPA No.635/2011 and LPA No.650/2011 were answered by a Division Bench Coram : Pradeep Nandrajog, J. and Sunil Gaur, J. vide judgment dated February 28, 2012. One question was referred to a Larger Bench, as framed in para 81 of the decision dated February 28, 2012, and the same pertains to a policy circular considered and opined upon by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported as 2005(1) AD (Delhi) 634 UOI vs. Vinay Kumar Aggarwal. 2. While referring the question, it was recorded that the same arises out of a policy guideline dated August 02, 1996. In para 84 of the order dated February 28, 2012 it is expressly recorded that notwithstanding the question of law being referred to a Larger Bench and requiring the registry to place before the Hon&#...