Delhi Court August 2012 Judgments

Pramod Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

ORDER 1. This petition has been received on transfer from the Bombay High Court after coming into force of the Armed Forces Tribunal as the Bombay Regional Bench of the Tribunal is not functioning because of the lack of Judicial Member. Therefore, this petition has been transferred to the Principal Bench at New Delhi. 2. Petitioner vide this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the order of discharge dated 30.09.2005 and order dated 15.05.2009 being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in Naval services with full salary and back-wages. 3. The respondents invited applications from young male candidates for enrolment as Matric Entry Recruits (MER) for 2/2002 Batch. The petitioner applied for the post and after clearing the necessary exam for the said post, received an offer letter dated 10.07.2002 for enrolment in the Indian Navy. He was initially directed ...

Cit Vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia

Court: Delhi

R.V. EASWAR, J. 1. ITA Nos.1626, 1632, 1998, 2006, 2019 and 2020 of 2010 are six appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereafter referred to as the “Act”. The assessment years involved are 2000-01 and 2002-03 to 2005-06. 2. On 14th May, 2012, the following substantial questions of law were framed, which are common to all the six appeals and they were heard: - “1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer had wrongly invoked Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,50,000/- made in the assessment year 2000-01 on account of unexplained unaccounted loan to Mohini Sharma and interest thereon of Rs.27,000/- in the assessment year 2003-04 to 2005-07?” 3. We may clarify that in Q. No.2 the reference to the assessment year “2000-01” should rightly be “2003-04” and ...

Cvcigp Ii Client Rosehill Ltd and Others Vs. Sanjay JaIn and Others

Court: Delhi

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The present appeal under Section XXXVII of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 has been filed by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1st May, 2012 passed in OMP No.172/2012 whereby the appellants‟petition under Section 9 of the Act was disposed of on the basis of undertakings given by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. 2. The main grievance of the appellants is that the said undertakings are defective and insufficient which do not provide enforceable protection against each of the respondents. The appellants have challenged the impugned order by stating that they have been denied interim measure of protection qua respondent No.3 despite of admitted fact that the cheques for Rs.1,244,947,936/- issued by the respondent No.3 have been bounced and no undertaking was sought from the said respondent in order to secure the said amount. 3. Before deal...

Hotel Corporation of India Vs. Sudesh Kumar Julka and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(4)LLN201

P.K.BHASIN, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the orders dated 20.12.2003, 4.02.2004 and 20.03.2004passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I in O.P. No. 27 of 1991 which was filed by the petitioner-management under section 33-2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking approval of its decision taken to dismiss the respondent-workman from its services vide order dated 25.09.1991. By order dated 20th December, 2003 the Industrial Tribunal had decided the preliminary issue of validity of the enquiry held against the respondent-workman before dismissing him from service was decided against the petitioner-management. By order dated 4th February, 2004 the Industrial Tribunal had rejected the petitioner’s application filed after the decision of the issue of enquiry for allowing it to adduce evidence before the tribunal for establishing the misconducts of the re...

Subhash Chander Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

ORDER Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 11.5.2011 whereby his candidature for the post of Constable in Delhi Police has been cancelled (page 16). 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant are that he had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police in the year 2009. After he cleared all the tests/examination, he was provisionally selected to the said post, subject to verification of character and antecedents etc. Applicant was acquitted in FIR No. 147/2003. As far as FIR No. 200/2004 is concerned, his name was not even included as an accused yet he was issued a show cause notice on the ground that he has no regard for woman and had indulged in a heinous offence. The allegations show that applicant is aggressive in nature, therefore, he should explain why his candidature should not be cancelled. Applicant immediately gave reply to the said show cause notice by placing on record the judgment dated 25.11.2005 whereby he had ...

Dav College Managing Committee and Another Vs. Bimla Devi and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(4)LLN195

1. These writ petitions are filed against the common award dated 1st October, 2007 whereby Smt. Bimla Devi was held to be a worker and entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement. 2. The facts in brief are that Smt. Bimla Devi was appointed as an Aya on 20th July, 1995 on ad-hoc/temporary basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month and she worked thereon till 10th May, 1996. On 1st July, 1996 Smt. Bimla Devi was again appointed as Aya on ad-hoc/temporary basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1500/- which continued till 19th March, 1998 when her services were terminated due to closure of the Nursery Wing in the school. Against the said termination representation was made by Smt. Bimla Devi to the Education Department and the Deputy Education Officer, Zone-1 directed reinstatement of Smt. Bimla Devi. On 6th July, 1998 Smt. Bimla Devi was again allowed to join duty on the post of Aya on daily wages on her agreeing to perform all the duties of Aya. However...

Ashwani Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi

G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant who is the owner of Tata Tempo No.DL-1LE-5154, which caused the accident resulting in grievous injuries to Respondent No.2, takes exception to a judgment dated 03.09.2011 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) while awarding a compensation of Rs.3,45,398/- and making the First Respondent Oriental Insurance Company Limited initially liable to pay the compensation, granted recovery rights to the First Respondent against the Appellant. 2. It is admitted case of the parties that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods vehicle and it did not posses any permit at the time of the accident. 3. At the time of hearing, the following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:- (i) There was negligence on the part of Second Respondent (the Claimant). Hence, the Appellant had no liability to pay the compensation. (ii) The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,73,828/- for loss of leave. Since the Second Respondent...

National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Krishna and Others

Court: Delhi

G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 05.02.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.4,98,600/- was awarded in favour of the Claimants (Respondents No.1 to 6) for the death of Vijender Singh who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 11.02.1996. 2. A Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) was preferred by the Respondents No.1 to 6 alleging that the deceased Vijender Singh was employed as a driver with Respondent No.7 Joginder Singh on a salary of Rs.3,500/- per month. It was averred that on the fateful day, that is, on 11.02.1996 at about 1:00 A.M., the deceased was sleeping in the truck No.DL-1H-9503 as the second driver. Respondent No.7 while driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed struck against the rocks as a result of which the deceased suffered injuries which proved to be fatal. A compensation of Rs.15 lacs was cla...

Anil Kumar Vs. Uoi and Others

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Having joined BSF as a Constable in the year 1988, the petitioner was attached to the 69th Bn. of BSF as on January 27, 1999, and was a part of “C”Company of the battalion, which was posted at Border Out Post (BOP) Noorpur. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, and for which assertion made by the petitioner, he admittedly gave proof to the superior authorities that he had swelling in his testicles due to which he was in pain. It is the case of the petitioner that his medical problem was known to the Coy Commander Subedar S.Chatterjee, who had assured him that he would give light duties to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that he learnt that the Coy Commander Subedar S.Chatterjee, HC Gurkmukh Singh and L/Nk. Mithiliesh Kumar were engaged in or were facilitating smuggling activities and even they learnt about the petitioner having said knowledge and thus extended threats to the petitioner to falsely implicate him; and despite th...

Sub. Hans Raj Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

S.S. Dhillon, Member 1. By this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of his discharge order of 6th January 2012 issued by Defence Security Corps (DSC) Records. He also seeks an extension of service till the age of 57 years. 2. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 31st December 1976 and was periodically promoted in his own turn and retired as a Havildar on 30th October 1995. Immediately thereafter he applied to join the DSC and on 5th July 1997 he joined the DSC as a Havildar and was granted an initial period of five years of service up to 4th July 2002. Thereafter he received his first extension of service from 5th July 2002 to 4th July 2007 during which period he was promoted as a Naib Subedar on 30th August 2004. Subsequently he received his second extension of five years of service from 5th July 2007 to 4th July 2012 during which period he received his promotion to the rank of Subedar on 1st August 2009. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that he has not been gi...