Delhi Court September 2012 Judgments

Surender Singh Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Delhi

Manmohan Singh, J. 1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 20th December, 2011 passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the petitioner’s petition under Section 9(3) of CISF Act; order dated 8th June, 2007 passed by respondent No.3 dismissing the petitioner’s review petition; order dated 27th October, 2006 passed by respondent No.4 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal; and the order dated 31st July, 2006 passed by respondent No.5 imposing the penalty of pay reduction by 3 stages for a period of 2 years with a further direction that he would not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the period his further increments of pay would also be postponed. 2. The petitioner was appointed in CISF as a Constable on 1st January, 1987. On 14th April, 2005 the petitioner was posted to CISF Unit at IOC Mathura, U.P. On 9th December, 2005 a din...

Gnct of Delhi and Others Vs. Dalbir Singh

Court: Delhi

Siddharth Mridul, J. 1. The present writ petition assails the order dated 15th February, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.3618/2010 whereby the Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent herein with a direction that the respondent would continue in the post of Head Constable (Executive) on ad-hoc basis till he gets regularized for the said post. The Tribunal further directed that he would be entitled to the pay and allowances attached to the post, however, such period would not count towards his seniority in the rank of Head Constable (Executive). The brief facts as are relevant to the adjudication of the present writ petition are as follows:- (i) The respondent was appointed in Delhi Police on 1st May, 1982 as Constable (Executive) and was confirmed in the said rank w.e.f. 1st February, 1986. (ii) The respondent was in the zone of consideration for Promotion to List ‘C’ (Executive) and was considered for promo...

Patil Vossloh Rail Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be a leading manufacturer of railway equipment including “Fasteners for Ballastless Track”and supplies its product to Indian Railways and various Metro Rail Corporations. It alleges that under the Allocation of Business Rules, in exercise of power conferred by Clause-3 of Article 77 of the Constitution of India, matters pertaining to Railways and Metro Railways have to be dealt with by the  Ministry of Railways and no other Ministry. Petitioner further avers that on the subject of “Performance Criteria of Fastening Systems for Ballastless Track”, the Ministry of Railways has issued an Office Order dated May 21, 2010 enlisting thereunder “PERFORMANCE CRITERIA OF FASTENING SYSTEM FOR BALLASTLESS TRACK ON METRO RAILWAYS/MRTS SYSTEMS”, as per which, pleads the petitioner, a satisfactory performance record of minimum five years is required as an eligibility criteria to supply fastening equipment to Me...

Bombay Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Warehousing Corporati ...

Court: Delhi

1. This judgment disposes of the objections filed by the Plaintiff, Bombay Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd. (‘BCT’) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘Act’) to the final Award dated 27th May 2004 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between it and the Defendant, Central Warehousing Corporation (‘CWC’), arising out of a contract dated 21st April 1989 whereby the work of handling and transportation of ISO containers from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Container Yard (‘JNP-CY’) at Nhava Sheva to the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Container Freight Station (‘JNP-CFS’), at Nhava Sheva and vice versa for a period of four years was awarded by CWC to BCT. The learned Arbitrator awarded BCT a sum of Rs.19,28,946 together with simple interest at 9% per annum. BCT has challenged the impugned final Award to the extent that some of its claims have been rejected. Background Facts 2. The background facts are that on 26th Septem...

Shri R.P.S. Panwar Vs. Union of India, Through Director (Estt), Depart ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Through the instant Original Application, Shri R.P.S. Panwar - a retired ITS Officer, the applicant herein, is seeking the following main relief(s):- “8.03.That (Annexure A-1, A-2, A-3 and to the extent Annexure A-4 is applicable in respect of provisional pension and coming in the way of relief to applicant) be kindly declared as void abinitio and be aside; it be kindly also held that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 acted without authority of law and without jurisdiction and in bad faith only by ignoring the staring law, rules and procedure as well as duty; 8.04.That applicant be kindly granted the revision as per 6th CPC and accordingly the leave encashment and other retiral dues, provisional pension, excepting ‘Gratuity’ with interest @ 12% per annum from date of their respect accruals. The prayer for release of deposits with interest in favour of Applicant under the CGEG Insurance Scheme is respectfully made at paragraph 9 below.̶...

Dr. V. Bhuvaneswari Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Dr. V. Bhuvaneswari, presently working as Professor, Radio-diagnosis in Lady Harding Medical College (LHMC), New Delhi, the applicant in the present Original Application, has moved MA No. 2424/2012 seeking certain amendments to the prayer in the OA viz. to direct the first and second respondents to allow the applicant to exercise her option as per the JIPMER (Amendment) Act, 2011. She has also sought direction of the Tribunal to initiate disciplinary action against the officers who have caused prejudice to her in rejecting her request for exercising fresh option to return back to the JIPMER. 2. Notice was issued to the respondents on the said MA and the reply affidavit has been filed on 17.12.2011 wherein the respondents submitted that the said amendment to the prayer clause is not maintainable and the MA deserves to be dismissed. 3. We have considered the applicant’s claim in the MA as to the amendment to the relief clause and other portions...

The Indian Performing Right Society Vs. A.D. Venture Communication Ind ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(5)CTC(IP)20

V.K. JAIN, J. 1. The plaintiff before this Court is a society of authors, composers and publishers of various literary and musical works and claims to be administering public performance/ communication to public rights in terms of Section 14(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act, 1957,which vest in its members and 200 other sister societies. The societies of authors and composers affiliated with the plaintiff form part of an International Federation called CISAC (Confederation Internationale des Societes des Auteurs et Compositeurs). By virtue of reciprocal contracts with other societies such as BMI, ASCAP, PRS etc plaintiff also claims to be vested with public performance rights of international music. It is also alleged that the authors, composers and publishers, who are members of the plaintiff, have assigned their public performance rights in respect of their respective literary and/or musical works including future works to the plaintiff. The musical publishers who are members of the plai...

Shri R.P.S. Panwar Vs. Union of India, Through Director (Estt), Depart ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Through the instant Original Application, Shri R.P.S. Panwar - a retired ITS Officer, the applicant herein, is seeking the following main relief(s):- 8.03.That (Annexure A-1, A-2, A-3 and to the extent Annexure A-4 is applicable in respect of provisional pension and coming in the way of relief to applicant) be kindly declared as void abinitio and be aside; it be kindly also held that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 acted without authority of law and without jurisdiction and in bad faith only by ignoring the staring law, rules and procedure as well as duty; 8.04.That applicant be kindly granted the revision as per 6th CPC and accordingly the leave encashment and other retiral dues, provisional pension, excepting Gratuity with interest @ 12% per annum from date of their respect accruals. The prayer for release of deposits with interest in favour of Applicant under the CGEG Insurance Scheme is respectfully made at paragraph 9 below. 2. Brief facts of the cas...

Dr. V. Bhuvaneswari Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Dr. V. Bhuvaneswari, presently working as Professor, Radio-diagnosis in Lady Harding Medical College (LHMC), New Delhi, the applicant in the present Original Application, has moved MA No. 2424/2012 seeking certain amendments to the prayer in the OA viz. to direct the first and second respondents to allow the applicant to exercise her option as per the JIPMER (Amendment) Act, 2011. She has also sought direction of the Tribunal to initiate disciplinary action against the officers who have caused prejudice to her in rejecting her request for exercising fresh option to return back to the JIPMER. 2. Notice was issued to the respondents on the said MA and the reply affidavit has been filed on 17.12.2011 wherein the respondents submitted that the said amendment to the prayer clause is not maintainable and the MA deserves to be dismissed. 3. We have considered the applicants claim in the MA as to the amendment to the relief clause and other portions of the...

Shri Babu Lal Mitharwal Vs. Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Min ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) This OA has been filed by the applicant assailing the implementation of the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission (VIth CPC, in short) in which, as on 01.01.2006, lesser pay was fixed for the applicant in comparison to the fresh entrants and benefit of bunching principle was denied to him. The applicant has impugned the order dated 30.03.2010 at Annexure A-1, by which the respondents have denied any anomaly in the applicants pay fixation in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, (R.P.Rules,2008, in short) and have stated that pay of those Government servants, who were already in service on 01.01.2006, cannot be fixed with reference to the pay of those who joined the Government as direct recruits on or after 01.01.2006, for which category a separate minimum pay in the running pay band has been prescribed at the entry level, for all the direct recruits appointed on or after 01.01.2006, which the VIth CPC had not recommended in case of those Government se...