Delhi Court September 2012 Judgments

Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital Karamchari Union Vs. Moolchand Kharait ...

Court: Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The factual matrix leading to filing of the above captioned appeals is that on August 21, 1977 a settlement was entered into between the Management of Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as the „Hospital’) and Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital Karamchari Union (hereinafter referred to as the „Union’) pertaining to the pay of class-III and class-IV employees of the hospital. The relevant terms of the settlement dated August 21, 1977 read as under:- “Demands of the union were discussed….. The question of revision of pay scales was also discussed. It was agreed that interim relief @ `35/- PM. should be allowed to each employee falling in the category of class IV and III effective from 01.08.77. It was also agreed that the government pay scales as prevailing on 01.10.78 will be introduced for all employees falling in the category of class III and IV from that date. ….. Bot...

M/S. Kwality Restaurant and Ice-cream Co Vs. the Commissioner of Vat, ...

Court: Delhi

S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. This writ petition challenges the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal, Value Added Tax (hereafter Tribunal) in respect of a part heard appeal pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal consists of 3 members, i.e the Chairman, a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member. The petitioner’s grievance is that after two members heard the case substantially (in the absence of the third member, who had proceeded on leave) and closed hearings on its behalf, the third member sought join the bench and participate in the proceedings. This procedure is challenged as improper and in denial of a fair hearing. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer, under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; it had filed its return for the years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. Its returns were reassessed and additional demands were made. The writ petitioner impugned that demand, before the Additional Commissioner, who confirmed the reassessment. Aggrie...

Raj Kumar Jha and Others Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Minist ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

OA Nos. 2135/2012, 2136/2012 and 2137/2012 filed by applicants questioning the order dated 25.06.2012 whereby they were transferred from NCT of Delhi to DDandDHI, AandNI and Lakshadweep were disposed of in terms of order dated 3.07.2012 with a direction that the representation, if any, preferred by applicants within one week would be decided by respondents expeditiously. Respondents were also directed not to give effect to the transfer order qua the applicants till disposal of said representations. Pursuant to said order, applicants made separate representations dated 9.07.2012 raising the common plea and praying for cancellation of their transfer ordered in terms of order No.14020/2/2011-UTS-II (Part file) dated 25.06.2012. The representations were addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Relying upon the guideline for transfer of posting of DANIPS officer, rules 12 and 13 of DANIPS Rules, 2003 and letter dated 23.06.2012 of DD and DNH administration ...

K.K. Sareen and Others Vs. Mrs. Neeta Sharma and Others

Court: Delhi

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL) IA No. 19926/2011 (O. 6 R. 17 CPC) 1. This is an application for amendment of the written statement. It is stated in para 2 of the application that the plaintiffs have admitted the status of defendant No. 1 as a tenant from 01.04.1993 to 30.06.1994 and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. The applicant wants to amend the written statement by inserting the following preliminary objections:- “That even otherwise admittedly, the defendant No. 1 had been paying the rent to the plaintiffs hence this Hon‟ble court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in view of the bar of section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The following sub-paras is sought to be inserted after paras No.8 to 11 and the new para 17 is also sought to be inserted as follows:- “It is submitted that the defendant No. 1 has annexed the rent receipts with her original written statement which belies the case of the plaintiff of alleged oral li...

Morgardshammar India Limited and Others Vs. Morgardshammar Ab

Court: Delhi

Manmohan Singh, J. 1. The appellants filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 2nd January, 2012 in CS(OS) No.863/2010 by the learned Single Judge whereby the suit filed by the respondent for permanent injunction against the appellants was decreed restraining them from using the name “MORGARDSHAMMAR” and the trademarks “MORGARDSHAMMAR LABEL” and “MH ARROW DEVICE” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the trademarks/trade name “MORGARDSHAMMAR LABEL” and “MH ARROW DEVICE” and “MORGARDSHAMMAR” of the respondent. 2. The dispute revolves on four agreements and admitted facts are as under: (a) Centro MORGARDSHAMMAR AKTIEBOLAG also earlier known as MORGARDSHAMMAR AB (hereinafter referred to as “Volvo”) was the proprietor and owner of the trade mark “MH MORGARDSHAMMAR (LABEL)” in respect of rolling mills guides system equipments as well as spare parts for rol...

Sonu @ Sonu Singh @ Gopal and Another Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

S.P. Garg, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.01.2009 and order on sentence dated 31.01.2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.42/2008 by which the appellants Sonu @ Sonu Singh @ Gopal (A-1) and Kuldeep Singh (A-2) were convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 302/397//34 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine. 2. Virender Pal Dutta, his wife Karuna Dutta (since deceased), mother-in-law Bimla Devi (Mataji) used to reside at 259-RPS, DDA flats, Mansarovar Park, Delhi. Bimla Devi was completely bed ridden. PW-5 (Malti Sardar) was a maid in the house to take her care. On 10.02.2002, Virender Pal Dutta (PW-11) left for his shop as usual at about 6:00 A.M. PW-5 (Malti Sardar) after serving milk to Bimla Devi at about 7/8:00 A.M. went to the market to purchase milk and vegetables. After about half-an-hour when she returned, she saw that the door of the house was open an...

In the Matter Of: Ex. Rect. Rajender Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner before the Honble High Court of Delhi as a writ petition on 20.03.2008, which has come to be transferred to this Tribunal on its establishment and has been taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings of Summary Court Martial dated 03.04.2006 and the order dated 02.01.2008 (Annexure P-7). 3. The factual averments are that according to the petitioner, he was enrolled as combatant soldier on 19.02.2005 after pre-enrolment verification from police station, Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi, for which certificate Annexure P-1 has been produced. Thereafter, the petitioner joined and completed his basic military training at Artillery Centre at Nasik Road Camp. Then, he was granted recruit leave. In the meantime, the police verification in respect of the petitioner was submitted by one Sh. V.S. Ahluwalia, A.C.P. of Delhi Police, stating that the petitioner is not residing at the given address, which according to the petitioner wa...

Beer Pal and Others Vs. Arvind Kumar and Others

Court: Delhi

G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellants impugn a judgment dated 01.08.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.3,57,500/- was awarded for the death of Haridwari Devi @ Harduri who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13.10.2008. 2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurer, the finding on negligence has attained finality between the parties. 3. While computing loss of dependency, the Claims Tribunal held that Smt. Hardwari Devi was working as a housewife; the value of the gratuitous services rendered by her was taken to be Rs.3,000/- per month; deduction of one-fourth was made towards expenses as the number of dependents were seven and thus, a sum of Rs.2,92,500/- was awarded towards loss of gratuitous services to the Appellants and a compensation of Rs.65,000/- was awarded under non-pecuniary heads. 4. There is twin challenge to the judgment. Firstly, it is urged that the compensation awarded ...

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Sh. Dan Singh Bawa and Others

Court: Delhi

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 06.11.2008 of the learned Single Judge in CM No.11628/2007 in W.P.(C) No.355/1974. Vide the said order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant NDMC to examine whether the respondents/owners have complied with the conditions imposed on them from time to time and if so, to revalidate and release sanctioned building plans, with FAR of 400. 2. The matter concerns the sanction of plans for construction on plot of land admeasuring 1.192 acres bearing No.14, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. 3. At the outset, it may be stated that prior to February 1974 the FAR available for construction on the said plot of land was 400. In February, 1974, the FAR was reduced to 250 and with effect from 01.08.1990 to 150. 4. The matter has a chequered history and it is best to deal with the facts in a systematic tabular fashion. Sl. No. Date Particulars 01.06.12.1969Building plans for sanction were submitted to the NDMC but rejec...

Management of Mata Jai Kaur Public School Vs. Labour Commissioner and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(4)LLN646

P.K. Bhasin, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the Labour Court whereby the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service was granted to the respondent no. 3 after holding that her services had been terminated illegally w.e.f. 20th June, 2000 by the petitioner-management. 2. The relevant facts are that respondent no. 3 was employed with the petitioner as an ayah since the early eighties. It is common case of the parties that the age of retirement of petitioner’s employees was 60 years and further that at the time of her appointment she had submitted proof of her date of birth. Vide letter dated 28th February,1995 respondent no. 3 was informed by the petitioner that though it appeared to the management that she had already reached age of retirement but since the school records were burnt during the 1984 riots in Delhi she was asked to produce documentary proof in support of her age. The respondent no. 3 submit...