Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1981Delhi308
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This is an unfortunate case in which the plaintiff, a Civil Engineer, who came to this Court in a grievance with regard to promotion, has in the process lost his job and now seeks relief either by way of specific enforcement of the contract of service or for damages on account of wrongful termination and raises some interesting facets of the problem of contractual service in a Government company, the effect of bilateral transfer of service from one employer to another, the law relating to specific enforcement of the contract of service and damages for wrongful termination(2) Raj Krishan Chopra, plaintiff, joined the National Mineral 'Development Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking, for short, N.M.D.C., first defendant, as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in November. 1960, pursuant to a contract of service. On completion of an year's period of probation satisfactorily, he was confirmed. In 1967. he was posted as officiating Executive Engineer (Civil) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1974]44CompCas173(Delhi); ILR1972Delhi369B
S. Rangarajan, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of Company Appeals Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1972 also. These appeals are against the common orders of the learned Company Judge of this Court dated 7th January, 1972 and 12th January, 1972, the Fatter flowing from the former. The facts leading to these appeals may be briefly noticed : (2) The Ganesh Flour Mil's Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) had its registered office in Delhi with an authorised capital of Rupees two crores divided into equity and preference shares. The issued capital was Rs. 1,02,01,925.00 out of which the subscribed and fully paid up capital was Rs. 99,42,333.00. The Company has two vanaspati manufacturing units, one in Delhi and the other at Kanpur; an electric fan plant and a P'ood Products Plant, both at Delhi; a Solvent Extraction Plant at Bombay and a Vegetable Products Factory and Flour Mill in West Pakistan. Except the Vegetable Ghee Plant at Kanpur, which is still running, the o'her factories of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi137
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The respondent is the owner of the building on plot No. 12/18, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagfa, New Delhi, comprising of three floors. The ground floor of this building is in the occupation as a tenant of the appellant while the entire remaining building is in the occupation of the respondent. The aforesaid plot has some open spaces in the front and on two sides of the said building. The respondent filed the suit which has given rise to this second appeal on May 15, 1968 which was decided by Mr. M. S. Saini Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, by his order dated April 7, 1970.(2) The respondent's case was that barring the building on the ground floor, the other areas on the ground floor including the open spaces in 'this plot were in his possession; that in order to harass and annoy the respondent the, appellant placed an old, out of order and used Ford car bearing No. Dlc 7525 in one of the open spaces at the place marked 'X' in the plan attached to the plaint a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1983Delhi265; 32(1983)DLT152
Sultan Singh, J. (1) On an application filed on 8th June, 1973 under Section 11OA of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (hereinafter called 'the. Act') the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi by his judgment dated 8th August, 1980 awarded a sum of Rs. 25,920 with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing application till realisation besides costs as compensation, to the heirs i.e. widow, parents, soms and daughters (respondents 1 and 4 to 10) of the deceased Jaswant Singh against the Delhi Transport Corporation ( appellant) and the driver Kewal Krishan (resr pondent No. 11). Jaswant Singh was knocked down by a D.T.C. bus driven by respondent No. 11 and owned by the appellant on 3rd March. 1973 at 9 P.M. He died on 4th March. 1973 at 6.30 A.M. He was aged 44 years at the time of accident, his date of birth being 6th January, 1929. He was Vehicle Mechanic in 505 Army Base Workshop, Eme, Delhi Cantt under the Ministry of defense, Governement of India, New Delhi. The Tribunal held...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2004)191CTR(Del)428
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. These petitions are raising common question and are arising out of similar facts and, thereforee, are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ Petn. No. 1115 of 1997, 15 petitioners in all have prayed for writ of mandamus, inter alia, declaring that the imposition of income-tax on the interest earned by each of the petitioner on their retirement/terminal benefits from 2nd Jan., 1990 to 2nd Jan., 1997 retained by respondent No. 1 at the time of permanent absorption of the petitioner by respondent No. 2, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, unconscionable and fraud on power and upon the petitioners. It is further prayed that a writ may be issued directing the respondents to refund the TDS (@ 10 per cent of the interest earned on the retirement benefits) deducted by them while releasing the remaining amount along with interest @ 18 per cent p.a, till payment and have further prayed to restrain the respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioners ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 43(1991)DLT394; 1991(20)DRJ236
M.C. Jain, C.J.(1) This civil revision raises an important question as to the interpretation of S. 3(c); as inserted by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, (for short, the Amendment Act). That question arose before Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.N.Goswami in the aforesaid revision He, by his order dated 9.1.1989, referred the question to be answered authoritatively by the Division Bench of this Court. The question that arose before him was to whether the Amendment Act applies to the pending proceedings and according to him as the question would arise in a number of pending cases before ibis Court as will as before the Rent Control and the Appellate authority, so for deciding the question authoritatively, reference was made by him for deciding the said question by the Division Bench.(2) We may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the present reference.(3) The petitioner in this petition, Mrs. Nirmaljeet Arora let out the premises in question to the respondent on 14.7.80 at a renta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IVAD(Delhi)1190; 56(1994)DLT698; 1995(32)DRJ35
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to grant him permission with effect from 1.4.1992, with interest. Petitioner served the 3rd respondent-Cambridge School - as a teacher from 1.2.1985 to 31.3.1992. The 3rd respondent is a private, unaided school, governed by the provision of Delhi School Education Act 1973 (the Act, for short). As per Section 10 of the Act, the scales of pay, pension, gratuity, etc. of a recognised private school shall not be less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority, as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. The 'appropriate authority' defined herein, for all practical purposes will be the state or its instrumentalities. Petitioner refers to an advertisement invited by the Directorate of Education, stating that the employees of recognised private (unaided) schools in Delhi/New Delhi are eligible to have the privileges detailed therein, which include, 'TO get as per of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi382
B.C. Misra, J.(1) The first petitioner is a private limited company. which has its registered office in Calcutta and which owns a jute mill situated in Katihar, in the District of Purnea, State of Bihar. The second petitioner is one of its directors. This writ petition has beenfiled, challenging the order of the Central Government dated 22/12/1971, setting up a committee for investigation intothe affairs of the petitioners' undertaking under section 15 of theIndustries (Development & Regulation) Act 65 of 1951, (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act'). The admitted case of the parties is that the order has been passed on the ground mentioned in sub-clause (i) ofclause (a) of section 15 of the Act, which reads as follows :'15 Whether the Central Government is of the opinion that (A)in respect of any scheduled industry or industrial undertaking or undertakings : (I)there has been, or likely to be, a substantial fall in thevolume of production in respect of any article or classof articles r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 43(1991)DLT179
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This is a glaring case where the petitioner, who was a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service, has been put on the road without any job due to indifferent and unconcerned attitude of the resents I to 3 and 5. (2) The petitioner joined the Indian Audit and Accounts Service in 1958 and was holding a substantive post in Junior Administrative Grade of Rs. 1500-100-3000 1500-100-3000 with effect from 15th July, 1982. (3) In 1982 itself, the petitioner, while was working as Joint Advisor (Finance), Ministry of Finance, Bureau of Public Enterprises, New Delhi on deputation from his parent cadre of Indian Audit and Accounts Service, was selected by the Public Enterprises Selection Board for the post of Director (Finance) in the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. (for short 'FCIL'), without his application for such job. (4) On his selection in the Fcil by the Public Enterprises Selection Board, the petitioner vide letter dated 9th March, 1982 (Annexure 'A') gave his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1990]69CompCas268(Delhi); (1990)85CTR(Del)116; [1990]185ITR178(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred for the opinion of this court, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84, at the instance of the assessed, the following four questions of law : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the income arising from the activities pursuant to the seven agreements with foreign Governments/enterprises, etc., are governed by the provisions of section 80HHB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not of section 80O of that Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the approvals granted by the Board to the seven agreements for the purpose of section 80O, for the purpose of assessment for the assessment year 1983-84, the income arising from these contracts have to be brought under section 80HHB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (3) Whether, on the facts of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding th...
Tag this Judgment!