Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(1)ARBLR206(Delhi)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, three questions have been raised by the Petitioner, in respect of a disciplinary enquiry initiated into his conduct. During pendency of these proceedings, the Court had granted an interim order, restraining the order of removal.2. The Petitioner, working as an Assistant Engineer with the DDA, was charge-sheeted, on 13th August, 1981 on allegations of misconduct. He had been earlier suspended, by order dated 23-5-1981. A joint enquiry was ordered and held. The other employees who faced departmental proceedings were S.C. Gupta, a Superintending Engineer, and Shri S.C. Jain, Assistant Engineer.3. The inquiry officer submitted his report, inter alia, exonerating the Petitioner. Apparently, the DDA referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) eliciting its comments. The CVC considered the entire issue, and returned the reference with its advice. The DDA, thereafter issued a 'Disagree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(2)ARBLR133(Delhi); 141(2007)DLT822
Gita Mittal, J.1. This petition raises two very interesting questions which are required to be answered. The first question raised is whether a party can seek interim relief on the ground that the other side has raised a dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal. The second question which has been raised by the respondent is to the effect that on account of sickness of its partner in a joint venture under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, the underlying shareholders agreement between the parties is rendered frustrated and incapable of implementation. Consequently, the petitioner cannot base a petition for prohibitory relief based on a clause in this agreement which prohibited the parties thereto from undertaking any business similar to that of the joint venture during its currency.2. So far as the basic facts are concerned, there is no material dispute and to the extent necessary, they are noticed hereinafter. The petitioner M/s Modi Rubber Ltd., (hereinafter referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 139(2007)DLT289
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), a registered Society stated to have been formed for the purposes of conducting public interest litigation in an organized manner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of quo warranto alleging that the respondents no.1 and 2 have illegally permitted Prof. P. Venugopal, respondent no.3, Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the Director') to continue against the post in complete and vent on disregard of the statutory regulations as he is being permitted to continue in that post beyond the age of 62 years as well as he is occupying the post of Cardio Thoracic Vascular Surgeon since his appointment as Director in July 2003.2. The Society claims that it has eminent lawyers as members of its Executive Committee and they are generally interested as public spirited professionals to take legal steps in accordance with la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2007(2)396; 2007(35)PTC177(Del)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA. Nos. 651/2007, 1366/2007 & 2611/20071. 'Jurisdiction' as Oliver Wendall Holmes said, 'whatever else or more it may mean, is jurisdictio, in its popular sense of authority to apply the law to the acts of men'. Ordinarily jurisdiction is exercised over defendants residing or carrying on business or personally working for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. With the growth of e-commerce and commercial activity over the world wide web, it has become possible for business to be conducted across the globe without actual presence in every place. The present case, inter alia, involves the question of jurisdiction in such a situation.2. The plaintiff company runs a Hindi news channel 'INDIA TV' which was launched in March 2004. It is stated that the channel is one of the leading Hindi news channels in India having popular programs such as 'Breaking News' and other programs such as India Beats, Jago India, Aap ki Adalat etc. 3. The plaintiff claims to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(2)CTLJ179(Del)
Gita Mittal, J.1. The present case is a unique case where one governmental authority is complaining of an illegality by a statutory authority. Grievance has been made by the Public Works Department (hereinafter PWD) that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter MCD) has entered into a contract which is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments and now by a Division Bench of this Court as well.Interesting questions of law have arisen for consideration in the present case. It is not only the law laid down by the Apex Court but also statutory provisions which would require to be considered and also the public policy which is involved.2. It is said that a great city is defined by its history and its people. Delhi is one such city. Known as a city of great resilience, it has been witness to a number of upheavals, battles and natural calamities in its long history, but has always emerged victorious. traveling through Delhi in the 1930s, Robert Byron, a t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(99)DRJ366
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. These revision proceedings under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) involve decision of common questions. Hence with consent of counsel, they were heard together.2. The Petitioners purport to be aggrieved by orders of the Special Court, constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the impugned orders in the first set of revisions, the Special court had directed, as a condition for grant of bail, the Petitioner-accused to deposit amounts, in one set of revision petitions. In the other set of revision petitions, the Court recorded undertakings that the petitioner-accused would deposit certain amounts. These set of orders are challenged as recording statements which were allegedly not made or made under compulsion, of circumstances.3. With the enactment and coming into force of the Act, offences under Section 135 read with Section 151 were created. The said provisions read as follows:135. Theft of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 150(2008)DLT545; 2008(100)DRJ742
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Delhi is a place where cost of living as well as cost of construction has been steadily increasing at least in the last 30 years. Last few years have seen an upward trend at feverish pace. For persons with average income, to which category Government employees also belong, it is already becoming difficult to have their own accommodation in Delhi. That day is not far away when it would be impossible for a salaried class employee (excluding those with higher income like top executives in corporate sector) to afford his own house as the residential accommodations are becoming costlier and prices skyrocketing. It has corresponding effect of similar nature on the rentals as well. thereforee, arranging a rental accommodation also is becoming difficult to this middle class. It is one important reason that rent-free accommodation provided by the employer is viewed as the most lucrative perk. As a sequitur, this also becomes reason for perennial litigation between the employer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)534
1. This appeal by the assessee for asst. yr. 2002-03 arises out of order of CIT(A)-XXTX, New Delhi. The only issue for consideration relates to withdrawing of interest allowed under Section 244A of the IT Act, 1961. The facts of the case stated in brief are that while processing the return of income under Section 143(1) interest under Section 244A was allowed on refund due to the assessee. Subsequently, the AO noticed that the assessee had not enclosed a copy of power of attorney in favour of Mr. Jesus M. Barasaoin along with the return of income who signed and verified the same as provided under Section 140(c) of the Act. The assessee on being pointed out by the AO in this regard filed the aforesaid power of attorney on 17th Feb., 2003. The AO issued notice order under Section 154 expressing his intention to withdraw the interest under Section 244A granted on refund from the date of filing of the return to the date of filing of power of attorney. The assessee filed reply to notice un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 151(2008)DLT353
Anil Kumar, J. 1. The petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 18th September, 2007 passed by the respondents and a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioners in the final list of selected candidates and to appoint them on the post of Security Assistant Grade-II in Rajya Sabha.2. The brief relevant facts for the adjudication of this case are that the petitioners applied for selection to the post of Security Assistant Grade II pursuant to the advertisement No. 19(N) published in the employment news of 22-28 July, 2006. After verification of petitioners' application forms, the roll Nos. 5527 and 5522 were issued to both the petitioners by the respondents. Thereafter call letters dated 10th January, 2007 were issued to the petitioners. The petitioners contended that it was stipulated in the call letters that only those candidates who qualified the written examination would be called for Physical Measurement Tests and Physical Efficiency Tests. As the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(3)ARBLR37(Delhi); 2008(105)DRJ446
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner had, by a Charter Party dated 29.4.1995, on a Gencon form, chartered the vessel 'AMAZON REEFER' to the respondent No. 1 herein for a voyage from Kandla to Novorossiysk. The said charter party contained the terms and conditions on which the vessel was chartered. It also contained an arbitration agreement in Clause 29 thereof which, inter alia, provided that in the event of disputes between the parties, the same could be settled through arbitration in London according to English Law. Disputes and differences arose between the parties and, accordingly, the matter was referred to arbitration in London. The said Arbitral Tribunal, which comprised of three arbitrators, has given award dated 19.11.1998.2. The petitioner herein had initially filed a suit for enforcement of this award. However, realizing that no such suit is required to be filed inasmuch as such an award, even when it is a foreign award, is enforceable and executable under the Arbitration and Con...
Tag this Judgment!