Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The writ petitioners in these batch of cases allege discrimination in matters of promotion and question a bar contained in the service conditions applicable to them; they are working as permanently seconded(in effect, permanently absorbed) officers in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (hereafter "DGQA"). They were previously working as officers in the Indian Army. The bar which they are aggrieved by prohibits consideration of their cases for promotion, irrespective of their work and performance in the DGQA- it is to the effect that those permanently superseded in the Indian Army would not be considered for promotion. The petitioners complain that this is discriminatory, because their colleagues (some permanently seconded from the armed forces like them, but not superseded; and other technical personnel, who never served in the armed forces) are considered for promotion purely on the basis of their merit, ability and functioning within the DGQA rather ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2012 passed by the Fist Appellate Court, namely, the learned ADJ, Central-17, Delhi in RCA No.17/2011 preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs. The Fist Appellate Court dismissed the said first appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Trial Court, namely, Civil Judge, Central-5, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No.472/2010. The Trial Court had similarly dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages. 2. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants was that they had initially let out the suit property bearing no.1337, Ground Floor, Sector-D, Pocket-1, DDA Flats, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the respondent/defendant on 18.06.1988 on an initial rent of Rs.2,500/- excluding water, electricity and other charges. The said lease was for a period of three years w.e.f. 19.06.1988. Consequently, the said initial lease expired on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-18-2015
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 10th February, 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX in ID No. 09/1997 whereby it was held that the petitioner/claimant is not entitled to any relief. 2. An industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate Government vide letter dated 17th December, 1997 for adjudication to the Industrial Adjudicator with following terms of reference:- Whether the services of Sh. Vinod Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? ? 3. Case set up by the petitioner/workman in the statement of claim before the learned Labour Court was that he joined the employment of DDA w.e.f. 1st January, 1985 as a Mateon current duty charge. He was a regular and permanent employee of the management/DDA and was drawing salary in proper pay scale with usual allowances admissible under the rules. He had an unblemished ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-2015
1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the above mentioned pending application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution, unfair competition, rendition of accounts of profits, damages and delivery up against the defendants. 3. The facts of the case as per the plaint are that the plaintiff-Company was incorporated in the year 1986 who is also the registered proprietor of the trademark SUPERFLO which is also dominant and essential part of its company name who also started using the trademark from the very inception of the company in 1986. It is claimed that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of, inter alia, manufacturing sanitary ware accessories, bath room fittings and other allied products and it has the core competence of the plaintiff Company to manufacture products and scores of applications where control of flow of water is required,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-10-2015
1. By virtue of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the award dated 07.03.2006 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II whereby the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the petitioners including one Jai Chand was held to be illegal and unjustified. The petitioners were held to be entitled for regularisation from the date of their initial engagement with all consequential benefits within one month. They were also awarded arrears of wages. Besides that, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded as cost. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, factual matrix of the case is that Shri Abdul Gaffar was initially engaged in MRM Project, Nepal and Shri Saleshwar Kamat was engaged in PWD ED-V on 29.03.1977 and 24.06.1981 respectively. Later, when the project work was completed both these workmen were transferred to the Mechanical and Workshop Division as Muster Roll workers. Some workers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-09-2015
Oral: 1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') is filed by the Delhi Jal Board/petitioner impugning the Award of the Arbitrator dated 10.5.2007, as modified by the Order dated 31.5.2007, whereby, an amount of Rs.13,63,984/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent no.1/Contractor and against the petitioner/objector. Respondent no.1 has also been awarded interest at 9% per annum simple w.e.f 20.8.2002 till realization. 2. The disputes between the parties arose out of a contract for construction of an outfall storm water drain for Tara Apartments, near Tuglakabad Extension and adjoining areas awarded to the respondent no.1 by the petitioner vide Letter of the petitioner dated 16.9.1996. The period of completion of the contract was to be 8 months from the date from which petitioner would ask the respondent no.1 to commence the work under the contract. Before commencement of work in terms of Clauses 11 and 24 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-07-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The Petitioner, a Lance Naik in the Border Security Force ( BSF ?) is aggrieved by the order of dismissal issued to him on 16.01.1996 pursuant to a trial by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC). He seeks directions for quashing of the proceedings and the order of dismissal. 2. The petitioner, a Lance Naik was attached to the 96th Battalion in the BSF. On 08.07.1993, he was on duty as a driver at Subji Mandi, Bala Mura Road, Srinagar when there was a militant attack. The attack was conducted with bombs and grenades, as a result of which splinters entered his head. It was pointed out that one colleague died immediately in the ambush. The Petitioner was admitted to the Army hospital in Srinagar for several weeks, and he proceeded on Medical leave for two months. During this leave, the Petitioner was treated in the District Hospital, Churachandpur, Manipur. The treating doctor certified on 05.01.1994 that the Petitioner was no longer fit for active service, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-30-2015
1. Vide Crl. M.C. No.2784/2011, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR bearing No.RC-AC-1-2007-A-0003 dated 02.04.2007, chargesheet dated 13.12.2010 and the order dated 05.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (ACMM), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby cognizance under Section 35 read with Section 3 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (hereinafter shall be called FCRA, 2010) was taken and summons were issued against the petitioner. 2. Vide Crl. M.C. No.3342/2011, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.08.2011 passed by the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.02/2011 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). While allowing the said revision petition, order dated 05.07.2011 was substituted providing that deemed cognizance has been taken under Section 23 read with Section 4 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter shall be called FCRA, 1976'). 3. Since the issues raised in bot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-30-2015
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. Ram Asre, son of Baijnath ( the victim ?), aged about 22 years, resident of jhuggi no. N-116 (also N-23), Indira Vikas Colony, falling within the jurisdiction of police station Mukherjee Nagar ( the police station ?) suffered homicidal death, on account of stab injuries, received in an incident that took place at about 09:30 PM on 21.03.1997 in front of jhuggi no.A-105 (N-15) in the same slum settlement. The case registered by the police (FIR No.147/1997) resulted in report of investigation (dated 28.06.1997) under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") being submitted. On its basis, the appellants herein were brought to trial in sessions case no.194/1997 on the charge for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ?). The appellant Munna Lal ( the first accused ?) was also tried on the additional charge, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, on the allegation that he had used a dagger in the commission of offence of m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-27-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These are three appeals by the Appellant, Revenue, against the common order dated 29th April 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 4545, 4246 and 4247/Del/2012 for the Assessment Years ('AYs') 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Limitation 2. Considering that the impugned order is dated 29th April 2014 and the appeals were first listed for hearing nearly a year later on 10th April 2015, the question whether the appeals were in time was examined by the Court. In para 8 of the memorandum of appeal in each of the appeals it is stated that the impugned order was received by the Appellant, i.e. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi -3 (CIT-3) on 24th November 2014. The affidavit in support of the appeal has been signed by Mr. Narendra Prasad Sinha, posted as CIT -3. 3. Enclosed with the memorandum of appeal, is a copy of the certified copy of the impugned order of ITAT which bears different date stamps. One of them is a date st...
Tag this Judgment!