Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:12. h October, 2017 Judgment pronounced on:07. h November, 2017 + FAO (OS) 253/2017 & CM No.33724/2017 JAI KUMAR ARYA & ORS. .... Appellants Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Avinash Trivedi, Ms.Ritika Trivedi, Mr.Ritesh Kumar, Ms.Monica Tyagi and Mr.Tejasvi Chaudhary, Advs. CHHAYA DEVI & ANR. ......Respondents Through: Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Versus Mr.Ankur Goel, Mr.Kartik Bhardwaj, Mr.Piyush Singh, Mr.Jaideep Singh and Mr.Sarthak Katyal, Advs. CORAM:-"HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % JUDGMENT0711.2017 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.1 The order, dated 11th September 2017, under challenge in the present appeal, has been passed by the learned Single Judge in IA96182017, preferred by Respondent No.1 Chhaya Devi under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC), in CS (OS) 285/2017. FAO (OS) 253/2017 Page 1 of 116 2 The affairs forming subject matter of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1979Delhi525
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.(1) The question raised by this writ petition is whether the range and quantum of non-profit sharing bonus paid by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Corporation) (respondent No.1) to its class I officers (some of whom are the petitioners) can be varied or reduced without contravening Articles 14, 19 and/or 31 of the Constitution. (2) The non-profit sharing bonus is not governed by the payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Further section 32 of the Payment of Bonus Act excludes the employees of the Corporation from the applicability of that Act. The non-profit sharing bonus is, thereforee, in the nature of an addition to wages paid by the Corporation to its employees and is, thereforee, of the same nature as the rest of the wages are. The statutory power to settle the terms and conditions of service of its employees by making regulations is conferred on the Corporation by section 49(1) and section 49(2) (b) and (bb) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (the Act)....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The Petitioner challenges the letter dated 27th October 2005 of the Executive Director (Personnel) of the Respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (`LIC) ordering that the Petitioner not be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer (`AAO) along with Mr. N.K. Sharma.2. The Petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant (Class III) in the LIC in March 1962. The promotion of the Petitioner was governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1976 [`Rules] made under Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (`Act). According to the Petitioner, he became eligible for the post of Higher Grade Assistant (`HGA) in terms of the aforementioned Rules in the year 1968 after completing the required service of five years in the post of Assistant. He also passed the required technical qualification, i.e., Associateship Examination of Insurance Institute of India, Mumbai. However he was in fact promoted a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1983RLR642
Prakash Narain, J.(1) As the main plank of the arguments, addressed on behalf of the petitioners, is the decision of the Supreme Court in Lic v. D.J. Bahadur : (1981)ILLJ1SC , we may first consider that case. A writ petition u/Art 226 of the Constitution had been filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging a notice dt. 6.5.78 issued by Lic u/s 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and a notification dt. 26.5.78, issued u/s 11(2) of the Act by the Central Gov. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court resulting in an appeal being filed by Lic in the Supreme Court. Another similar petition was pending in the Calcutta High Court which was transferred to the S.C. Both these matters were disposed of together. The challenge before the Allahabad and the Calcutta High Court, was preferred by Class Iii and Class Iv employees who had contended that the impugned order and notification amounted to changing their conditions of service to their detriment vis-a-vis payment to them of bonus to whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 121(2005)DLT65
A.K. Sikri, J.1. CA No. 1168/2002 is filed by the three applicants who claim that they are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 16, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised property'). Smt. Ram Pyari Sethi, their mother and predecessor-in-interest of this property, had granted lease of this property to Bharat Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (now in liquidation) (hereinafter called as 'the company') vide written deed dated 11th June, 1965. The property was meant for personal office of the Managing Director Mr. Raunaq Singh and a guest house. The tenancy commenced from 1st April, 1964 for a period of five years ending on 31st March, 1969. Rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The demised premises were, however, not vacated by the company after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy.2. Some time in the year 1990, the company became sick and consequently it made reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(Delhi)645; 75(1998)DLT231; 1998(47)DRJ659
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit was instituted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,34,555/-, detailed calculations and heads of which have been given in paragraph No. 22 of the plaint. The aforesaid claim of the plaintiff against the defendant as set out in the plaint is set out below : (a) Interest u/Sec. 34 of L.A. Act, 1894 @ 6% per annum on the awarded compensation amount of Rs.1,22,130/- from 14.3.68 (the date of dispossession from the acquired land) up to 26.4.1982 (the date on which the payment was made to the plaintiff/ Corporation) viz. for 14 years and 44 days: 1,03,472.55 Less such interest u/Sec. 34 of the L.A. Act already awarded by the L.A.C. for the period w.e.f. 14.3.68 to 12.1.1969: 6,123.62 97,348.93 (b) Interest u/Sec. 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 @ 6% per annum on the assessed market value of Rs.1,06,200/- from 13.11.1962 up to 26.4.1982 (the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2001Delhi480; 94(2001)DLT151; 2002(61)DRJ274
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Present suit has been filed by Gyan Singh Kalsi, hereinafter described as the plaintiff for recovery of RPS.5,00,000/- and for a mandatory injunction against the defendants to restore status quo ante as on 5.6.1980 and to implement the directions of the Minister of State for Finance, Government of India.2. The facts alleged and cajoled from the plaint are that plaintiff is a refugee from Nairobi, Kenya. His ancestors had arrived in 1880 and had settled in Kenya where the plaintiff had a flourishing business. He shifted to India with his family some time in 1969. The plaintiff started business at new Rohtak Road.3. A building F-41 Connaught Place, originally belonged to M/s Indian Life Assurance Company. It had granted a lease of the premises to Shriek R.K. Singh on 11.6.57. The said premises comprised of first floor flat and portion of the building on the ground floor. On 23rd February, 1967 Shri R.K. Singh entered into an agreement with Life Insurance Corporat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)1238; AIR1995Delhi323; II(1995)BC42; [1998]92CompCas849(Delhi)
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the Act is unreasonable and is vocative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact such a law. The petitioners have also challenged the appointment of the thirdrespondent as the Debts Recovery Tribunal under S. 5 of the Act. The immediate cause for filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution was the notification dated 5 July, 1994 issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division, whereby, under S. 3 of the Act, Debts Recovery Tribunal, with the areas of jurisdiction as Delhi was established. It is alleged that the appointment of the third respondent is an exercise of fraud on the powers conferred on the Central Government under the Act.2. This petition wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J.1. Interesting questions of law concerning powers and jurisdiction of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (I RDA), Respondent No. 2 herein under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 (hereafter 'Insurance Act') and the powers of the Central Government, Respondent No. 1 herein, as the Appellate Authority under Section 110H of the Insurance Act, arise for consideration in the present writ petition.Background Facts2. The Respondent No. 3 M/s J.P. Exports, having its place of business in Renigunta at Andhra Pradesh, is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of Red Sanders Wood. Respondent No. 3 took a Fire Policy from the Petitioner for the stock of Red Sanders Wood in its godown at the premises located in Srikalahasti Road, Renigunta, Andhra Pradesh. The fire policy for the period 29th March 1996 to 28th March 1997 covered stocks furniture and fixtures stored at its premises for a sum of Rs. 29.5 crores. The sum ensured was enhanced by 2.25 crores on 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2007)212CTR(Del)309
1. The following three questions of law have been referred for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, in RA No. 943/Del/1983 in ITA No. 771/Del/1982 relevant for the asst. yr. 1971-72 :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified both on the facts and in law in holding that the amount of Rs. A,57,282 representing loans should not be deducted from the capital employed while working out relief under Section 80J of the IT Act, 1961 by ignoring the provisions of Rule 19 of the IT Rules, 1962?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified both on facts and in law in holding that the capital as employed on the first day of the year should not be taken while computing the relief under Section 80J but should be taken on the average of assets minus average of liability during the year by ignoring the Rules, provisions of Rule 19 of the IT Rules, 1962?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circums...
Tag this Judgment!