Court : Delhi
..... 15. it is useful also recollect banatwala and company v l.i.c. of india (2011) 13 scc446where the court examined section 21 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956. section 21 is broadly analogous to section 40 of the act and reads as follows: 21. corporation to be guided by the directions of the central government: in the discharge of its functions under this act, the corporation shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the central government may give to it in writing; and if any ..... be considered mandatory after the central government issues such directions on the question of such policy. not having done so, the petitioner appears to have proceeded on the basis of a misconception that the provisions of dopt om were applicable without having verified from the authority competent leave or other human resource personnel. to sanction as the single judge noted, there was no communication or expression of views made by the aai to the uoi subsequent to the letter dated ..... governmental orders must comply with the requirements of a statute as also the constitutional provisions. 23. the supreme court has also examined section 43-a of the motor vehicles act, 1939 which permitted the state government to issue orders and directions of a general character as it considered necessary for the purposes of road transport. section 64-a of the same lpa-446 & 447/2016 page 19 of 23 legislation also allowed the state government to call for records of quasi .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... 15. it is useful also recollect banatwala and company v l.i.c. of india (2011) 13 scc446where the court examined section 21 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956. section 21 is broadly analogous to section 40 of the act and reads as follows: 21. corporation to be guided by the directions of the central government: in the discharge of its functions under this act, the corporation shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the central government may give to it in writing; and if any ..... be considered mandatory after the central government issues such directions on the question of such policy. not having done so, the petitioner appears to have proceeded on the basis of a misconception that the provisions of dopt om were applicable without having verified from the authority competent leave or other human resource personnel. to sanction as the single judge noted, there was no communication or expression of views made by the aai to the uoi subsequent to the letter dated ..... governmental orders must comply with the requirements of a statute as also the constitutional provisions. 23. the supreme court has also examined section 43-a of the motor vehicles act, 1939 which permitted the state government to issue orders and directions of a general character as it considered necessary for the purposes of road transport. section 64-a of the same lpa-446 & 447/2016 page 19 of 23 legislation also allowed the state government to call for records of quasi .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 06, 2015 Judgment Delivered on : January 12, 2015 + W.P.(C) 2884/2005 OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner Represented by: None versus INSPECTOR GENERAL/N.S. AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate. AND + W.P.(C) 2438/2006 RATAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: None versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Geeta Sharma and Mr.Ujjwal Jain, Advs. AND + W.P.(C) 19649/2005 PREM SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Chandan Kumar, Advocate. versus UOI AND ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the final orders dated November 07, 2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and orders passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the penalty of removal from service imposed on all the three petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 06, 2015 Judgment Delivered on : January 12, 2015 + W.P.(C) 2884/2005 OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner Represented by: None versus INSPECTOR GENERAL/N.S. AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate. AND + W.P.(C) 2438/2006 RATAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: None versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Geeta Sharma and Mr.Ujjwal Jain, Advs. AND + W.P.(C) 19649/2005 PREM SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Chandan Kumar, Advocate. versus UOI AND ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the final orders dated November 07, 2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and orders passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the penalty of removal from service imposed on all the three petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 06, 2015 Judgment Delivered on : January 12, 2015 + W.P.(C) 2884/2005 OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner Represented by: None versus INSPECTOR GENERAL/N.S. AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate. AND + W.P.(C) 2438/2006 RATAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: None versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Geeta Sharma and Mr.Ujjwal Jain, Advs. AND + W.P.(C) 19649/2005 PREM SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Chandan Kumar, Advocate. versus UOI AND ORS Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the final orders dated November 07, 2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and orders passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the penalty of removal from service imposed on all the three petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1984]55CompCas204(Delhi); ILR1982Delhi181; [1984]145ITR537(Delhi); [1983]53STC357(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.1. On an application, under s. 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act), by the company, the court stayed proceedings against the company before the STO. The STO contests the validity of this order of the company judge. The question is whether the judge can restrain proceedings against the company before the STO. 2. These are the facts. The respondent Byford Limited (the company), is a dealer in Fiat cars. It went into rough weather. It was in troubled waters. It became heavily indebted to various creditors on account of its inability to pay its debts. A winding-up petition was presented by the Bank of Madura in 1978. This petition is still pending. The order of winding-up has not been made so far. 3. During the pendency of the winding-up petition, the company made an application under s. 391 of the Act in 180 suggesting a scheme of arrangement for payment of debts to its creditors. On January 27, 1981, another application was made under s. 391(6) and s. 443 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(101)ELT675TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order dated 24-12-1996 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi by which he has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 26,59,620/- on 850 Trollies, 4,710 Bins and 330 Pallets of iron and steel manufactured by the appellants during the period May, 1989 to March, 1992 through fabricators by supplying fabricated materials and imposed a penalty of an equal amount under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants supply raw material for the manufacture of the above mentioned three items which are in the nature of material handling equipment, to the following fabricators who fabricated the same in the appellants' premises : The appellants did not file any classification list or price list for these items nor did they maintain any statutory records for he same nor did they pay any Central Excise duty leviable thereon; hence a show cause notice date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1991Delhi25; [1991]70CompCas388(Delhi); 41(1990)DLT633
..... contract between the parties. learned counsel relied on halsbury, volume 25, fourth edition, para 398, at page 221, section 46vb of the insurance act read with rule 58 of the insurance rules and life insurance corporation of india v. raja vasireddy komalavalli kmba : [1984]3scr350 in support of his contention. 38. the supreme court in general ..... specifically used the expression 'underwriting and revivals' of policies in the case of the life insurance corporation and stated that it was the divisional manager who was competent to underwrite a policy for rs.50,000 and above. the mere receipt and retention of premium until after the death of the applicant or the mere preparation of the policy document is not acceptance. acceptance must be signified by some act or acts agreed to by the parties or from which the law raises a presumption ..... 7,40,606.65 together with costs and interest has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant - national insurance co. ltd. the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956, having its registered office at e-5, hauz khas, new delhi. the plaint has been ..... or the circumstances must be such as to admit of a reasonable inference. 43. in the present case, admittedly, the factory of the plaintiff was insured by the bank only till december 29, 1981, for a period between 1978 and december 29, 1981. from december 30, 1981, till june 1, 1982, the factory was not insured. it is admitted by the plaintiff that no policy was issued by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This is an unsuccessful plaintiff's appeal, against dismissal of its suit for specific performance of an agreement to purchase farmland property. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the suit, by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2015. 2. The suit claim by the appellant-plaintiff (hereafter "Futuristic") was premised on an Agreement to Sell/ Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 24.05.2005.Futuristic claimed that the first defendant (hereafter "Nirmal") agreed- through the second and third defendants (the fathers of fourth and fifth defendants respectively), to sell an agricultural farm measuring 12 bighas and 8 biswas, as per the mutation dated 21.09.1993, located in village Ghitorni, New Delhi (approximately 12350 sq. yd, hereafter "suit property"). The fourth and fifth respondents were shareholders and Directors of Nirmal. Futuristic claimed that the second and third defendant acted for and on behalf of Nirmal. The suit alleged that the total agreed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 111(2004)DLT100; 2004(74)DRJ165; 2004(3)SLJ478(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur , J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 18th June, 2001 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 27/91. The impugned Award was notified under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) on 22nd June, 2001. 2. Some time in 1982 an industrial dispute was raised by a section of employees of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is indulging in unfair labour practices in respect of engagement of temporary, badli and part time employees in its establishments in the country. For the sake of convenience such temporary, badli and part time employees are hereinafter referred to as temporary employees. 3. As a result of the dispute, the Central Government made a reference on 20th May, 1985 to the National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Justice R.D. Tulpule. The question referred for adjudication was as follows:-' What should be the wages and other conditions of services of badli, temporary and part time worker of the Life Insur...
Tag this Judgment!