Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)898; 1994(30)DRJ374
..... more or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the tribunal. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IAD(Delhi)645; 53(1994)DLT590; 1994RLR170
arun madan, j.(1) in this second appeal filed by the tenants the question in dispute falls in a very narrow compass but first brief narration of the facts for the disposal of this appeal is essential. (2) the respondents/landlords filed the eviction petition against the appellants m/s. chic international (p) ltd. and others invoking clause (b) of proviso of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (in short the 'act') for recovery of possession of premises comprising of eighth floor flat bearing no. 802, eros apartments, at the property no. 56 nehru place, new delhi. (3) it is alleged that the premises were let to respondent no. 1- m/s. chic international (p) ltd. with effect from 1st december, 1976 at a monthly rent of rs. 2102.10 vide a written agreement. it is further alleged that during the subsistence of tenancy first appellant changed its nomenclature from m/s. chic international (p) ltd. to m/s. chic travels (p) ltd. it is further alleged that the said appellants subsequently during the subsistence of tenancy have sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises to appellant no. 3 m/s. kesha sales pvt. ltd. and to some other unknown person without obtaining consent in writing of the landlords. (4) the eviction petition was contested by the appellants/tenants by filing the written statement before the additional rent controller, delhi wherein they controverter the stand taken by the landlords/respondents. in reply to para .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT394; [2005(104)FLR673]; (2005)ILLJ453Del
madan b. lokur, j.1. an answer to a somewhat straightforward question of territorial jurisdiction in an industrial dispute has remained pending for almost fifteen years in this court and about twenty years overall. while this is disturbing enough, a second round, relating to the merits of the dispute will now commence after the issue of territorial jurisdiction is decided. how long that will take for resolution is another question altogether. i think it is slowly, but surely, becoming critical for all of us to devise some strategy to deal with this mass of arrears so that such enormous delays become a thing of the past. 2. the petitioner's grievance lies in a decision taken in an order dated 4th february, 1989 passed by industrial tribunal no.1, new delhi in o.p. no.22 of 1984. in the impugned order, the learned tribunal held that an approval application filed by the petitioner under the provisions of section 33(2)(b) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short the act) was not maintainable in delhi. accordingly, the learned tribunal dismissed the application without entering into an inquiry on merits. 3. it appears that at all relevant times, the respondent was the chairman of the hindustan lever mazdoor sabha, ghaziabad unit. he has been involved in considerable litigation with the petitioner, the relevance of this being apparent a little later. some of the cases between the parties are: (i) misc. case no.37 of 1975 being an application filed by the respondent under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT343
madan b. lokur, j. 1. the petitioner is aggrieved by an award dated 8th november, 2001 passed by the labour court in id no.78/96. 2. the question that was referred for adjudication is as follows:- whether the removal of sh. shyam singh from service is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?3.the allegation against the respondent/workman, a bus conductor with the petitioner, was that on 6th june, 1993, he collected the fare from four passengers who were on a journey in the bus but did not issue tickets to them. this was discovered when the bus was checked for ticket less passengers by the checking staff of the petitioner that is, inder singh and mahender singh who also gave a report about the incident. 4. on the basis of the above report, the respondent/workman was issued a charge sheet on 24th june, 1993 and after a departmental enquiry, his services were terminated by an order dated 18th july, 1994. 5.the petitioner filed an application under section 33(2)(b) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (being op no.47/96) seeking approval of termination of the respondent/workman's services. the orders passed in the approval application are the subject matter of wp (c) no.1420 of 2002, which has separately been decided today. in that case, i have held that the departmental inquiry conducted against the respondent/workman was not vitiated and approval was granted for terminating the services of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 114(2004)DLT358; 2005(79)DRJ143; [2005(104)FLR364]; (2005)ILLJ647Del; 2006(1)SLJ417(Delhi)
madan b. lokur, j.1. notice in this case was confined only to the issue of back wages to be paid to the respondent.2.what should be the quantum of back wages to be awarded to a worker (i deliberately use a gender-neutral word) assuming reinstatement is directed, has been the subject matter of debate and discussion in literally hundreds of cases. one of the reasons for this, i think, is that discretion in this regard is exercised depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case without formulating an identifiable norm. thereforee, each case, and there are thousands of them, has to be individually considered, pacing an avoidable and enormous burden on the courts.3. aharon barak in his more than educative judicial discretion defines discretion most appropriately when he says it.''[i]s the power given to a person with authority to choose between two or more alternatives, when each of the alternatives is lawful.''but, he also points out that one of the areas of discretion lies in the establishment of a norm, and judicial discretion chooses from among the normative possibilities the option that it deems appropriate. hopefully in due course of time, a normative possibility will be established for exercising discretion in awarding back wages to a reinstated worker.4. respondent no.2 (the respondent) joined the services of the petitioner on 20th january, 1985 as a welder on a monthly salary of rs.700/-.5.on 17th june, 1986, the respondent was not allowed to join duties and he .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1993)47TTJ(Del)461
orderm. a. bakshi, j. m. :we are disposing of these two appeals of the assessed, one against levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) and another against levy of penalty under s. 273(2)(a) by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. we shall first take up the appeal relating to penalty under s. 271(1)(c).2. appellant is a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, shri deepak singh representing m/s. deepak singh & family (huf) having 67% share, shri k. s. kalra representing his huf m/s. k. l. kalra & son having 11% share and smt. harish kalra wife of shri k. s. kalra having 22% share in the firm. the appeal is against the confirmation of penalty of rs. 9,04,274 for asst. yr. 1983-84 imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the it act, 1961.assessed had furnished the return of income for asst. yr. 1983-84 at rs. 18,27,300 on 14th june, 1983. in this return assessed had claimed deduction under s. 35cca of the it act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) of a sum of rs. 7,50,000 purportedly on account of donations made in favor of hacp rural development association, hyderabad, an institution approved by the prescribed authority for the purposes of s. 35cca of the act. the return of income was, however, revised on 8th nov., 1983 in which the claim under s. 35cca was omitted and the income declared was rs. 25,75,430. tax due on the basis of the revised return was also paid. assessment proceedings had been taken up by the ito at jaipur by the issue of notice under s. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996VAD(Delhi)231; 1996(39)DRJ358
c.m. nayar, j. (1) the present petition is directed against the order passed by the respondents on september 6, 1991 raising the demand for alleged misuse charges in respect of the premises situated on plot no.22, block 127, known as 48, hanuman road, new delhi. the said order is filed as annexure 'l' to the writ petition.(2) the brief facts of the case are that perpetual lease-deed was executed in favor of one dr.jnanada kanta sen by secretary of state in respect of the premises on march 1, 1923. the said dr.sen died on january 15, 1955 and in the year 1957 the premises were rented out to dr.ved prakash for residential purposes. it is stated that there was no written agreement in respect of this tenancy. the notice was received from respondent no.2 to landlords of the premises for misuse and breach of clause 6 of the lease deed on january 19, 1971 and the landlords, as a consequence, wrote to the tenants on june 30, 1971 for removal of the breach. similarly, notice was received from respondent no.2 to remove the breach within 15 days on july 30, 1971. thereafter, the landlords took immediate steps to stop misuse and terminated the tenancy on the expiry of the month of february, 1973. on april 2, 1973, the landlords filed eviction petition before additional rent controller under section 14(l)(k) of the delhi rent control act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). in may, 1973 writ petition no.711 of 1973 was also filed in this court challenging the order/notice of re-entry .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 26(2004)DLT115; (2005)139PLR1
vijender jain, j.1. aggrieved by the order passed by the aaifr dated 17.4.2001 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. it was contended before us that the aaifr has not taken into consideration the report of m/s radbin consultants who were appointed to conduct techno-economic study pursuant to the order passed by the bifr on 23.6.2000. it was contended that the report of m/s radbin consultants was relevant and would have shown that the company has become sick on account of various unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. it was also contended that the finding of the aaifr that the accounts by the petitioner were doctored and manipulated was without any basis and was not on the basis of material produced before the aaifr. it was contended by mr. nigum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the absence of any finding with regard to the concoction or manipulation of the account by the bifr, the finding of the appellate tribunal without any further material to show to the contrary, was illegal and perverse. it was contended that the financial institutions and oa owe duty pursuant to the objectives and in consonance with the spirit of enactment of sica to be just and fair and withholding of the report of m/s radbin consultants from the aaifr was not keeping in consonance with the object of the said act and was detrimental to the case of petitioner. it was on the basis of m/s radbin consultants report it was highlighted that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT491
ordermadan b. lokur, j.1. every litigant, especially one appearing in person believes (and i think rightly) that the hearing of his or her case is the most important event of the day. it is sometimes difficult to limit the submissions of such a litigant. the adverse effect of this, which has happened in the present case, is the undue prolongation of the hearing. arguments in this case would have normally concluded in a couple of days; but, since respondent no. 1 was represented by her husband, who was so full of the case that the arguments stretched interminably.2. in fact, on 24th november, 2000 i was compelled to pass the following order:-'further arguments heard. the husband of the workman has been continuously addressing the court on the last three dates. he has been repeatedly told that if the case does not finish on this side of the vacations, it will have to be released from 'part heard'. the oral observations have had no effect and that is why it has been put down in the form of an order. to come up on 1st december, 2000 in the category of 'regular matters'.' 3. to be fair to the lady, one of the reasons for the long drawn out arguments was that her case has been going on for about 29 years - long enough to try anyone's patience. she had, thereforee, a lot to say in her favor. there was also a change in my jurisdiction, with the result that the case could be heard, if at all, only on a friday. the case was heard, for almost a full saturday, but even then the hearing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT537; 2002(61)DRJ545; 2002(79)ECC767; 2002(146)ELT281(Del)
..... makes it necessary for a criminal case to be adjourned indefinitely or for unduly long period only because some proceedings which may have some bearing on it is pending elsewhere, but this certainly is a relevant factor while considering the motion for adjournment of a criminal case in exercise of a discretionary power under section 309 code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short, code). .....
Tag this Judgment!