Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-03-1970
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi260
..... the appointment of teachers and staff made by the governing body of the college. in the second decision, the question of locus standi was not considered at all.(27) the rationale underlying the theory of locus standi has been well expressed by prof. s. a. de smith at page 422 of his 'judicial review of administrative action', 2nd edition :- 'alldeveloped legal .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-01-1970
Reported in : 231ITR318(Delhi); 97TAXMAN144(Delhi)
..... in cwp no. 5220 of 1993 referred to above, deferment period of 6 years was applied and in this case deferment period of 5 years was applied. what is the rationale, we do not know. these matters cannot be left to the undisclosed, unguided and uncontrolled discretion of the authority. i am also unable to appreciate the contention that the valuation .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-20-1970
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi392
hardayal hardy, j. (1) this is an appeal under clause 10 ofthe letters patent from the judgment of s. rangarajan j. dated 30/05/1969 dismissing the appellant's petition under article 226 of the constitution directed against an award made by thelabour court.(2) the material facts are not in dispute. the appellant is apublic limited company. it owns an industrial unit called theswatantra bharat mills at delhi. shambhu math mukherjiwho will hereafter be referred to as respondent was a work-manemployed in the said mills. he joined as a store coolie in 1951,became fitter helper after six months and was promoted afterabout a year as a motion setter. in october 1964, the appellant-company introduced a scheme for re-organisation of the weavingsection of the mills whereby in pursuance of an alleged agreementbetween the work-men and the management, provision wasmade for the appointment of a new category of work-men calledassistant line fixers (assistants grade 1) and for the abolitionof the post of motion setters. under that scheme, the respondentalong with some other work-men was placed under training forsix months on probation with effect from 1/10/1964. hiswork was however not found satisfactory and the period of probation was thereforee extended by another three months with effectfrom 1/04/1965. even after the extended period, his workand conduct were not found up to the mark and as such he couldnot be appointed as assistant line fixer.(3) the post of motion setter having thus been .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-06-1970
Reported in : (1971)IILLJ375Del
s.n. andley, j. (1) the order dated may 20, 1968 of the delhi administration prohibiting the continuance of the strike by the petitioner union which was passed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 10 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 has been challenged by this writ petition on three main grounds. firstly, because sub-section (3) of section 10 of the said act is vocative of article 14 of the constitution; secondly, because the said order was not in compliance with the provisions of the said sub-section and thirdly, because the said order was passed at the instance of respondent no. 2 without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to show cause against it.(2) the petitioners are a union of workmen of messrs edward keventer (s) private, limited. the first respondent 1s the lt. govenor of delhi and the second respondent 1s the said company. certain demands raised by the petitioners on december 20, 1967 were pending conciliation before the conciliation officer, delhi. on april 1, 1968 while the conciliation proceedings were pending, the general secretary of the petitioners served a notice of a strike upon the said company under sub-section (1) of section 22 of the said act to be called on any day after the expiry of fourteen days of the receipt of the said notice. the three demands upon which reliance has been placed by the petitioners before us which gave rise to the said notice were :- (1)'withholding of existing benefits and nonpayment of past .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-05-1970
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi220
hardayal hardy, j.(1) this appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court and raises the question of interpretation of rules 7 and 7-a of the central health service rules, 1963 as amended by the central health service (amendment) rules, 1966.(2) the appellant is union of india while the only contesting respondent is dr. bhim singh jain (respondent no. 1 herein) who was petitioner in civil writ petition no. 60 of 1969 decided in his favor by the learned single judge vide his judgment dated october 3, 1969. dr. bhim singh is admittedly a highly qualified ophthalmic surgeon who despite his humble start as l.m.s. (punjab), qualified himself later, as l.r.c.p.s. (edin.), l.r.f.p. & s. (glasgow), f.r.c.s. (edin.), m.r.c.p. (edin.) and d.o.m.s. (punjab). he returned to india on the completion of his studies abroad in the year 1957 and was selected soon after his arrival, by the union public service com- mission for appointment as staff surgeon, eye specialist, willingdon hospital, new delhi, in the pay scale of rs. 600-1150 which was revised by the pay commission 1959, to rs. 700-1250. he joined the above post on 26-8-1957.(3) in 1963 the new health service called the central health service was constituted and rules called the central health service rules, were framed by the president under the proviso to article 309 of the constitution. they will hereafter be described as 1963 rules. under these rules, the posts .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-22-1970
Reported in : 7(1971)DLT399
prakash narain, j. (1) this judgment will dispose of both l, no. 123 of 1967 and l.p.a. 124 of 1967 arising out of a judgment dated 22nd november, 1967 dismissing c.w. 217-d of 1964 and c.w.no. 150-d of 1961. (2) the appellant/petitioner in both these appeals is a society registered under the bombay co-operative societies act, 1925, as extended to delhi. certain lands situated in village okhla molar bund, ali, jasola, sadabad, madanpur and certain other villages within the union territory of delhi are owned by the government of uttar pradesh. with a view to assist the grow more pood campaign of the government of india by bringing under cultivation as much land as possible the appellant society approached the government of uttar pradesh through the government of india for lettiag out to it the above land so that the same could be brought under plough. by a letter dated 7th september, 1949, shri a.d. pandit, the then secretary to the government of uttar pradesh expressed the willingness of his government to lease out 928.8 acres of its land situated in the union territory of delhi for a period of 10 years ob a rent of rs. 40.000.00 for the first year and rs 50,000.00 per annum for the remaining 9 years on certain conditions. since the government of india was itself not prepared to take the land on lea se from the government of uttar pradesh it suggested that the land may be leased out by the government of uttar pradesh directly to the appellant -society. by a letter dated 15th .....Tag this Judgment!