As per the rules of the Bar Council of India advertising and soliciting is prohibited in public domain. Om
Prakash & Associates has no intentions whatsoever of soliciting clients or advertising their work through this
informational website. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information. By clicking on "I Agree"
button herein below, the user acknowledges that:
(i) they of their own accord wish to explore the contents of the site,
(ii) the content served on this site does not not amount to advertisement rather is for the purpose of
sharing information about Om Prakash & Associates, and
(iii) Om Prakash & Associates has no responsibilty for decisions taken by the user based solely on the
information provided in the website.
Om Prakash & Associates
Integrity. Ethics. Experience.
About me
Om Prakash & Associates is a team of experienced and enthusiastic law professionals offering expert legal
services to a diversified client base in all areas of Indian Civil, Commercial And Constitutional Law. We
have our office in Mayur Vihar Phase-1, New Delhi-91, and a chamber in Civil Side, Tis Hazari Distt. Court
Complex, Delhi also.
We operate in litigation at various stages from the institution of case under many area
of laws viz. Civil Laws, Commercial Contract, Property Law, Co-operative Law, Dispute Resolution &
Arbitration, Constitutional Law, Matrimonial Laws, Negotiable Instruments Act, Service law, Labour Law,
Corporate Laws, Banking laws, Consumer laws, Antitrust & Competition etc.
By adhering to the principles of professionalism and professional ethics, we aspire to build long term
relationships with our clients, through teamwork guided by integrity, principle of honesty, confidentiality,
sincerity and consistency. We understand the client perspective- the need for responsive legal advice, legal
services, expertise and value. We represent a myriad of client bases, from business houses, MNCs, public
sector undertakings, NGOs besides Central and State Governments, ministries and departments to individual
clients.
LPA 353/2019 & LPA
354/2019(21/05/2019), 2019(176) DRJ 48
[G.S. Sistani, J.: Jyoti Singh, J.]
Constitution of India -- Article 226 -- Undue delay in approaching
court -- Explanation involved disputed questions, condonation of -
...
LPAs -- Single Judge dismissed writ petitions on ground of delay and laches as writ petitions were filed
after more than 27 years
from date of departmentalisation of 451 workers by Food Corporation of India -- Held, no infirmity in
order of Single Judge -
Explanation rendered to explain delay in approaching this Court not acceptable -- Even otherwise as
rightly held by Single Judge
disputed questions so raised cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings -- LPAs dismissed.
State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, Relied on.
(Para 10 to 12)
Damodar Yadav v. Food Corporation of India[DB], LPA 353/2019 & LPA 354/2019(21/05/2019), 2019(176) DRJ 48
[G.S. Sistani, J.: Jyoti Singh, J.]
FCI Handling Workers Union v. Union of India,
W.P. (C) No. 3256/2010,
W.P. (C) 4891/2008, W.P. (C),865/2010(23/08/2013), W.P. (C) No. 3256/2010, W.P. (C) 4891/2008, W.P. (C)
865/2010 [Valmiki
J. Mehta, J.]
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 -- Rule 58 -- Purpose of -- Held, purpose of Rule 58 is that an
authorized officer of a union
...
should sign the settlement.
(Para 8)
FCI Handling Workers Union v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 3256/2010, W.P. (C) 4891/2008, W.P. (C)
865/2010(23/08/2013), W.P. (C) No.
3256/2010, W.P. (C) 4891/2008, W.P. (C) 865/2010 [Valmiki J. Mehta, J.]
FCI Handling Workers Union v. Union of India,
W.P.(C)
438/2018(11/05/2018), 2018(170) DRJ 512 Vinod Goel, J.]
Constitution of India -- Article 226 -- Pre-mature petition -- On mere apprehension, dismissal of -- Central
Government prohibited
...
employment of contract labour in 226 Godowns and Depots of FCI by several notifications -- In meanwhile,
admittedly, on 06.07.2016,
Ministry of Labour and Employment, by notification conveyed its approval for exemption with regard to said
226 notified Depots of
FCI under Section 31 of Contract Labour Act -- Petitioner sought quashing of purported order dated
29.08.2017, which in fact is a DO
Letter by which Secretary, Department of Food & Public Distribution, under Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
of Government of India
had requested Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment to look into matter to expedite de-notification
of 226 FCI Depots in
view of fact that exemption by notification dated 06.07.2016 has been granted only for a limited period of
time -- Held, by impugned
letter, Secretary of Ministry of Consumer Affairs Department of Food Corporation, Govt. of India had only
made a request to
Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India to expedite issue of de-notification of said
226 FCI Depots -- Simply by
advice of some other departments of Gol, no fundamental right of petitioner infringed and grievance of
petitioner is
incomprehensible -- Petition is pre-mature and appears to be mis-conceived and filed only on mere
apprehension -- Hence,
dismissed -- Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 -- Section 10 -- De-notification.
(Para 9 & 10)
FCI Handling Workers Union v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 438/2018(11/05/2018) 2018(170) DRJ 512 [Vinod Goel,
J.]
Sanghi Medical Centre P. Ltd. v. Manik Ranjan Dutta,
CM(M) 590/2015 & CM
No. 17560/2017(22/03/2018) 2018 (170) DRJ 196 [R.K. Gauba, J.]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -- Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Order 22 Rule 4 -- Deletion of name from array of parties
-- N
...
o relief claimed against
deceased defendant, effect of -- Application for substitution of legal representatives of second
respondent -- Held, petitioner/plaintiff
being master of proceedings arising therefrom, no relief being claimed against second respondent, prayer
for dispensing with
formality of substitution of said party upon her death granted and instead her name stood deleted.
(Para 9)
Sanghi Medical Centre P. Ltd. v. Manik Ranjan Dutta, CM(M) 598/2015 & CM No. 17560/2017(22/03/2018),
2018(170) DRJ 196 [R.K. Gauba, J.]
Ram Rati
Vs. Mange Ram and Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 1684 of 2016 (Arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 22141 of 2013)
Decided On: 23.02.2016, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Case Note:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 18 Rule 17 - Witness--Recalled
...
--Legality of -- Once the court recalls the witness for the purpose of
any
such clarification, the court may permit the parties to assist the court by examining the witness for the
purpose of clarification required or permitted by the court--Power under Rule 17 cannot be stretched any
further--No prejudice is caused to either party' is also not a permissible ground to invoke Rule 17--It is
a
discretionary power of the court but to be used only sparingly, and in case, the court decides to invoke
the
provision, it should also see that the trial is not unnecessarily protracted on that ground--Impugned
orders
passed by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court to recall a witness at the instance of the
respondent
"for further elaboration on the left out points", is wholly impermissible in law-Order is set
aside--Appeal is
allowed. [11] and [18]
Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co.
Vs.
Air Force Naval Housing Board and Ors.
Arb. P. 498/2014
Decided On: 17.03.2015
Case Note:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 11 - Appointment of arbitrator--Signing of MoU for final settlement
...
--Question as to what extent the Mou
precludes the Petitioner from raising claims and to what extent the parties have complied with the
respective
obligations thereunder has to be examined in the arbitration proceedings--Arbitration clause contained in
the
contract between the parties has been rightly invoked by the petitioner--Question whether the invocation
happened only after 28 days of the cause of action arising in terms of Clause 19.2 appears to be a
disputed
question of fact, which can be examined by the learned Arbitrator--Mr. Justice R.P. Gupta, a former Judge
of this
Court, residing at 149, Dayanand Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110 092 appointed as sole Arbitrator to
adjudicate the
disputes between parties, including their claims and counter-claims--Petition disposed of.
H.P. State Co-Operative Development Federation
Vs.
Chandra Pal Singh
FAO No. 164/2013
Decided On: 27.01.2014
Case Note:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Re
Section 37 - Compromise - Representation - Authority to represent - Dis-entitlement of
...
- Recall of compromise
order passed - Appellant-cooperative society is represented by the respondent no. 2 - Dis-entitlement in
the
arbitration proceedings - Respondent No. 2 acted as a representative of the appellant-cooperative society
-
Resolution passed by the appellant in favour of the respondent no. 2 - No prior restriction of any nature
before
entering of the compromise - Respondent no. 2 is deemed to have acted for and on behalf of the appellant -
Respondent no. 2 herein was all alone representing till the compromise order was passed - Each and every
act
which is done by a nominee of a co-operative society with NCUI, prior approval of the co-operative society
is
required for the nominee to act - Held, respondent no. 2 cannot be said to have in any manner acted
illegally in
arriving at the compromise - There was no restriction on his power to act on all aspects which entitlement
includes a power to enter into a compromise - Appeal dismissed.
Prem Lata
Vs.
Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2996 7 of 2011
Decided On: 11.09.2012
Acts/Rules / Orders:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 10(1A)
Prior History / High Court Status:
...
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letters
Patent
Application/Petition No. 518 of 2011 (MANU/DE/3114/2011)
Disposition:
Petition Dismissed
N.K. Aggarwal and Ors.
Vs.
UOI and Ors.
L.P.A. No. 291 of 2002 & CM No. 5363/2010 with L.P.A. No. 719 of 2002 & CM No. 5362/2010
Decided On: 13.09.2012
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 5(c)(a); Constitution of India - Article 12, Constitution of India -
Article 226,
...
Constitution Of India - Article 32
Cases Referred:
U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors. MANU/SC/0872/1999;
Anandi Mukta
Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. vs. V.R. Rudani and
Ors.
MANU/SC/0028/19890; LIC of India and Anr. vs. Consumer Education & Research center and Ors.
MANU/SC/0772/1995;
Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and Ors. MANU/SC/0769/20030; G. Basi Reddy etc. etc. vs. International
Crops
Research Instt. and Anr. MANU/SC/0115/20030; The Praga Tools Corporation vs. Shri C.A. Imanual and Ors.
MANU/SC/0327/19690; VST Industries Ltd. vs. VST Industries Workers' Union & Anr. MANU/SC/0760/20000;
Sohanlal vs.
The Union of India (UOI) MANU/SC/0091/19570; General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur,
U.P. vs.
Satrughan Nishad and Ors. MANU/SC/0795/20030; K. Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu
College of
Engineering and Anr. MANU/SC/1113/19970; Supriya Basu and Ors. vs. West Bengal Hsg. Board and Ors.
MANU/SC/0460/20050; Binny Ltd. and Anr. vs. V. Sadasivan and Ors. MANU/SC/0470/20050; State of U.P. and
others vs.
Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. MANU/SC/0969/19960"; Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Kurien E.
Kalathil & Ors.
MANU/SC/0435/20000; K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and Ors.
MANU/DE/1499/2011
Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd.
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
W.P. (C) 4033/2007 and CM 7598/2007
Decided On: 17.09.2008
Case Note:
Trust and Society - Repatriation - Sections 11(2) and 35(2) of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002
...
-
Present writ petition filed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash order of Government of India (GOI)
directing
repatriation to GOI of equity held by it in petitioner Society - UOI has obdurately opposed this Petition
despite
written opinion of Attorney General to effect that unamended Clause 27(ii) does not envisage prior
approval in
writing; that Government had agreed to amendment for reason that had it opposed it, amendment would not
have obtained requisite two-third majority; that Registration Certificate cannot be cancelled by Registrar
in
absence of any express provision; that direction contemplated by GOI to IFFCO to amend Bye-laws so as to
restore status-quo ante amendment would be violative of Section 11(2) of MSCS Act - GOI has also attempted
to
argue contrary to letter of Additional Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture to effect that there was no
compelling or
convincing reason to amend Section 35(2) of MSCS Act which prescribes that redemption of shares shall be
on
face value of shares - Note appended to this Letter renders Counter-Affidavit totally irreconcilable with
policy of
GOI in respect of Co-operative Societies as well as to written opinion of Attorney General which is fully
binding
on respondents - Hence appeal allowed
Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
Dalmia Cement Ventures Ltd.
F.A.O.(OS) No. 536/2010 and C.M. No. 15324/2010
Decided On: 24.09.2010
Case Note:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9--Interim relief--Challenge to order passed by Ld. Single
Judge-
...
The contract awarded to the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent due to recession--Invoking of Bank
guarantee of Rs. 16,60,80,000/- Whether to grant an injunction which has the effect of restraining the
encashment of a bank guarantee--A bank guarantee is created by the documents itself, once the document are
in
order, the bank guarantee must honour the same and make payment ordinarily unless there is a allegation of
fraud or the like--Fraud has not been pleaded and the relief for injunction was sought by respondent on
ground
of special equities--Settled law that a contract of bank guarantee is a complete and separate contract
itself--
Court directed to appellant to furnish a bank guarantee of 7.6 crores and to ensure that the said bank
guarantee
remains current for period of 90 days after passing of the arbitral award--Court clarified that Arbitral
Tribunal
shall be free to pass direction in respect of bank guarantee as it consider expedient, lawful and
just--Appeal
disposed of.
Lalit Bhatia and Ors.
Vs.
Dina Nath Bhatia and Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TR. P. (C) No. 33/2010
Decided On:-16.08.2011
Case Note:
Civil-Transfer of probate case - Petition sought transfer of Probate Case from Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to
the
...
High Court of Delhi to be clubbed with the suit for partition filed earlier by the Petitioners- Held, even
if the
probate proceedings were tagged or considered along with the suit of partition filed by the Petitioners,
no useful
purpose would be served as the evidence in the Probate Cese had already been concluded - Rather, it
appeared,
that by fiing of present petitiaon the Petitioner is trying to delay the Probate Case - Purpose of
consolidation of
two proceedings was to exercise the power to meet the justice, but not to further delay of the matter,
otherwise
the scheme of passing the order of consolidation would be defeated - Present Court was conscious about the
fact
that normally, the prayer for clubbing the matters was not denied but each case has its own facts - Facts
of the
present case did not allow the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Petitioners- In case the
prayer of
the Petitioner was allowed, no doubt, the proceedings in the Probate Case would be delayed for years
together as
in the suit filed by the Petitioner for partition, the issues were yet to be framed Present case was not a
fit case
to pass the relief claimed in the present transfer petition Petition dismissed.
Prem Lata
Vs.
GNCT of Delhi and Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P. (C) 178/2011
Decided On: 03.05.2011
Case Note:
Service - Appointment - Selection Committee made recommendation for filling up vacancies in Office of five
...
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by preparing a panel - However, Petitioner did not figure in name of
five (5)
selected candidates in said recommendation Hence, this Appeal - Whether, Petitioner could be said to be a
fit
person for occupying post of President and entitled to any equitable relief - Held, advertisement,
inviting Applications, did not contain any condition that selected candidate was required to join within
45 days-It was in contemplation at time of inviting Applications that those already in service could also
apply and be selected and advertisement required such persons to obtain clearance of their department and
route their Applications through proper channel- However, it was case of Petitioner that pursuant to
initial recommendation consolidated panel in which she was placed at serial No. 6 was prepared but record
and office noting did not support such case Record and office noting contain only one recommendation of
Selection Committee and in which Petitioner had a right of appointment only in event of Shri M.C. Mehra
not joining within 45 days - It was not case of Petitioner that Shri M.C. Mehra did not join within 45
days, Shri M.C. Mehra was not even impleaded as a party to Petition- Rather than Mr. M.C. Mehra joined
within 45 days Thus, as per recommendation on record Petitioner had no right of appointment upon delay by
Respondents No. 4 to 6 in joining Petition dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi:
"Appointment shall be made on recommendation of Selection Committee as per advertisement."
SB Civil WP
No. 600/2006 decided on 23.8.2006
By HMJ Dinesh Maheshwari, High
...
Court of Rajasthan Principal Bench,
at Jodhpur.
Radhika Lall and Ors.
Vs. Build Aids Timber Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
IN THE COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
UTPE No. 113 of 2007
Decided On: 03.07.2015
Cases Referred:
R. Rudraiah Anr VS State of Karnataka & Ors. MANU/SC/0088/1993; State of Kerala & Ors vs. V.R Kallyanikuty &
Anr
...
MANU/SC/0226/19990,V.M Salgaocar and Bros Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and Anr.
MANU/SC/0241/2005 Corporation Bank &Ant VS. Navin 3. Shah MANU/SC/0040/2000; Hansraj Gupta and Ors. vs.
official Liquidators of the Dehra Dun=Mussoorie electric ramway Company, Limited MANU/PR/O062/1932; M.S.
Shoes East Ltd. vs. M.R.TEP. and Ors. MANEZDELO94Z/2003 The State of Gujarat vs. Patil Raghav Natha and
Ors. MANU/SC/0406L1969 The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T.P Kunhaliumma
MANU/SC/0323/19769; Ram Chand and Ors. vs. Union of India (UO) and Ors. MANU/SCO559/19940 Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Bombay Tyres international-ltd. & Ors
MANU/SCI024411998
...
Contact Us
Office
F-13 & F-20, First Floor, Pankaj Grand Plaza, Near Delhi Police Apartments, Mayur Vihar Phase-1,
Delhi-110091
Telephone No:011-22751805
