Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 19 of about 331 results (0.022 seconds)Om Prakash Singh and ors. Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NoORDER. (Oral)1. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgement dated 16.9.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT), and by which judgement, the CAT dismissed the Original Applications (OAs) which were preferred by the present petitioners challenging the seniority list prepared pursuant to impugned order dated 30.11.1995 by respondent (Director of Respondent No.2) in the OA and also respondent No.2 herein.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Senior Translators on the basis of a written examination held on all India basis followed by an interview and medical examination. The appointment of the petitioners were, however, called as ad hoc appointments. Since there was threat of termination of services of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mange Ram Vs Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES ORDER(ORAL)1.The petitioner Shri Mange Ram has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- "a) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus whereby the respondents No. 1 & 2 may be directed to allot/recommend an alternative plot in favour of the petitioner in lieu of his acquired land under the scheme of large scale acquisition, development of land acquired by respondent No.1 in the year 1958-59 under Award No. 1938-39;b) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus with direction to the CBI and/or other appropriate agencies to investigate and inquire into the matter whereby respondents either recommended/alloted the plot in favour of third persons, if it is so deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Hc Sukhbir Singh Vs Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. By this writ petition, the petitioner assails the movement order dated 1st July, 2010 whereby he has been required to move from 103 Battalion of the Rapid Action Force presently at Delhi to his parent Battalion which is 127 Battalion Central Reserve Police Force and is currently located at Orissa. The writ petition is premised on the contention that the petitioner had submitted an application for voluntary retirement from his service dated 14th June, 2000 which has not been considered by the respondents. The contention is that, pending orders on his request for voluntary retirement, the movement shall work undue hardships to the petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, the resultant displacement of the petitioner's family would be unwarranted and consequently he has prayed for quashing of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Kumar Mishra Vs Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 16th December, 2008 passed by respondent No.3 terminating his service and directing that his name be struck off from the rules of Central Reserve Police Force. The petitioner also assails the order dated 3rd July, 2009 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner assailing the order of termination.2. The challenge by the petitioner is premised primarily on the ground that the same is without any justification and basis and was passed in gross violation of the principles' of natural justice. It is contended that the order of termination has been passed during the currency of the extended training period of the petitioner even though the petitioner had not been declared as having been failed.3. We have...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Not necessary2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER.1. Appellant has been convicted under Sections 392/394/397 IPC by the learned trial court and sentenced to face rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 392 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 394 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 397 IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. Appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 411 IPC. At the time of his arrest, one countr...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Synthetic Silica Products Vs. C.C.E., Kanpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner No. 2/Commr/Tech/Rem/2008 dated 7.4.08, by which the party’s claim for remission of duty amounting to Rs.6,24,205/- involved on semi-finished goods and raw material and finished goods destroyed in fire accident was rejected. Heard both sides. 2. There was a fire accident on 25.2.2007 in the premises of the appellant and in the said fire, finished goods, raw materials and semi-finished goods were destroyed. The appellants claimed remission of duty under different categories. A sum of Rs.86,046/- was claimed on finished goods; a sum of Rs.74,351/- was claimed on raw materials destroyed; a sum of Rs.3,90,693/- and was claimed on raw materials contained in semi-finished goods which were destroyed; and a sum of Rs.73,115/- was claimed on raw materials contained in finished goods which were destroyed. Commissioner held that the fire accident could have been prevented and in fact held that there was negligence, o...
Tag this Judgment!Sanghi Group of Industries Vs N.D.M.C. and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. I have examined the affidavit filed by the NDMC. In the affidavit it is stated that no company by the name of M/s Sanghi Group of Companies is in occupation of the property No.30, Todar Mal Road, New Delhi. It is further stated that from the neighbours no information regarding the whereabouts of the company could be ascertained. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit it is stated that the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer had carried out inspection of the suit property on 24.10.2005 and the same was found to be in occupation and use of a firm M/s. Sanghi Group of Industries. Accordingly, M/s. Sanghi Group of Industries was made accused No.1 to the complaint and Mr.Gireesh Sanghi, Director of M/s. Sanghi Group of Industries was made accused No.2.2. M/s. Sanghi Group of Industries is not an identity or a person recognized by law. A premises can be in occupation of a natural person or a juristic person and prosecution can be against a natural person or a juristic person. Similar...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Mehra and ors. Vs Sunil Malhotra and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes1. An order dated 3rd December 2009 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in Eviction Petition No. 26 of 2008 granting leave to the Respondents/tenants to defend the Eviction Petition preferred by the Petitioners under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA) is challenged by the Petitioners/landlords by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Background facts2. The tenanted premises, which forms part of the property at 34 Hanuman Road, New Delhi, was let out to Diwan Hukam Chand Sahni, the Predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents/tenants by Shri R.S.Devi Dayal Mehra, the grandfather of Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioner No.2 by way of a lease deed dated 23rd August 1941. The tenanted premises include three servant quarters and one garage. I...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and anr. Vs Shanti Devi Sharma
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. Rule D.B.2. Heard for disposal.3. A short issue arises for consideration.4. The predecessor in interest of the respondent Late Sh.Tara Chand Sharma who was in Government service, post retirement, opted not to pay the requisite contribution to be a member of Central Government Health Scheme.5. Unfortunately for him, after availing medical aid, he applied for being issued a CGHS Card on 04.03.2003. It was then that he paid the requisite money and was inducted as a member of the Central Government Health Scheme.6. But the medical bills prior thereto were rejected on the ground that when medical treatment was taken he was not a member of the scheme.7. Proceeding to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Late Sh.Tara Chand Sharma succeeded when impugned order dated 14.01.2008 was passed.8. While passing the im...
Tag this Judgment!Director General Doordarshan Vs Dharam Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. Vide order dated 11.4.2000, the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed OA No.91/1999 filed by Dharam Singh, respondent No.1, who claimed that being born on 3.3.1964 he had to be treated as below the maximum age limit of 25 years prescribed for regularization; for the reason the applicable policy envisaged 3 years age relaxation.2. A perusal of the order dated 11.4.2000 shows that the Tribunal has considered 9.6.1992 as the cut off date for purposes of computing the requirement of number of days worked as envisaged under the policy for purposes of acquiring the eligibility for regularization.3. The Tribunal has referred to its order dated 20.8.1993 allowing OA No.380/1993 Lalit Vikram vs. Director General, Doordarshan, wherein, in para 20 of its order, the Tribunal held that having deleted para 6 of...
Tag this Judgment!