Delhi Court October 2011 Judgments
Mrs. Geeta Sharma Vs. Union Public Service Commission Through Its Secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2011
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Geeta Sharma, the applicant herein, is aggrieved of the rejection of her candidature for the post of Assistant Director (Grade-I) (Electronic) in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Ministry of MSME, advertised on 12.03.2011. Inasmuch as, the applicant has not been called for interview, and, in other words, her candidature has been rejected only on the ground that she lacks the essential experience required for the post, there would be need to give only such facts which may be relatable to the issue under consideration. The experience required for the post as mentioned in the advertisement is as follows: “Three years” experience in a supervisory capacity in a technical or industrial concern in the development and production of electronic components, equipment and instruments. When the applicant would not receive the interview call, and further when her entreaties with the respondents to give her the reason for not calling her for interv...
Tag this Judgment!S.i. (Exe.) Rajesh Malik Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2011
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Shri Rajesh Malik, the applicant herein, was appointed as Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police on 10.05.1995. On completion of 12 years of regular service he was granted first financial upgradation under Accelerated Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) w.e.f 10.05.2007. At that point of time, a Criminal case No.RC-2(S)/2004/SIU-1/CBI was pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and the case continues to be at the same stage even now. It is the case of the applicant that his batch mates and juniors were considered for promotion to List-F (Exe.) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and his juniors have been admitted to the Promotion List-F w.e.f. 24.05.2011. It is further the case of the applicant that during his entire service he has neither received any charge memo in a departmental enquiry nor any charge has been framed against him in any criminal case except one Censure received in the year 2000. He is also not un...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjan Kr Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, M ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2011
By Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The applicants, 23 in number, are Junior Radiographers in the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), under the Union Ministry of Labour. They are getting the pay scale of Rs.3200-3950/- (5th CPC). Through this OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the applicants are agitating claims for being given higher pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. This is by claiming pay parity on the basis of “equal pay for equal work” with their counterparts in other hospitals. 2. The following reliefs have been sought:- “8 (i)The respondents have directed to consider and grant the pay scale of Rs.4000 - 6000 to the applicants/Junior Radiographers at par with the pay scale enjoyed by their counterparts in other Government Departments with all consequential benefits. ii) The respondents were be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.4000 -6000 to the applicants with effect from 1.1.96, with all arrears and interest. iii) Pass such other fur...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Sehgal Vs. Rajesh Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2011
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the two applications filed by the plaintiff, bearing I.A. No.6403/2011 (under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC) and I.A. No.16440/2011 (under Order XVA read with Section 151 CPC).2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession in respect of the premises bearing No.119-C, Lane No.3, Anupam Garden, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110068, recovery of arrears of rent and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, disposing, parting with possession or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.3. It is stated by the plaintiff that in the month of February 2009, the plaintiff had let out the suit property to the defendant for residential purposes for eleven months with effect from 07.02.2009 for a monthly rent of ` 1,75,000/- . The defendant deposited a security of ` 3,50,000/- and paid the rent for the month of February and Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2011
1. The instant petition has been filed to release the petitioner on bail.2. Mr. D.C. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner and submitted that vide the impugned order dated 28.09.2011, the ld. Special Judge has declined to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused.3. Ld. Senior Counsel has further submitted that an FIR No.14/2009 was registered with the crime Branch of the Delhi Police on 29.01.2009 under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on receipt of a complaint from the Secretary General of Lok Sabha, in light of the recommendations and conclusive findings given by the Joint Parliamentary Committee regarding an incident which took place on the Floor of the House on 22.07.2008 during the vote of confidence motion, whereby three BJP MPs had shown wads of currency notes during session in the parliament house, amounting to Rs.1 crore.4. The investigating authority filed charge-sheet followed by supplementary charge-sheet and the petitioner was...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Singh Lodhi Vs. Pratap Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2011
1. Vide impugned order dated 2.7.2007, suit being CS (OS) No.113/2005 filed by the appellant has been dismissed on account of the bar under Order 9 Rule 8 read with Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and additionally on account of concealing relevant facts.2. Reason why impugned order has been passed is that appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for partition with respect to the same property in respect whereof CS(OS) 113/2005 was filed. In said suit, appellant filed an application to withdraw the suit praying that liberty be granted to file a fresh suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction.3. The said application was dismissed on 7.2.2005 and thereafter nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant, resulting in the said suit being dismissed in default of appearance on 10.2.2005.4. Concealing aforesaid facts, CS(OS) 113/2005 was filed on the same allegations as were made in the previous suit and the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that a co-joint reading of Order 9 Rule 8 and Order 9 Rule 9, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mmtc Limited Vs. Legend Holding Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2011
1. Request made to adjourn the matter due to non- availability of senior counsel is declined inasmuch as we are told that the senior counsel is abroad. On 13.7.2011 the matter was adjourned for today on account of adjournment slip circulated and the appellant ought to have ensured presence by a learned senior counsel if it desired arguments to be advanced by a senior counsel.2. Request for adjournment being declined, matter has been heard.3. Facts are not in dispute.4. On 23.11.1995 appellant MMTC entered into a contract with M/s.National Food Authority of Philippines (for short ‘NFA’) pertaining to supply of 75,000 MTs of Non Basmati Super Fine White Rice and in turn MMTC entered into a back to back contract with Legend Holding Pvt. Ltd. which obliged Legend Holding Pvt. Ltd. to supply the rice in question by delivering the same at Philippines.5. The respondent, Legend Holding Pvt. Ltd. entered into contract(s) with 5 rice suppliers and at the asking of Legend Holding Pvt....
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Janak Sachdeva Educational Society. Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2011
1. The petition impugns the communication dated 3 rd July, 2009 of the respondent no.1 DDA cancelling the allotment earlier made in favour of the petitioner of an additional strip of land ad measuring 111.65 sq. mtrs. abutting the land ad measuring 997 sq. mtrs. still earlier allotted to the petitioner for the purpose of a Nursery School in Pocket-D, Dilshad Garden, Delhi.2. Notice of the petition was issued and recovery of possession from the petitioner of the said 111.65 sq. mtrs. of land stayed vide order dated 14th July, 2009. The Residents' Welfare Association (RWA) of Pocket-D, Dilshad Garden, Delhi applied for impleadment and was impleaded as respondent no.2 vide order dated 1st June, 2010. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent no.1 DDA and the respondent no.2 RWA. Rule was issued in the petition on 4 th April, 2011 and the interim order earlier granted made absolute.3. It appears that the petitioner, after the allotment of 111.65 sq. mtrs. land in its favour, app...
Tag this Judgment!S K Sachdeva and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2011
1. These three writ petitions challenge the appointments made by Respondent No. 1, Air India Limited (‘AIL’), to the post of Assistant Manager (Security) from amongst its serving permanent employees of the Security Department pursuant to a Staff Notice dated 2nd May 2003.Factual background2. On 26th July 2002, the AIL invited applications from the permanent employees of Security Department for filling up vacancies in, as well as maintain a wait list for, the post of Assistant Manager (Security). The eligibility criteria was that the applicant had to be a graduate in the category of Officer-Security/Assistant Officer-Security with a minimum of ten years of experience in the Security Department of AIL or possess a post-graduate qualification with a minimum of five years of experience in the Security Department of AIL. The procedure for selection was that all eligible candidates were to be called for a written test. Those qualifying in the written test would be required to app...
Tag this Judgment!Disney Enterprises Inc and anr. Vs. Harakchand Keniya and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2011
1. The plaintiffs have filed the above-mentioned suit on 12.07.2007 for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up the infringing material etc.2. The plaintiff No. 1, namely Disney Enterprises, Inc. is a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States of America with its principal place of business at 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California 91521-6840, USA.3. The plaintiff No. 2, a subsidiary of plaintiff No.1, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The registered office of plaintiff No.2 is at 4/F, Peninsula Tower-1, Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013.4. The plaintiff No.1 and/or its subsidiary and affiliated companies are engaged in a variety of businesses, including the operation of theme parks around the world, producing and distributing motion pictures and television programs, producing and selling clothing, books,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »