Delhi Court November 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sh. Saeed Vs. Sh. Hema Kant and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. In this appeal the appellant has made a challenge to the judgment and award dated 16.01.2006 of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Delhi whereby he had awarded a sum of Rs.3,10,756/- as compensation in the claim petition filed by the appellant for seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the road accident which took place on 25.11.2003. The appellant was crossing the road when he was hit by bus DL 1 PB 5371 driven by its driver at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Due to impact of the accident, he fell down and sustained grave injuries with multiple fractures in his left leg. He was removed to GTB hospital where he remained admitted from 25.11.2003 to 22.02.2004. Three major operations were conducted on left leg of the appellant and multiple steel rods were inserted in his left leg. Skin grafting was also done on the left leg by taking out flesh from his right thigh. The appellant suffered degloving of left leg besides painful ankylosis ...
Ms. Swati Khera Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant was a candidate for unreserved category (UR) vacancies of the post of Librarian under the respondent State Govt. Applications were invited for Post Code No.17/2007 in Advertisement No.02/2007. The user department revised the vacancies for UR category to 33. She was permitted to sit in the selection examination held by the respondent Board. She secured 119 marks out of 200 in the Part-II examination, as such was in the zone of consideration. Her grievance arose out of the fact that her case was ignored on the ground that she did not have the requisite experience/ computer diploma in order to be eligible for the post. She has impugned the order dated 06.08.2010 of the respondent Board by which her candidature was cancelled on the aforesaid ground. She has prayed for the following relief: “(a)quash and set aside the impugned and direct the respondents to declare the result of the applicant for the post of Librarian with Directorate of Edu...
Shri Baljeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Comm ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. RA No.369/2011 has been filed by the petitioner in TA No. 86/2010 on the ground that petitioner had even given representations to the authorities which were duly acknowledged on 13.7.1998, 15-16.2.1999, 28.6.1999, 31.7.1998, 22.9.1998, 12.1.1999 and 2.2.1999 but no orders were passed by the respondents nor the panel was displayed on the notice board, therefore, TA could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. We have read the Review Application. Law is well settled that mere filing of representations cannot extend the period of limitation. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others Vs. K. Thangappan and Another reported in 2006 (4) SCALE page 56 has held as under:- “It has been pointed out by this Court in a number of cases that representation would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay”. 3. On the point of limitat...
Sharad Tewatia and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. Applicants are holding the posts Fireman and Leading Fireman in Delhi Fire Service. They are seeking a direction to the respondents to maintain parity with regard to their pay vis-`-vis the Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspector of Delhi Police/CPMF. According to them, such parity was being maintained by the respondents, till the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Government. However, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs has considered the disparity caused by the implementation of the said recommendation in this regard and rectified it by themselves in the year 1998. Thereafter, the parity continued to be maintained till the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission. However, In para 3.8.12 of the recommendation of the report, the Commission has made the following recommendations. “3.8.12 Fire Fighting staff exists in various Union Territories as well as different Government organi...
Atul Tyagi Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
SHRI M.L. CHAUHAN: 1. The applicant has filed this O.A. against the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure A-1) whereby his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police has been held in abeyance on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case FIR No.33/2010 under Sections 452/354/323/32 IPC, PS Chhawla, Delhi and the said criminal case is pending trial. The grievance of the applicant is that in fact the said FIR is outcome of FIR No.1/2008 under Section 302 IPC, PS Chhawla, Delhi, in which case father of the applicant, namely, Rajesh Tyagi was incorporated as witness. It is further alleged that in order to put pressure on applicant’s father for not deposing against the accused as witness, a false case FIR No.33/2010 was registered by the relatives of the accused against applicant’s father and his other family members. The applicant has also placed on record a copy of FIR No.33/2010 on record as Annexure A-3. However, the name of applicant appea...
K. Srivatsan Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi Secretar ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. The applicant in this case has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in not paying him all the retrial benefits after he has superannuated from service on 30.6.98. His grievance is particularly against letter dated 17.8.2010 of respondent No.2, i.e., Director of Education to the Dy. Secretary (Vig.) stating that the matter regarding releasing of retirement benefits and payment during the period of suspension of the applicant is to be dealt/decided by the administrative department and under Rule 69 (C) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and no gratuity shall be paid to a Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issuing the necessary orders thereafter. 2. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that his case is squarely covered by a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-4305/2010 V.B.Bansal Vs. U...
Sh. Gaya Prasad Vs. Union of India Represented by Secretary, M/O Commu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. MA-1873/2011 has been filed for restoration of MA-1463/2011 which was dismissed for default on 24.05.2011. Earlier, the OA-424/2008 was also dismissed for default on 30.03.2011. The applicant submits that he has since been transferred out to Calcutta. It is inconvenient for him to get the confirmed ticket for travelling to Delhi and present himself before the Court on each of the dates fixed. Since he is representing his case himself he has prayed that both the MAs should be allowed and the OA-424/2008 be taken up for hearing. There was no objection from the respondents for restoration of the OA and hearing it on merits. In the circumstances, MA-1874/2011 and MA-1463/2001 were allowed and the O.A. was taken up for hearing. 2. The applicant submits that the three private respondents whose promotion to the Telecom Engineering Services (TES) Group-B post has been challenged by him have since been impleaded as parties. The Honble High Court in its order dated...
Ms Chameli Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dda and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The petition impugns the communication dated 27 th September, 2005 of the DDA to the petitioner rejecting the bid of `1,40,01,000/- for Plot No.03 in the Local Shopping Centre, Pocket-B, Sector-7, Vasant Kunj, Delhi in the open auction held on 30th December, 1994. The writ petition also seeks a mandamus to the respondent DDA to accept the bid of the petitioner and to allot the plot and deliver the possession thereof to the petitioner.2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 4th October, 2005 which was confirmed on 22 nd January, 2010, status quo directed to be maintained with respect to the said plot. Pleadings have been completed and the counsels have been heard.3. There is a history of litigation in the decade between 30 th December, 1994 when the auction was held and 27th September, 2005 when the bid of petitioner despite being the highest was rejected.4. The said bid was rejected by the Vice-Chairman of the DDA earlier also on 10th January, 1995 for the reason o...
Sh. Yashpal Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The petition impugns the award dated 11.05.2007 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:"Whether the services of S/Sh. Yashpal Singh & Sanjay have been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what reliefs are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect." and holding that the respondent No.2 management of M/s Delhi Flying Club Ltd. / employer did not violate any provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the matter of termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 14.07.1998 and the petitioner workman had failed to prove that he was unemployed since then and accordingly holding the petitioner to be not entitled to any relief. Though reference was qua the petitioner as well as Sh. Sanjay but the award records that Sh. Sanjay settled with the respondent No.2 employer during the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator and did not appear for evidence.2. Notice of th...
State Vs. Jai Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 27.01.2011 in S.C. No.60/2009 whereby he acquitted the respondents of the allegations of having committed the offence punishable under Sections-302/201/120B/34 IPC.2. The prosecution's allegations in brief were that information was received in the morning of 18.05.2004 by the PS Najafgarh that a male dead body had been discovered in the drain. A pair of chappals and a scooter with blood stains was also found at the spot. There were no eye witness; the Crime Team, upon being called, reached the spot.The photographs of the place of occurrence were taken and two chance prints were lifted from the right handle of the scooter. The police registered a case of homicidal death and proceeded to investigate the incident. On the basis of secret information, the first respondent Jai Singh was arrested on 19.05.2004. It was alleged that pursuant to disclosures made by him, articles were ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »