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.
Uoi Vs. Farid
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. Petitioner has preferred the instant petition against the judgment dated 16.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby respondent, who is a Afghanistan national, has been acquitted on the charges under Section 21(c) and 23(c) read with Section 28 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’).2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 02.06.2007, respondent, who is holder of Afghanistan passport arrived at IGI Airport by KAM flight from Kabul. He was intercepted by Air Customs officer Akhilesh Kumar while walking out of the green channel. On making inquiry regarding any dutiable goods or any drug possessed by respondent, which he replied in negative; said Akhilesh Kumar called two independent witnesses besides Shri Timur Sarwar, Operational Manager of KAM Air, who was well conversant in vernacular as well as Hindi and English. Pursuant to notices under Section 102 of Customs Act and Section 50 NDPS ...
Smt. Veena Kumar Vs. Shri Kishan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for possession, damages/mesne profit and permanent injunction against the defendant. Defendant is brother-in-law (husband's brother) of the plaintiff.2. It is alleged in the plaint that the husband of plaintiff is owner of property bearing no. 48 in Block-D, measuring 80.78 sq. meters situated at Prashant Vihar, Delhi. She had purchased this suit property from Ramesh Kumar vide registered Sale Deed dated 8th August, 2007. Originally, the suit property was allotted to Late Shri Bal Kishan by the Delhi Development Authority vide perpetual Lease Deed dated 19th December, 1980 duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar I, Delhi. Thereafter, the suit property devolved upon Shri Ramesh Kumar pursuant to a Will left behind by Late Shri Bal Kishan. Wife of Late Shri Bal Kishan, namely Smt. Shanti Devi, was given right to reside in the property during her life time. Shanti Devi expired on 28th June, 2002. Defendant was permitted by Late Shri Bal Kishan to li...
Madan Lal Khanna and anr. Vs. the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the pending application, being I.A. No. 11454/2006, filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint. The amendments sought by the plaintiffs are mentioned in para 12 of the application.2. Originally, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the two defendants, namely, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and Canara Bank. The following reliefs were sought by the plaintiffs as per the plaint filed in the year 2004:"(A) pass a decree of declaration declaring that pursuant to the Deeds of Sub-lease dated 20.11.96 and 27.4.2011 under which the Defendant No.1 has entered upon the suit property bearing No.74/8 Janpath, New Delhi-110001 and is in occupation as Plaintiffs' tenant, the Defendant No.1 is bound to retain the leased premises till the entire duration of the lease ending on 20.11.2011 and pay rent as agreed for the full duration of the lease to the Defendant...
Sub-inspector (Retired) Sat NaraIn Vs. the Govt. of Nctd Through the C ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
(ORAL) MR. M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J): 1. The applicant has filed this OA thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(i) To set aside the impugned order at A-1 dated 13.5.2011 and further direct the respondents to pay to the applicant his pensionary benefits including gratuity, commuted pension, leave encashment and full pension w.e.f. the date of superannuation i.e. 30.4.2011 with 24% rate of interest till the date of actual payment. (ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.” 2. During the pendency of the OA, respondents have passed certain orders whereby gratuity amount as well as leave encashment etc. have been paid to the applicant. 3. In view of this subsequent development, the present OA does not survive except to the extent of the interest for delayed payment of retrial dues. 4. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the present OA can be disposed of at this stage itself with...
R. P. Singh Vs. Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Nc ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. R. P. Singh, the applicant herein, a candidate for the post of Non Official Member of the Maintenance Tribunal, because of his not having post-graduate qualification, has been held not eligible for the same. Admittedly, the applicant is BA, LLB. He claims his qualification of BA, LLB to be a post-graduate degree. The limited question raised in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is as to whether the qualification of BA, LLB would be a post-graduate degree. 2. The facts of the case relevant for the limited controversy as raised in the present OA may only suffice. In that regard, we may mention that the applicant, as mentioned above, is BA, LLB. He joined the Government of Delhi in 1978 as Foreman Instructor-cum-Superintendent in the Department of Social Welfare, and retired as Deputy Director on 31.07.2010. He made his application for appointment on the post of Non Official Member of the Mainten...
Mcd Translatorsand#8217; Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through C ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
By dr. Veena chhotray 1. The applicant No.1 is the MCD Translators’ Association represented through one of its members. The applicant no.2 is another member of this Association. They are aggrieved at the alleged inaction of the respondent-MCD in not fixing their non-functional pay scale on the analogy of the Grade-I (DASS) Senior PAs working with the GNCT of Delhi. This is the second round of litigation. In pursuance of the directions in the earlier OA, the respondents have rejected the claims of the applicants by a speaking order dated 3.12.2010. Forming a subject of challenge, this impugned order has occasioned the present OA. 2. By way of relief, the following directions have been sought:- “(a)Quash the order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the respondent corporation refusing to grant the Non Functional Grade Pay of 8000-13500/- to the applicants as per the resolution dated 21.07.2007 bearing no 878(4) passed by House of the Corporation. (b) Direct the respondent corpora...
Dr. Vishwa Nath Vashist Vs. Government of India - Through Secretary, M ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
(ORAL) 1. By filing the present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:- “(1)Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 12.08.2011 and 12.09.2011 passed by CSIR reducing the restorable pension or ordering recovery of the excess payment of pension; (2) Direct Respondent no.2 to restore applicant’s pension to its Original authorization after final assessment @ Rs.12116/- on par with Central Government pensioners; (3) Direct Respondent No.1 to devise a method/suitable formula for absorbee pensioners to avoid drop in pension so that they are treated as par with other Central Government pensioners in accordance with the spirit of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order/judgment dated 1.05.1998 on parity; (4) Direct respondents to pay the cost of this uncalled for litigation thrust upon the applicant.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as enumerated by the applicant ...
Adil Rashid Siddiqui and Another Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
By Hon’ble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) : 1. This matter was earlier decided by a detailed judgment dated 30.9.2010. However, the OA has been remanded back by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi with the following observations:- “The grievance of the petitioner is that the contentions urged before the Tribunal that the seniority list finalized in the year 2004 could not be changed in violation of the principles of natural justice and also that even a wrong list which has been acted upon for years cannot be changed have not been taken note of. 8. The plea that the petitioner has been singled out and hence the action is arbitrarily and unreasonable would be a facet of the first and the third contention urged and thus may not be a ground by itself. 9. As regards the last plea whether the seniority lists which were issued in the year 2005, 2007 and 2009 was a provisional or a final seniority list is a question of fact which certainly needed to be adjudicated upon by the Tr...
Bharat Lal Meena and Others Vs. Union of India and Others Through the ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
Shri M L Chauhan: MA 1517/2011 1. MA seeking joining together in a single petition is allowed. OA 1944/2011 The applicants have filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) To declare the action of respondents in promoting general category candidates against the backlog vacancies meant for ST candidates. (ii) To direct the respondents to hold DPC for promotion to the post of AE (Civil and Electrical) for the year 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and consider the applicant’s claim for promotion to the post of AE (Civil and Electrical) in ST Quota. (iii) To direct the respondents to consider the case of applicants for promotion to the post of AE (Civil and Electrical) from the date of promotion of the similarly placed persons with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. (iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case. (v) To allow the OA ...
Urmila Devi and Another Vs. the Union of India (Through Secretary), Ne ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
(ORAL) 1. The claim of the applicant in this Application is for compassionate appointment. Subsequent to filing of this Application, the applicant was in receipt of respondents’ communication dated 17.1.2011, whereby the applicant was informed of the result of consideration of his case by the Screening Committee, whereby his claim did not find any merit due to other cases being more deserving. The applicant, however, was also informed that his case would further be considered in the next Screening Committee subject to availability of vacancies for the purpose of compassionate appointment. 2. Since the applicant’s case is being considered by the respondents, there is no lis between the parties which survives for consideration in the present Application, the applicant’s counsel states that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents inform him of the result of the consideration of his case by the subsequent meeting of the Screening Committee, to which respondent...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »