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.
Ms. Prerna Lakra Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary, De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant seeks the following reliefs:- “(i) to declare the action of the respondents in not holding the DPC for the purposes of filling up vacancies by un-amended rules as illegal and the impugned order dated 25.08.2010 may be quash and set aside; (ii) to direct the respondents to fill up the existing vacancies in accordance with the Recruitment Rules dated 19.12.1997 which were in force and were applicable on the date the said vacancies occurred/created and consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post Senior Scientific Assistant (Ballistics) and, if the applicant is found fit, she may be promoted; (iii) to pass such other and further orders as deem fit and proper.” 2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:- The applicant was initially appointed as Laboratory Assistant (Group-C) on 21.09.1999. She was promoted to the rank of Scientific Assistant (Ballistics) w.e.f. 08.07.2005 (A-3). It is her case ...
Kuldeep Singh Chauhan Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, New De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER(J) 1. Applicant has sought the following relief:- “(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent to produce the original record including the DPC proceedings, ACRs of the applicant and DPC note submitted by the department, before the Hon’ble Tribunal for adjudication of the case. (ii) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 4.2.2011 and also pass an order of quashing the DPC proceedings of the year 2001, held on 19.9.2001 for promotion to the post of UDC under LDCE quota and consequently pass an order of conducting review DPC and reconsider the case of the applicant along with other suitable candidates, after treating the ACRs of the applicant as “Very Good” for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and grant all the consequential benefits of promotion, seniority, fixation of pay, arrears of difference of pay and...
Mahesh Pal Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Its Director, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
HON’BLE SHRI GEORGE PARACKEN: 1. By this Original Application, the applicant has challenged the impugned Annexure A-1 Order No.DE.7/N/59/TGT/VIG/NGV/2007/ 2513 dated 31.8.2010 by which he was dismissed from service with immediate effect invoking the provisions contained in Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which empowers the Disciplinary Authority to consider the circumstances of the case “where any penalty is imposed on a Government Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge” and impose any penalty after affording him an opportunity to make representation on the proposed penalty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as TGT English in Rajkiya Pratibha Vikas Vidyalaya, Ludlow Castle No.2, Shamnath Marg, New Delhi, FIR No.25 of 2007 dated 24.4.2007 was filed against him under the provisions of Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corrpution Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge, Delhi convicted him, vide h...
N.K. Vohra Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (Defence), New Delhi a ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
(ORAL) 1. In this Application, the applicant has challenged his transfer to Leh. 2. The respondents have rescinded that order of transfer and place the applicant in-situ (CE Udhampur Zone) as Deputy Director (Contracts) vide order dated 21.10.2011. Thus nothing further survives for consideration in this Application. 3. The applicant’s counsel seeks to withdraw the present Application. The Application is dismissed as withdrawn....
Harsaranjit Singh Kochhar Vs. Ms Amalgamated Bean Coffee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ('Act') by Mr. Harsaranjit Singh Kochhar (herafter 'Petitioner') is directed against an interim order dated 31st March 2010 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the Petitioner and the Respondent Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company ('ABCTCL').2. The Petitioner is the owner of Hotel Willow Banks on the Mall in Shimla and an adjoining Fiesta Food Court comprising 2600 sq. ft. open area and 1000 sq. ft. covered area. ABCTCL, which is engaged in the business of running a chain of restaurants under the name Café Coffee Day ('CCD') proposed to the Petitioner that it would operate a CCD outlet from the Petitioner's hotel premises. By a letter dated 29th February 2008, ABCTCL remitted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of token advance. This was followed by a 'Term Sheet' signed by the parties on 3rd/6th March 2008. The area to be given to ABCTCL for running it CCD outle...
Arcotech Ltd. Vs. Director of Income Tax (Recovery) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. Arcotech Limited, earlier known as SKS Limited, has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, praying for following reliefs:-"(a) Issue a Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents each of them to comply with order dated 18.11.2004 and 24.06.2009 passed by BIFR, inter alia, by granting following reliefs and concessions:i) Business losses be allowed to carry forward under Section 72 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for a period of 8 years from the cut off date i.e. 01.10.2004.ii) No interest and/or penalty be levied.iii) Condone the delay in filing of Income Tax Return for the AY 2005-06 under Section 139 read with the section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.iv) The provisions of Section 115JB should not be applicable until such time net worth of the company exceeds Rs.63.71 Crores.(b) In the alternative, issue a Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider and grant reliefs/exemptions and concessions as have been granted by them to ...
Narender Kumar Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. By this application the Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 299/2009 under Section 3 of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short MCOCA).2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was only involved in one case in the year 2003 wherein he was acquitted in the year 2004. Further, after the alleged association in the sole FIR registered against the Petitioner in the year 2003, the Petitioner has had no association with the main accused Amit @ Babloo. Even as per the FIR No. 68/2003 under Section 302/201/120B IPC and 25 Arms Act the Petitioner had no direct association with Amit @ Babloo. Since there is no illegal activity committed by the Petitioner after 2003 it cannot be said that he was involved in continuing illegal activity. Further, no cognizance of any offence qua the Petitioner has been taken after 2003. In view of the fact that the Petitioner was only involved in one case wherein also he has been acquitted, the essent...
Hem Chand JaIn Vs. Mayank Trading Corp. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. The challenge by means of Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 24th January, 2008. By the impugned judgment, the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for recovery of the loan with interest was dismissed.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,89,100/- of which an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was the principal amount and the amount of Rs.89,100/- was towards interest. As per the case of the appellant/plaintiff, RFA 113/08 Page 1 of 7 the defendant No.1/concern (which is a sole proprietorship concern of defendant No.2) through the defendant No.3 took a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 14th February, 2003 carrying interest @ 13.2% p.a. Defendant No.3, Shri Arun Kumar Jain is the husband of defendant No.2 Smt. Alka Jain who is the proprietor of defendant No.1/concern. The case of the plaintiff was that the interest was paid only for three months from 14.2.2003 to 13.05.2003 and thereafter the responden...
Alagendiraa Apparels Pvt Ltd and anr Vs. Terra Manufacturing and Sales
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. Learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance and thus the caveat is discharged.CM No.19915/2011 (Exemption)2. Allowed subject to just exceptions.CM No.19914/2011 (for permission to file appeal)3. This application has been filed for leave to appeal by appellant No.2, who is the Managing Director of appellant No.1. It appears that appellant No.2 was by name not impleaded as a respondent though in the capacity of the Managing Director of appellant No.1, the contempt proceedings were sought to be initiated against appellant No.2.4. We, thus, grant leave to appellant No.2 to file the appeal and the application is allowed.Cont. App. (C) No.19/20115. Admit.6. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.7. At request of learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.8. The origin of disputes between the parties is a leasing agreement entered into between appellant No.1 and the respondent qua the machinery. It is the case of the respondent that...
Puja Kakar Vs. Arjun Kakar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. The order impugned before this court is the order dated 02.09.2011 vide which the application filed by the parties under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act had been adjudicated upon; the custody of the child namely Baby Rohini Kakkar aged12 years had been transferred from the mother to the father; the mother had been granted visitation rights as detailed in the said order. This order is the subject matter of the present petition. Parties are called in Chamber including Baby Rohini. The child was examined in Chamber in the first instance alone and she has expressed her desire to remain in the custody of the father. The child is mature and fairly intelligent; her thoughts are coherent and consistent. Her express desire to remain in permanent custody with her father with permission to visit her mother as and when she desires as also the said arrangement having been agreed upon by the parents keeping in view the desire of the child which is of paramount consideration; for a period...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »