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.
Kiran Lata Kaushik Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(ORAL) By Hon’ble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J): 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 5.10.2005 (page 10) whereby she was removed from service after holding an enquiry. 2. It is stated by the applicant that she was served with a Memorandum dated 24.6.2003 with the following allegations:- “ARTICLE OF CHARGE-1: That the said Smt. Kiran Lata Kaushik while working as Receptionist entered in the office of Public Relations on 09.10.2002 unauthorisedly and took away a black diary intentionally wherein telephone number of all the Members of Parliament and the VIPs were written by the Office of the Public Relations. Such act has not only disturbed the smooth functioning of the P.R.O. Office, and has taken away the black diary without permission of the Officer-In-Charge of the P.R.O. Office. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-2: That the said Smt. Kiran Lata Kaushik while working as Receptionist was transferred/posted vide O.M. No.F.25-1/97-Estt.I dated 27.11.2002 to work as Receptionist at P.C....
Rajbir Singh Vs. Sh. P. K. Tripathi Chief Secretary, Delhi
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(ORAL): JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Whereas, the applicant seeks punishment to the respondent for violating directions given by us, vide order, dated 8.12.2010 passed in OA No.1882/2010, the respondents would seek clarification from us of the order aforesaid through MA bearing No.1719/2011. It is stated in the application aforesaid that this Tribunal in OA No.2382/2010 in the matter of Prem Singh Dahiya and Others versus Government of NCTD and Others decided on 26.05.2011 have ordered recasting of seniority and till such time the seniority is recasted, it will not be possible to give effect to the directions given in the judgment, non compliance whereof has been complained in this Contempt Petition 2. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, we are of the view that there was no need at all to file the MA for clarification, as mentioned above. The respondents would have been well within their right to express their inability to implement the judgment for the time b...
T.M. Sampath Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, New Delhi and A ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J): 1. Applicant, who appears in person, seeks permission to withdraw O.A. No.1389/2010 and MA No. 2689/2011 with liberty to file a fresh one, if so required after OA 2701/2011 is decided, in accordance with law. In view of above, this O.A. as well as MA both are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid....
Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India, New Delhi Through Member-secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. After arguing for some time, Mr. Mathur, counsel representing the applicant, limits his prayer that the applicant be permitted to inspect the documents for which he has already made an application. The enquiry officer will go into this issue and under the rules, if permissible, permit the applicant to inspect the documents. Disposed of accordingly....
M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd Vs. Cce, Meerut
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are registered under Central Excise and are engaged in the manufacture of Sugar, molasses and denatured spirit falling under Chapter Heading Nos.1701, 1703 and 2207 respectively. They were also availing Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. They were transferring the molasses from their sugar section to distillery section for manufacture of rectified spirit. The duty paid on the clearances for the aforesaid purpose is availed as Cenvat credit in distillery section. The Appellants, however, were reversing Cenvat credit @ 10% of the sale price of non-dutiable products under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Credit Rules whereas it was observed by the Deptt. that they were required to reverse the same on actual proportionate basis. 2. Thus two show cause notices (SCN) dtd. 03.03.08 and 18.03.08 for demand of Rs.2,60,909/- and Rs.4,49,107/- along with interest and penalty, for the mont...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›