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.
S.V.Electricals Ltd Vs. Sylvania and Laxman Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.11.2010, the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of `48,89,814/- together with pendente lite and future interest @ 21% per annum has been dismissed with costs in sum of `75,000/- against the plaintiff.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that on orders being placed from time to time it supplied goods to the defendant at a credit of 45 days and raised 31 invoices which were accepted. Since sales tax was not to be paid by the defendant and in lieu thereof it had to issue 'C-Forms'after obtaining the same from the Sales Tax Department, three C-Forms were issued in respect of the goods supplied and this was evidence of acknowledgment of the liability. Pleading that from one unit of the plaintiff goods worth `25,21,285/- were supplied under 10 invoices between the dates 08.03.1995 to 09.08.1995 and goods worth `7,94,985/- were supplied from the other unit and for which 21 invoices were raised between the dates 25.03.1994 to 24.06.1995; suit a...
Bhandari Engineering and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. You One MahariA.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. These petitions arise out of a common set of facts. Two of them, under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [‘Act’], O.M.P. Nos. 170 and 189 of 2006 challenge an Award dated 28th December 2005 and two other O.M.Ps Nos. 163 and 220 of 2006 challenge an Award dated 10th January 2006 by the same Arbitral Tribunal. The remaining petitions, O.M.P. Nos. 315 and 316 of 2003 are connected petitions under Section 9 of the Act.Background Facts2. The National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’) awarded the contract of eight-laning of KM 16.500 to KM 29.295 of NH-1 in the State of Delhi (known as Contract Package No. NS-18/DL) in favour of M/s. You One Maharia (JV) [‘YOM-JV’] by an agreement dated 31st May 2001 for a total price of Rs. 60,68,53,375.80. The stipulated period of completion was 24 months.3. YOM-JV, after a detailed discussion with M/s. Bhandari Engineers & Builders Private Limited [‘BEBPL’], signed a sub-co...
Ms. Jasbir Kaur Anand Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicants are seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their absorption in DASS (Grade-III) cadre, a facility which has already been given to other Junior Data Entry Operators/Enumerators who were earlier appointed under Urban Basic Programme by the Urban Development Department of Delhi Government. It is their contention that their counter-parts who were retained by the Urban Development Department have been absorbed in the Grade-III DASS cadre, but others including the applicants who were deployed in the Department of Social Welfare have been left out even in spite of the fact that they were the original appointees of Urban Development Department. Their grievance is that they have been unfairly discriminated against and those who were junior to them as Data Entry Operator have already got the benefit of absorption into the regular cadre of DASS Grade-III. Their apprehension is that those who have been absorbed earlier in point of time in a...
Ms. Aman Sinha Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. Challenging the order dated 23.12.2009 of respondent Selection Board, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) issue directions to the respondent to appoint the Applicant on the post of TGT Drawing Teacher as per merit list in which the applicant obtained the 5th Rank; (ii) issue directions to respondent to pay consequential benefits to the applicant; (iii) pass such other direction which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper.” 2. The applicant was a candidate for the post of Drawing Teacher under Post Code-162/07, applications for which were invited in the advertisement No. 07/2007 of the Board. She had qualified in the selection test and obtained the 5th position in the merit list as per result notice published on 08.05.2009. But her case was not recommended by the Board on the ground that the Bachelor Degree in Fine Arts obtained by her was not from a recognized Institute. She contends that the degree was obtained ...
Harish Chand Sharma Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, New De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicants had sought the following relief: “(i)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the action of the respondents not considering the case of the applicants for their promotion to the post of Tech.I/TL in grade of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. 1.11.2003 or from the date of promotion of juniors on the basis of revised seniority vide order dated June, 2008 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to grant the promotion to the applicants to the post of Tech.I/TL w.e.f. 1.11.2003 under cadre restructuring scheme 2003 as granted to the junior persons, with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances with interest. (ii)That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 23.3.2010 as mentioned in order dated 5.7.2010 as well as order da...
Sh. Avani Chaudhary Vs. Union of India Through: the Secretary, Ministr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Issue notice to the respondents. Inasmuch as, it appears to us that the matter is covered, on our asking, Mr. Rajesh Katyal accepted notice on behalf of respondents. He was given time to go through the pleadings and the matter has thereafter been taken up after some time. 2. The prayer of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents only by saying that even though the matter may be covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of Manoj Kumar Mittal and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (OA No.4417/2010 decided on 15.09.2011) but the relief shall be confined only to the applicants of that case. This stand of the respondents is wholly illegal. It is the responsibility of the government to accord the same relief to the employees that has been granted to similarly situated persons, and not to force them to approach the court and/or tribunal for such relief. 3. That being so, when the matter in hand is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in...
Subhash Chand Chauhan Vs. Union of India Through: the Secretary, Govt. ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
(ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. The applicants in this case have sought a direction to the respondents to extend the benefits of the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 299/CH/2007 in the matter of C.M. Malhotra and two others vs. UOI, which is reported to have been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and which is also reported to have been implemented by the respondents vide orders dated 06.04.2010 and 15.04.2011. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants in this case are identically placed as the applicants in the aforementioned OA. 2. In view of this submission, we dispose of this Original Application at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case and without prejudice to the rights of the respondents, by directing the respondents to verify from their original records as to whether the applicants are identically placed as those in the aforementioned OA and if so, extend t...
Ms. Nidhi Kalra Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, Go ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the vires of the Recruitment Rules (RRs) in respect of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) for Domestic Science. He has made a prayer to set aside the RRs to the extent of method of recruitment prescribed in Column-10 which stipulates that vacancies in that regard should be 100% filled up by direct recruitment for the post TGT (Domestic Science). 2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the RRs for other subjects provides for 70% of the vacancies being filled up through promotion from Assistant Teachers (Primary) having requisite educational qualification. He cites the example of TGT, Modern Indian Language (MIL). Column No.11 of the RR for TGT (MIL) (page-89) reads as follows:- “Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment, or by promotion or by deputation/transfer and percent-age of the vacancies to be filled by various methods. &...
Sh. Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and Ano ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 11.05.2010 whereby his candidature for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Hindi) was rejected by the respondents on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under Recruitment Rules (RRs) in that he did not have Hindi as an “elective” subject at degree level, rather he passed Hindi as a “compulsory” subject. 2. The short question before us is whether the applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under RRs which read as under:- “9(b) as per Recruitment Rules then in force the candidate should have “Four years integrated Degree Course of Regional Colleges of Education of NCERT in the concerned subject with at least 50% marks in aggregate or Second Class Bachelor’s Degree with atleast 50% marks in the concerned subject(s) and in aggregate including elective and Languages in the combination of subjects as under: For TGT (H...
S.K. Srivastava Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Department of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) : 1. By the instant OA the applicant has challenged the order dated 14.07.2011(Annexure A1), as per which he has been transferred and posted on promotion and on administrative grounds from the post of Commissioner Income Tax(OSD), Delhi to Commissioner Income Tax [CIT] (Appeal) at Ranchi (CCA Patna) with reference to Para 3.3 and read with Para 7.1 of Transfer / Placement guidelines for officers of IRS 2010(in short Transfer Guidelines). Feeling aggrieved by the said transfer and posting order and impugning the same, he has approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure-A1) qua the applicant and to pass any other order that may be necessary in the matter. 2. The factual matrix of the case that led the applicant to approach this Tribunal would reveal that pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal in OA No.271/2010 whereby the respondents we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »