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.
Vikal Kumar Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, New Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
(ORAL) Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. OA has been filed by the son of the deceased employee who had been dismissed from service vide order dated 27.06.2002 (page 15) on the following charges: “(i) He remained absent without permission from the competent authority w.e.f. 22.4.1999 till date. (ii)He failed to hand over the charge of his cash box to D.C. Incharge before proceeding on leave as per the extant instructions. (iii)He made embezzlement of Rs.1,51,476/- in the Govt. cash entrusted to him for making payment to staff. (iv)He failed to close his cash book for ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ tour of April, 1999 as per standing instructions”. 2. Being aggrieved, applicant had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority stating therein that his father had been missing since 28.04.1999. The Police report was also lodged for this purpose on 15.05.1999 and the matter was reported to the authorities. He had requested the Appellate Authority to help ...
Manish Kumar Shandlay Vs. Basant India Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. At the outset, without adverting to the facts of the case, it is admitted proposition between the parties that respondent got issued the legal demand notice under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, from Delhi.2. Vide a judgment rendered by this Court on 09.09.2011 in Criminal Revision Petition No.170/2010 titled 'GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. v. Rahisuddin Khan,' jurisdiction aspect has been settled keeping the case of K. Bhaskaran v. S.B. Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762, into view, whereby five ingredients were decided for offences U/s 138 NI Act as under:-"The Offence u/s 138 NI Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence:-1. Drawing of the cheque,2. Presentation of the cheque to the bank,3. Returning the cheque unpaid by drawee bank,4. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount,5. Failure of the drawer to make payment with...
Manish Kumar Shandlay Vs. Basant India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. At the outset, without adverting to the facts of the case, it is admitted proposition between the parties that respondent got issued the legal demand notice under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, from Delhi.2. Vide a judgment rendered by this Court on 09.09.2011 in Criminal Revision Petition No.170/2010 titled 'GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. v. Rahisuddin Khan,' jurisdiction aspect has been settled keeping the case of K. Bhaskaran v. S.B. Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762, into view, whereby five ingredients were decided for offences U/s 138 NI Act as under:-"The Offence u/s 138 NI Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence:-1. Drawing of the cheque,2. Presentation of the cheque to the bank,3. Returning the cheque unpaid by drawee bank,4. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount,5. Failure of the drawer to make payment with...
Reserve Bank of India Vs. Ms. Jvg Finance Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. Present applications have been filed against the impugned orders passed by Mr. J. P. Aggarwal, one man Committee appointed by this Court rejecting their claims in respect of plots in JVG Hills Layout, Kondhapur Village, Hyderabad. The details of the land where ownership is claimed as well as the dates of impugned sale deeds according to the impugned reports of the Committee are mentioned in the chart given below:Sl. CA No. Plot No. Date of Impugned No. Sale Deed(s)1. 2274/2011 B - 563 15/10/19992. 2280/2011 C - 337 24/01/20003. 2283/2011 C - 321 15/10/19994. 2286/2011 B - 549 22/06/2000 (Eastern Part)5. 2289/2011 B - 549 22/06/2000 (Western Part)6. 2292/2011 F - 231 02/12/19987. 2301/2011 E - 323 A 12/06/19988. 2304/2011 C - 387 17/07/19989. 2307/2011 A - 530 27/01/200110. 2313/2011 C - 374 10/07/19982. In view of the order dated 23rd August, 2011 passed in Co. Appl. 1633/2011 in Co. Pet. No. 265/1998 as well as the fact that sale deeds in the present applications have been executed...
Madhu Panchal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. In the instant petition the petitioner has sought to consider the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge and revise the said order by setting aside the conditions of depositing Rs.01 lakh by way of FDR in the name of Trial Court.2. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 14.11.2011, ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been amicably settled with the complainant.3. On the statement of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the IO was directed to ensure the presence of the complainant on the next date of hearing. The complainant, namely, Roop Singh is personally present in the Court today, who has been identified by SI Ashwini Nagar, PS Karawal Nagar.4. The complainant submits that he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not want to pursue the case.5. The instant petition is a Criminal Revision. The same is filed against the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Court below to modify the same. Keeping in view the facts and ...
Jamia Millia Islamia Vs. Sh. Ikramuddin
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. The petitioner, Jamia Millia Islamia, a statutory public central institution regulated by Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988, assails the order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission (in short referred to as "CIC") in the respondent’s appeal No.CIC/SG/A/2010/001106, whereby the CIC has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the petitioner to provide the complete information available as on record in relation to query No.1 of the respondent.2. The respondent had sought information vide query No.1 as follows: "Copies of Agreement/settlement between Jamia and Abdul Sattar S/o Abdul Latif & mania and Kammu Chaudhary in Ghaffar Manzil land". Two other queries were also raised, however, I am not concerned with them in this petition as the impugned order directs disclosure of information raised in query No.1 only, as aforesaid.3. The PIO vide reply dated 18.03.2010 rejected the application of the resp...
Paam Antibiotics Ltd Vs. Sudesh Madhok
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. Vide impugned judgment dated 25.10.2010, IA No.5733/2010 filed by the plaintiff Smt.Sudesh Madhok, praying for a decree on admission has been allowed. Suit has been decreed in sum of `71,30,822/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum against the first defendant which has been further burdened with counsel's fee, payable to the plaintiff, in sum of `75,000/-.2. At the outset we may note that prior to the impugned order, decreeing the suit on admission being passed, issues were settled on 10.9.2009; being 5 in number as under:-"1. Does the plaintiff prove entitlement to the decree for `71,30,822/- (Rs.Seventy one lakh thirty thousand eight hundred twenty two); OPP2. Does the plaintiff prove entitlement to sell 2,50,000 shares registered in the name of M/s.Pushkar Trading Company Limited of the second defendant, allegedly pledged with it? OPP3. Does the defendant prove that it had discharged its liability to repay the claim of the plaintiff by issuing cheques and/or th...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Capital Power Systems Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. ITA No. 1115/2008 and 1228/2011 arise out of the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 08.02.2008 pertaining to the block assessment period 01.04.1989 to 17.12.1999 and in respect of two appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue in I.T. (SS) A.No. 58 (Del) 2005 and I.T. (SS) A. No. 125 (Del) 2005, respectively, before the said Tribunal.2. ITA No. 1115/2008 and ITA No. 1228/2011 are appeals by the revenue and both arise out of the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 08.02.2008 pertaining to the block assessment period 01.04.1989 to 17.12.1999 in respect of appeals filed by the assessee and revenue being I.T (SS) A. No. 58/Del/2005 and I.T (SS) A. No. 125/Del/2005, respectively, before the said Tribunal.3. In the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal one of the points taken was that the warrant of authorization had been issued by the Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation), who was not authorized to issue a search warrant and, the...
Dr. C.P. Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Commissione ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Applicant in the matter of promotion to Senior Administrative Grade has been superseded because of his ACRs, which were below benchmark. A DPC for the purpose met on 29.10.2009 and five ACRs of the applicant immediately preceding the DPC were under consideration. It is not in dispute that two of such ACRs, which may be below benchmark, on representation made by the applicant, have been upgraded commensurate to the benchmark. It is also not in dispute that other three ACRs of applicant were commensurate to the benchmark. That being so, in view of the settled law on the issue, a review DPC has to be constituted. 2. While allowing this Original Application, we direct the respondents to constitute a review DPC for considering the case of the applicant for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade and if he is found fit, to recommend to the concerned authority and the said authority then shall promote the applicant to the Senior Administrative Grade from the d...
Sh. Ravi Kumar Uppal and Others Vs. Press Council of India Through the ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Shri Ravi Kumar Uppal and 60 others working in the Press Council of India (PCI) have joined together and approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying (i) to declare the Regulation 13 of the Regulations 2002 as illegal, contradictory as the same deprives the benefits of Pension Scheme to the applicants; and (ii) to declare that they are entitled to the Pension Scheme of the Government and to direct the respondents to extend the benefits of the Pension Scheme as recommended by the 4th Central Pay Commission with interest and consequential benefits. In this background of the prayer, the applicants have sought the intervention of this Tribunal to quash and set aside (i) Office Memorandum dated 29.7.2008 (Page 96) in which the proposal of the second respondent to switch over the employees of PCI from CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme has not been agreed to, (ii) letter dated 16.9.2009 (page 97) whereby the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »