Delhi Court December 2011 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2011 Page 3 of about 191 results (0.022 seconds)Gopal Singh and Another Vs. the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
By Hon’ble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Both these OAs are being disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the same incident, common inquiry was initiated, same arguments are advanced and even the counsel in both the cases are same. 2. The brief facts, as alleged by the applicants, are they were dealt with departmentally with the following allegations:- “It has been alleged that SI Alam Singh No.D-2009 (PIIS No.29670067), HC Gopal Singh No.7571/DAP (Now 12145/DAP, PIS No.2888047), Ct. Suresh Chand, No.7603/DAP (PIS No.28891261), Ct. Kishan Pal Singh, No.2333/DAP (PIS No.28891343) and Ct. Rohtash Kumar, No.2601/DAP (PIS No.28902007) had been deputed to produce under trial prisoner Mohd. Imran @ Shiva S/o Rishalat Hussain R/o 101/290, Karnal Ganj Kanpur U.P. Lodged in Jail No.8, Central Jail Tihar New Delhi in the Court of ADJM Kanpur on 13.5.2008. After completing necessary formalities, the escort party took the custody of UTP Mohd. Imran from Jail No.8 on 11....
Tag this Judgment!irshal Wali Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Aff ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Irshad Wali, an IPS officer of 2004 batch, when on probation way back in 2005, was proceeded under rule 10 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The proceedings initiated against him through memorandum dated 10.08.2005 culminated into infliction of minor punishment of withholding of one increment in the time scale of pay for three years without cumulative effect. The order aforesaid came to be challenged by the applicant before this Tribunal in OA No.1312/2007, which was allowed vide order dated 03.03.2008. Against the order passed by the Tribunal, the respondents carried a writ petition in the High Court, which vide a detailed order came to be dismissed on 19.11.2010. Primarily, what was held while allowing the OA was that the case required a proper procedure of enquiry to be followed, and, therefore, the order of punishment passed just on receipt of the reply filed by the applicant to the charge memorandum, would be illegal. T...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Dabral and Others Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, President ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. S. P. Dabral and three others have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to re-fix their seniority in the grade of UDC and Assistant and promote them to the post of Assistant from due dates, with all consequential benefits. They also seek a declaration from this Tribunal that promotions made on the basis of the incorrect seniority list of UDCs and Assistants would be illegal and unjustified. 2. The facts on which the reliefs as mentioned above are sought to rest reveal that the applicants were initially appointed as LDC from 1988 to 1995, to be precise, on 21.11.1988, 25.10.1988, 10.08.1989 and 23.11.1995 respectively. Applicants 1 to 3 and respondents 3 to 6 were promoted on the post of UDC in the year 1999, while the 4th applicant and the 7th respondent were promoted as such in 2002. On 16.06.2005, 24.08.2006, 01.05.2007 and 01.07.2009 r...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sarbesh Bhattacharjee Vs. Department of Health and Family Welfare ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. There is minimal interference by Courts and Tribunals in the matter of suspension of a Government employee. From amongst the limited grounds, however, it is settled proposition of law that one ground to interfere in the matter of suspension would be where the order may not have been passed by the competent authority. This precisely is the primary plea of the applicant in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, questioning the order of suspension dated 02.11.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary (HandFW), Government of NCT of Delhi, the first respondent herein, less than three months prior to the date when the applicant was to superannuate. The Original Application during its pendency has been amended twice. We will make mention of the amendments brought about in the Application during its pendency at the relevant time. 2. The facts as extracted from the amended OA, insofar as the same...
Tag this Judgment!Susheel Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Additional Secretar ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. Shri Susheel Kumar Singh, the applicant herein, was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Police in DANIPS Cadre on 30.10.2006 and has been working in the said post for above 5 years in Government of NCT of Delhi on deputation basis. He has challenged his transfer from Government of NCT of Delhi to andaman and Nicobar Islands issued by the respondents’ order dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure-B) primarily on two main grounds that the respondents have not followed their own transfer policy, (i) one of which is that senior officers with longer tenure of service in Delhi should be transferred out first whereas he being junior has been shifted and (ii) on personal ground that his daughter is studying in Class-XI and has to complete Class-XII only in 2013. 2. This is applicant’s second round of litigation on the same issue of transfer from Delhi to andaman and Nicobar Islands. In the first round, he along with 3 others challenged the said transfer order in OA No.2279/2011 which on co...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Chand Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Through Its Commissione ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 18.9.2009 whereby he has been terminated. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to pay him allowances as he was getting or is being entitled to during his suspension period as per relevant rules and law. 2. It is submitted by the applicant that he had joined as a Mali on ad hoc basis in the year 1984 with the respondents. Unfortunately, in the year 2005 he was implicated in a false case. In view of above, he was suspended vide order dated 18.9.2005. Vide judgment dated 27.5.2009, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Being aggrieved, he had filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and vide order dated 5.6.2009 the sentence of the applicant was suspended till the disposal of the appeal (page 11). Despite that, applicant has been terminated vide order dated 18.9.2009. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Babu Rastogi and ors Vs. State Through Food Inspector
Court: Delhi
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. No. 1360/2011 Reserved on: 16.12.2011 Pronounced on: 22.12.2011 RAM BABU RASTOGI and ORS. ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Advocate. versus STATE THROUGH FOOD INSPECTOR (PFA), GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Fizani Husain, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 25.10.2010 whereby the petitioners were summoned by the learned M.M. in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector of the Department of PFA, alleging the violation of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act)..2. On 11.4.2008, a sample of "Flavoured Chewing Tobacco" was purchased for analysis from Vijay Krishan Prem S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Sharma of M/s. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. The said article was found stored for Crl.M.C. No.1360/2011 Page 1 of 8 sale and Mr.Vijay Krishan P...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwanti and ors Vs. Kanshi Ram
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No. 332/2001 % Judgment reserved on : 29th November, 2011 Date of Pronouncement : 22nd December, 2011 BHAGWANTI and ORS. ..... APPELLANTS Through: Mr. B.K. Patel, Advocate. versus KANSHI RAM ..... RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate for LRs (i), (iii) to (v). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J..1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 31.1.2001. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs which was filed for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts..2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/plaintiffs filed the subject suit on the ground that the late husband of appellant No.1 had entered into a partnership with the original defendant-Shri Kanshi Ram,...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Hammad Vs. the State and ors
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2011 + CRL.A. No.792/2010 MOHD. HAMMAD ..... Appellant versus THE STATE and ORS ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Appellant : Mr Zafar Sadique, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr Pavan Narang, APP for the State. Mr Tanveer Ahmad Mir with Mr Dhruv Gupta, Advocates for Respondent nos 2 to.5. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.1. Present is an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the complainant i.e., son of deceased Mohd. Isa. The appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2010, in sessions case no.24/2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, New Delhi and South East District, New Delhi whereby the respondents 2 to 5, namely, Kanchid @ Raja, Rashid @ Chairman, Matloob Ahmed @ Pradhan and CRL.A. No.792/2010 Page 1 of 15 Maenuddin @ Maen have bee...
Tag this Judgment!icici Bank Ltd Vs. Chuandong Xu and anr. D
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2606/2008 Judgment pronounced on December 22, 2011 ICICI BANK LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Safia Said, Advocate. versus CHUANDONG XU and ANR. D+ ..... Defendant Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J..1. Plaintiff has filed present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, unfair competition, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profits, damages, etc. against the defendants, seeking to restrain defendants, their agents, representatives and all those acting on its behalf from using or operating in any manner the website www.icicigroup.com / domain name icicigroup.com, or any deceptive variant(s) thereof, amounting to infringement of plaintiffs trademark "ICICI"..2. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the defendants. Accordingly, by order dated 19.01.2010 defendants were proceeded ex parte. Liberty was granted to the plaintiff to file ex parte evidence and the...
Tag this Judgment!