Delhi Court July 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.
Union of India and anr. Vs. Amit Shankar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. The respondent No.1 joined the service with the petitioner/Union of India in the Ministry of Defence as a Junior Translator on 14.08.1989 after he was selected on the basis of examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission in the year 1987. The Respondent No.2 & 3 also joined the said service in the same post on the basis of same examination. In the Seniority List of the Junior Translator, respondent No.1 was placed at Sl. No.4, whereas the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were shown at Sl. Nos. 3 and 7 respectively. It is clear therefrom that the respondent No.1 was junior to the respondent No.2 and was senior to respondent No.3. Next promotion is to the post of Senior Translator. It is not in dispute that as per the Recruitment Rules, the said post of Senior Translator is a non- selection post and criteria for promotion prescribed is "seniority-cum-fitness". Thus, the promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority and only an ,,unfit" person is to be excluded. 2. The DPC ...
Randhir Vs. Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. The petitioner claims alternative plot in lieu of acquired land. Notice of the petition was issued and a counter affidavit is stated to have been filed by the respondent. However, the same is not on record. The copy of the same in the file of the counsel for the petitioner has been perused. The respondent in the counter affidavit has admitted the receipt of the application on 8th November, 1993 from the father of the petitioner for alternative plot. It has however been explained that the various particulars required by the respondent for consideration of the case of the petitioner for alternative plot were directed to be produced from time to time and could be completed only by June, 2010. It has as such been stated in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner is to be put up before the Allotment Committee as per seniority. 2. The counsel for the respondent today states that the case of the petitioner could not be put up before the Allotment Committee till now since the ...
Ravindra Kumar Sood and anr. Vs. Ntpc and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. Vide instant writ petition the Petitioner has sought relief as under:- (a)"Directing the Respondent to grant promotion to the Petitioner as under:- Controller Grade II 1.1.87 Controller Grade I 1.1.90 A.E. 1.4.93 Sr.A.E. 1.4.96 Engineer 1.4.97 And release all financial and other consequential benefits w.e.f. due dates and also fix the seniority, increments arrears etc. etc. for which the Petitioner is entitled from retrospective effect." 2. The Petitioner joined National Thermal Power Corporation as diploma training on 13.12.82. Thereafter, he was appointed as Junior Controller w.e.f. 13.12.83. 3. Case of the Petitioner here is that on 07.11.1986 a fete was organized by the wives of the officers of Korba Super Thermal Power. In the said fete several gambling games were arranged as an entertainment. At that point of time the Petitioner being President of the association boycotted the fete as a mark of discontent against gambling and their extravaganza. 5. Vide order dt. 13.11.1986 th...
Ram Niwas Bedharak Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. From a perusal of the pleadings in O.A.No. 426/2010 we find that that the petitioner has referred to case law on the subject: being the decisions of the Supreme Court, holding that on a claim for pension/disability pension, bar of limitation would not apply and if there is a delay in preferring the claim, relief could be moulded by denying the pension from the date it was found due and payable; the benefit of the claim could be restricted to a period of 3 years preceding the date when the party approached the Court. 2. Impugned decision dated 27.7.2010 dismisses No. 426/2010, in which claim was for grant of invalid pension, holds that the petition/ application before the Tribunal was a belated claim. It has been opined that cause of action had arisen somewhere in the year 1990 and applicant approached the Tribunal after 20 years; then dismissing O.A. on the bar of delay. 3. We find that the Tribunal has not even bothered to note the case law cited in the original application itself....
M/S Ircon International Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. The writ petition impugns the award dated 27th April, 2004 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: "Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress, U.P. Shakha for reinstatement and regularization of 37 workmen (As per list) in the management of M/s Ircon International Ltd. is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the said workmen are entitled?"and holding the termination by the petitioner of the 37 workmen arrayed as respondent no.s 2 to 38 to be illegal and unjustified and directing the petitioner to reinstate the said respondent workmen with 50% of the back wages, continuity in service and all other consequential benefits to them. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide ex parte order dated 14th July, 2004, the operation of the award stayed subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of ` 1,00,000/- in this Court. The said order has continued in force. The respondent workmen applied under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said...
Sohan Lal Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. It is not in dispute that after he was selected as a constable in CRPF, petitioner was required to fill up a verification roll, which petitioner did somewhere in the month of August 1997. It is also not in dispute that amongst other information, vide Column 12A, the petitioner was required to inform whether he was ever arrested, prosecuted or convicted by a Court of Law for having committed any offence. The proforma lists the questions in Hindi as also English. Petitioner responded to the column in Hindi by filling up 'Nahi (No)'. This admittedly was incorrect. Pursuant to an FIR registered in the year 1991, petitioner was facing trial for offences punishable under Section 147, 447, 427 IPC. 2. When this fact surfaced during police verification, services of the petitioner were terminated when he was still on probation. 3. Conceding that the petitioner has furnished a wrong information, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision reported as JT 2011 (3) SC 484 Co...
Bhushan Singh and anr. Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioners, employed as Constables with Border Security Force and attached to 55 Bn were on duty at Bengal Border and deployed at BOP Ramnagar on 20.10.1992. 2. On 22.10.1992 Joy Dev Sarkar lodged a complaint with Coy Commander of 55 Bn. BSF and PS Hanskhali that his sister (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix), who is deaf and dumb, was raped by B.S.F. jawans on 20.10.1992 at about 09.30 P.M. 3. In view of the aforesaid serious allegations leveled by Joy Dev Sarkar, the Commandant ordered the convening of Court of Inquiry (hereinafter referred to as the "COI") to conduct a prima facie inquiry into the matter. Besides examining other persons the COI examined the prosecutrix and her brother Joy Dev Sarkar who stated that the prosecutrix was raped by the petitioners on 20.10.1992 at about 09.30 P.M. 4. On 28.01.1993 the COI concluded its proceedings and opined that the allegations le...
Bharat Bhushan Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. The petitioner was allotted a residential flat bearing No.95, Sector- 22, Pocket-15, Rohini, Delhi in the draw held by the respondent DDA on 3rd January, 2007. The demand by the respondent DDA of cost of the flat was on the premise of the plinth area thereof being 35 sq. mtrs. The petitioner contended that the plinth area of the flat was 28 sq. mtrs. only and hence the demand should be proportionately reduced. The said contention of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent DDA which contended that the plinth area of 35 sq. mtrs. was inclusive of the share in the common area of the terrace. 2. The petitioner vide letter dated 6th August, 2007 as under: "Dy. Director (Housing), (EHS) Delhi Development Authority, I.N.A., New Delhi. Sub.: Request for surrender of the flat No.95, Pocket-15, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi allotted under DDA Housing Scheme, 2006. Ref.: File No.A/353/(1095)/2007/DDA06/RO, Demand letter No.66952/Registration No.285022. Sir, I have been allotted flat No.9...
Devi Dass Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. The petitioner claims to be the son of Sh. Bal Kishan who died on 1st December, 1987 while in the employment of respondent MCD. The petitioner claims to be about 4 to 5 years of age at that time. He claims that his mother Smt. Raj Rani pre-deceased his father. He however admits that after the demise of his mother his father was residing with the respondent no.6 Smt. Dhanwanti, according to the petitioner illegally because Smt. Dhanwanti were already married. This writ petition was filed in the year 2008 contending that after the demise of the father, the said Smt. Dhanwanti has received pensionary benefits of his father and also appointment with the respondent MCD as a Safai Karamchari on compassionate ground by representing herself as Raj Rani. The petitioner seeks investigation into the same and cancellation of the appointment on compassionate ground given to the said Smt. Dhanwanti. 2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and pleadings have been completed. The person impleaded ...
M.L.Kararwal Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 1438/2006 titled as M.L. Kararwal vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner wherein he had sought quashing and setting aside of order dated 16.01.2006 and 6.7.2006 compulsorily retiring him from service. 2. An enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was conducted by Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries, who gave a report dated 8.1.1992 holding that no charges were made out against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, however, while exercising power under Rule 15(1) of CCS(CCA) Rules permitted the case for de novo enquiry and appointed another enquiry officer. The second enquiry officer also gave a finding that no charges were made out in his report dated 26.06.1997. 3. The disciplinary authority, however, diferred with the enquiry report dated 26.06...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »