Delhi Court September 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.
Prem Pal Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
1. Prem Pal Singh, petitioner No.1 is a complainant on whose statement FIR No.350/2007 for an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC stands registered against the brother of respondent No.2 i.e. Ms.Chanda. 2. Chanda filed a complaint with the police which resulted in FIR No.81/2008 being registered in which she alleged that Prem Pal Singh, his wife Bina Singh and other associates, not only made disparaging remarks pertaining to her being a Scheduled Caste, but also did acts which amount to an offence punishable under Section 325/354/395/452/506/34 IPC. 3. Since she had made allegations of caste based remarks being passed against her offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of 'The Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989', were also added when FIR No.81/2008 was registered. 4. After investigating and finding that Chanda had retaliated to bring pressure upon Prem Pal Singh to not stand by the prosecution in FIR No.350/2007, a closure report was f...
Ritu Thakur Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi, Old Secretariat, Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
By Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The applicant is aggrieved at her non-appointment to the post of Librarian under the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, on the basis of a selection process undertaken during the years 2007-10. Despite scoring high marks, she had not been found eligible as she had failed to disclose her essential professional qualification/experience certificate in the Application Form.2. The OA seeks the following reliefs:- “(i)declare the Result Notice No.66 issued vide No.F.1(173)/CC-II/2009/713-18 dated 18th January, 2010 (Annexure-A impugned) to the extent the same does not contain the name of the applicant as successful candidate in spite of containing the name of respondent No.4, who was below the applicant in the merit list, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory; (ii)declare that the applicant is entitled for appointment to the post of Librarian (Post Code No.17/2007) from the date w.e.f. which the persons, including the respondent No.4, appearing in the me...
P. S. Behl Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. OA No.364/2010 was allowed by us vide order dated 1.12.2010, operative part whereof reads, thus: “7. In the instant case also, although the fifth Respondent could have claimed the seniority of the year 1994, yet he would be eligible for promotion only from 1996 after completing four years in the grade of Inspector (Enforcement), as per the recruitment rules. It is clear that which ever is the year of seniority of the fifth Respondent, he would be eligible for promotion only from the year 1996, subject to the availability of vacancies in that year. The promotion of the fifth Respondent with effect from 18.08.1994 is against the rules as he was not eligible for promotion in the year. In the result the seniority of the fifth Respondent above the Applicant, which is a consequence of the order dated 20.06.2004, by which the fifth Respondent has been promoted from the above date, also cannot be sustained. The impugned...
Sandeep Kumar Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secreta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
By Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The applicant is challenging his non-selection to the post of Warder in the Office of the Director General (Prisons) under the GNCTD, on the basis of a selection process undertaken during the years 2008-2010. Despite having been selected under the SC category, the applicant had not been offered appointment for the reason of having mentioned his Roll Number inside the pages of the Answer Book. Treating the same as resorting to an irregular or improper means in connection with his candidature for the appointment, the applicant has not been found fit for the same. 2. The OA seeks the following reliefs:- “(a) direct the respondents to immediately further process the case of appointment of the applicant for post code 13/08-Post of Warder and issue necessary appointment orders with all consequential benefits. (b) if deemed necessary in respect of prayer (a) above, to obtain the opinion of hand writing expert from any concerned Govt. Institute, like FSL, CFSL e...
Sh. Devender Kumar and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. Initially, applicants, five in number, filed WP (C)-9444 of 2007 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which was transferred to this Tribunal on 02.02.2009 consequent upon conferment of jurisdiction on this Tribunal in respect of the employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the same was registered as TA No.678/2009, praying for the following reliefs: “A) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order/direction directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioners for the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector and other posts requiring similar qualifications and provide the Petitioners with similar opportunities for promotion vis-`-vis Safai Karamcharies/Sanitary Guides; and B) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order/direction directing the Respondents to promote the Petitioners to post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector with all consequential benefits. C) Pass any order...
M/S Pawan Ispat Ugyog Vs. Cce, Ludhiana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Steel Tubes and Pipes falling under Chapter-73 of Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period from December, 1997 to January, 1998, the appellants availed the benefit of deemed Modvat credit amounting to Rs.2,10,101/- on the inputs in terms of Notification No.58/97-CE, dtd. 30.08.97. The said credit was availed by the appellants on the strength of invoices issued by M/s Rathi Steels, Mandi Gobindgarh, supplier of inputs. M/s Rathi Steels was discharging their duty liability in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule, 1944 (scheme commonly known as Compounded Levy Scheme). Proceedings were initiated against the appellants proposing to deny them the said deemed Modvat credit on the ground that the supplier of the inputs, i.e., M/s Rathi Steels have not discharged their duty liabi...
Ashok Kumar Bhatt and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor, Gnctd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. The two Petitioners, who were working as post-graduate teachers („PGTs) for English and Hindi respectively in the Sant Nirankari Boys Senior Secondary School („the School), Respondent No. 3, which is a recognised and aided School under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 („DSEA) and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 („DSER), have filed this writ petition seeking directions to the Director of Education („DoE), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi („GNCTD), Respondent No. 2, and the School to consider their cases for promotion to the post of Principal and Vice-Principal („VP) respectively and be granted promotion as such from the date on which Respondent No. 4, Dr. Narender Kumar, and Respondent No. 5, Dr. Ram Gopal, were granted promotion as Principal and VP, respectively. 2. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as PGT (English) in the School on 10th January 1981. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as PGT (Hindi) in the School on 28...
Executive Engineer Cd-ii, Ncet of Delhi Vs. Shri Syam Lal Government C ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The facts of the case, as averred in the petition are that vide agreement No.EE-II/Acs/Agt. No.16/99.2000 the petitioner had appointed the respondent contractor for the construction of supplementary drain, sub work, excavation, disposal of excavated material/earth and the amount agreed between the parties for the said work was Rs.26,96,408/-. The dates stipulated of the start and completion of the work, were 09.12.1999 and 08.03.2001 respectively. 2. Thereafter, certain disputes arose between the parties due to which arbitration proceedings were initiated between the parties and Shri Ashok Khurana was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 3. After having various hearings the learned arbitrator passed the impugned award dated 04.08.2008 wherein the respondent was awarded Rs.6,12,000/- in respect ...
Sh.Desh Raj Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. The petitioner was selected for recruitment as a Constable in CRPF on 18.4.1995 and while filling up the verification roll replied in the negative to the information sought: Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a Court of Law for any offence. He did not inform that the petitioner was challaned by a Traffic Constable and he had to appear in the Court of a learned Traffic Magistrate for having committed an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC i.e. he was found driving a truck on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to a person as also for the offence punishable under Section 336 IPC i.e. having done an act so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, and for which the petitioner was fined `400/-. 2. When aforesaid information surfaced and needless to state it surfaced during character verification, a charge sheet...
Naseem Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instruction that the petitioner is not challenging the conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court; which were upheld in appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge. Only he is asking to release the petitioner on the sentence already undergone. 2. I note that the petitioner was held guilty under Section 53/116 D. P. Act vide judgment dated 09.03.2011 and vide Crl.R.P.No.388/2011 Page 1 of 3 order on sentence dated 17.03.2011 passed by learned Trial Court, has been sentenced to undergo RI for 04 months & fine of ` 3,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved, petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge. Vide order dated 10.08.2011 appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already deposited the fine of ` 3,000/-. 5. It is argued that since the petitioner has already remained for 1½...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »