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.
Ravinder Kumar Mirg Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Departme ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “A. Set aside the impugned order No.CIT-IX/VIG./2008-09/1049 dated 31-07-09 imposing penalty of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a qualification for future employment under the government on the undersigned appellant as also the impugned appellate order F.No.DP/2009-10/CCIT-IX/11 dated 07-04-2010 dismissing the appeal of the applicant against the order of dismissal, supra; B. Allow the Applicant all the consequential benefits; and C. Pass any other order as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant, who joined the Income Tax Department at New Delhi as an Inspector in 1989, was subsequently prosecuted by the CBI for having committed offences punishable under Section 120-B of the I.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1980, Section 7 and 13 (...
Dr. D.P. Ray Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commission ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
By Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The applicant holding the post of Chief Medical Officer in the Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi (Respondent no.3) is challenging the issuance of the Charge Memorandum dated 26.11.2009. The OA seeks quashing the impugned Charge Memorandum with all consequential benefits in law. Besides, passing such other and further order as deemed fit and proper has also been prayed. 2. The learned counsels Shri S.K. Gupta and Shri Praveen Swarup would argue the case respectively for the applicant and the respondents. 3. The Statement of Charge framed against the applicant reads as follows: “Dr. D.P. Ray while working as CMO, Hindu Rao Hospital in January 2009 was transferred vide office order no.UDC(M)/ADO(H)/2009/21 dated 12.01.2009 directing him to join chest clinic, Jhandewalan with immediate effect. In pursuance of the said order, MS/HRH relieved Dr. D.P. Ray on 13.1.09. But he failed to maintain devotion to duty and committed gross misconduct which is unbecoming of munic...
Jagdish Chander Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. This matter pertains to the year 2001. It was adjourned sine die on 17.7.2003 by recording the following order: “Learned counsel for the applicant states that in O.A. 2349/98, this Tribunal had referred the controversy to a Full Bench with respect to the competence of FRRO to impose the punishment. It is stated further that keeping in view the pending writ petition in the Delhi High Court, the Full Bench was adjourned sine die. Since the present controversy pertains to the said dispute that was referred to the Full Bench and is also alive before the Delhi High Court, the present petition is adjourned sine die till the decision on the said controversy by the Delhi High Court or the Full Bench of this Tribunal with liberty to either party to seek revival of the same.” The parties would not inform that the High Court had rendered decision on the point as mentioned in the order reproduced above long ago. However, it came to our...
Pawan Kumar Vs. Director General Bsf and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. Arguments were heard in the writ petition on 1.8.2011 when original of annexure R-1 filed along with the counter affidavit was directed to be produced in Court, for the reason it is the case of the petitioner that his signatures thereon have been forged. 2. The original has been produced in Court today and has been marked as Ex.P-1. The document is at page No.47 of file No.6/2/97-Pet/CLO(D&L)/BSF, containing the statutory petition filed by the petitioner after penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted upon him; and other related documents. Annexure R-1, marked as Ex.P-1 in Court purports to be a letter dated 21.8.1996 under the signatures of the petitioner in which he has sought forgiveness for the wrong committed by him for which he was tried. 3. Before noting the consent of learned counsel for the parties to dispose of the petition on agreed terms, certain facts need to be noted. 4. It was alleged against the petitioner that he had used criminal force and had assaulted h...
Vimal Chandra Pandey Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. This common order will dispose of the two writ petitions filed by the petitioner Vimal Chandra Pandey assailing the order dated 11th January, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (for short „the tribunal) dismissing OA No 2612/2008 and OA No. 157/2010. 2. In OA No. 2612/2008, the petitioner had prayed that direction should be issued to hold a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, DPC) meeting after revising the eligibility list. He had challenged the eligibility list of Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Islands Civil Services (for short „DANICS) for officers eligible for promotion to Indian Administrative Services (for short „IAS) against all the vacancies for the year 2005 onwards. In the said list the petitioner was shown at serial no. 18 and he claims that he should be placed at serial no. 6, senior to G.C.Joshi his junior at the time when he was inducted into DANICS. 3. In OA No. 157/2010 the petitioner had pray...
Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society Vs. Board of Governors in ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner institute seeks to challenge the order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the respondent no.1/MCI, whereby the request of the petitioner to grant approval for establishment of a new medical college for the academic session 2011-12 has been rejected. 2. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner institute has duly complied with all the deficiencies as set out by the respondent MCI in their rejection letter dated 30.8.2011. Counsel submits that sufficient time was not given by the respondent to remove the deficiencies and some of the deficiencies which were pointed out in the letter were remedial and curable. Counsel also submits that some of the deficiencies which were pointed out by the respondent in their rejection letter dated 30.8.2011 were never pointed out in earlier rejection letter dated 13.7.2011. Counsel further submits that the blood bank as on dat...
Meera Gupta and ors. Vs. Madan Lal Batra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. Meera Gupta, Neha Gupta, Shailendra Gupta and Pratibha Gupta, the petitioners herein, vide this petition under Section 482 CrPC are seeking quashing of summoning order dated 01st March, 2011 passed against them by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in complaint case under Sections 138/141 N.I.Act bearing No. 434/1 titled „Sh. Madan Lal Batra v. M/s. Niti Shree Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Madan Lal Batra, respondent, filed above noted criminal complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 N.I. Act against M/s Niti Shree Infrastructure Ltd. and nine others including the petitioners. In the title of the complaint, the petitioners are described as subscribers of M/s Niti Shree Infrastructure Ltd., whereas the other five accused persons, namely, Anil Kumar Jain, Reena Jain, Ankur Jain, Bir Singh and Shashi Ranjan Kumar are described as Managing Director/Director/Manager/Secretary of the ...
Om Prakash Vs. Delhi Society for Prevention of Cruelty of Animals and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. Om Prakash has filed the present intra court appeal impugning the decision dated 22nd February, 2011, dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 932/2007. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the enquiry proceedings/chargesheet should be quashed as the same was issued in January, 2007, after delay of 11 years and relates to an alleged incident dated 11th April, 1996. The second contention raised is that on the same allegations, the appellant was prosecuted in CC No. 59 of 1998 and was acquitted vide judgment dated 11th August, 2005. Relying upon G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446, it is submitted that the criminal charge and the charge in the departmental proceedings are identical and witnesses are the same, therefore, it is highly unjust and unfair that the respondent No.1 should continue with the departmental proceedings. 2. Similar contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge who by the impugned decision rejected the contentions of the appe...
Buddhadev Maity and anr Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. The present writ petition was listed first on 20th September 2011. Learned counsel for the Petitioners was asked to address the Court on the question of maintainability of the writ petition particularly in light of the judgment of Five Judge Bench of this Court dated 1st August 2011 in Sterling Agro Industries Limited v. Union of India 181 (2011) DLT 658. 2. Mr. R. K. Saini, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) ('CLC') to take a decision on the Petitioners' representation regarding payment of wages to contract labour, like the Petitioners, on par with the regularly employed workmen performing the same work in the Respondent Indian Oil Corporation ('IOC') at its Haldia Oil Refinery Plant in West Bengal. Referring to Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition (Central) Rules, 1971, Mr. Saini points out that the decision in this regard has to be taken only...
Dr.M.L.Bhuyan Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself. Pleading waived. 2. The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the charge sheet issued to him. The same, registered as W.P.(C) No.7139/2009 was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 22.2.2011, with right reserved in favour of the petitioner to agitate issues raised in the writ petition should penalty be levied. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous application in the writ petition which was disposed of raising a grievance that the inquiry was unnecessarily being lingered on. He stated therein that the object to linger on the inquiry was to somehow or the other deny promotion to the petitioner. 4. The application was disposed of vide order dated 26.7.2011 requiring the department to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 4 weeks for the reason we were informed that the Inquiry Officer had completed the inquiry and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The Inquiry O...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »