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.
Ex Constable Naresh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. By order dated 26th November, 2000, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, „the tribunal) has dismissed the original application O.A.No.828/1999 filed by the petitioner against the order osf dismissal from service. The tribunal recorded the contention raised by the petitioner that there was violation of Rule 14 (4) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and held that the contention had no merit. In paragraph 8 of the abovementioned order, it was specifically recorded that no legal or factual issue was raised by the counsel, who had appeared for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 4633/2001, which was disposed of on 21st September, 2006. In the writ petition a number of additional grounds were raised. The writ Court did not examine the said additional grounds after recording that learned counsel for the petitioner had raised certain factual issues which had bearing on his justifying his absence, but these were ...
M/S.Jagatjit Industries Ltd. Vs. Labour Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. An interesting issue pertaining to interpretation of Section 19 and 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 arises for consideration in the instant petition which lays a challenge to the order dated 11.11.2005 under which the petitioners have been summoned in a complaint filed by the Labour Officer (South) Government of NCT Delhi alleging that Labour Court Award in ID No.357/1995 dated 28.11.2001 requiring reinstatement of 3 workmen has not been implemented qua 2 of them and thus an offence stands committed as per Section 29 of the ID Act 1947. The complaint has been filed on 11.5.2005. 2. Section 29 of the ID Act 1947 reads as under:- "29. Penalty for breach of settlement or award - Any person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award, which is binding on him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both, and where the breach is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to tw...
Dharambir Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in CRPF and earned a promotion to the post of Head Constable. He was having some eye ailment and for which he was under medical treatment of an Ophthalmologist at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh in respect whereof medical record shows that petitioner commenced treatment on 7.11.995 which continued till around July 1996. We shall be referring to the said record soon hereinafter at the relevant stage. The battalion to which the petitioner was attached was transferred to Tripura and as would be noted hereinafter, there are medical documents to show that in the month of August 1996 the petitioner was under treatment for the eye ailment when he was at Tripura. 2. The petitioner sought 30 days' leave on account of the death of his mother. It was sanctioned from 26.8.1996 to 24.9.1996. 3. On 24.9.1996 the petitioner sent a telegram which was received by the Commandant of the unit on 10.10.1996 under which petiti...
Sardar Gurmukh Singh Vs. Gian Prakash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. This petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called „the Act) is at the instance of a landlord who has been unsuccessful in securing an order of eviction from the Additional Rent Controller against his tenant in respect of a residential flat which had been let out to him. The petition was filed under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act by the petitioner-landlord on the ground that he required the flat no. 330, Pocket-3,Paschimpuri Residential Scheme, New Delhi under the tenancy of the respondent-tenant(hereinafter to be referred as the „tenanted premises) for his residence there along with his family members. 2. The petitioner-landlord had pleaded the relevant facts in support of his claim of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises in para no.18(a) of his eviction petition which is re-produced below verbatim:- "That the petitioner is the owner of the suit property. The premises in suit were let out for residential purposes and are...
Lalitesh Chauhan and ors. Vs. Harvinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. The appellants are the dependants as well as legal representatives of one Sushil Kumar, a motor accident victim, who have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 22.11.2002. 2. Concisely, the facts relevant for the decision of the appeal are as under. 3. On 27.04.2000, the deceased Sushil Kumar, a Junior Engineer with Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., was riding pillion on the scooter being driven by one Ram Pal. When the said scooter reached West Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh, it was hit from behind by a bus No.DL-1PA-3773, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact, Sushil Kumar fell down on the road and was crushed under the wheels of the bus. He succumbed to the injuries sustained by him at the spot and though taken to Maharaja Agrasain Hospital, was declared brought dead. 4. A Claim Petition was filed by his legal representatives, claiming compensatio...
Prem Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. The petitioner, a constable with Border Security Force, attached with „A Coy of 83rd Bn. BSF, was a member of the North Bengal Frontier Shooting team. On 03.02.1996, the team arrived at New Jalpaiguri Railway Station, West Bengal to board a train to Indore, where an Inter Frontier Shooting Competition was to be held and at the station, a brawl ensued between the Commander of the group, HC Jai Bhagwan Singh and the petitioner; both of whom suffered injuries. 2. A report of the incident was sent to the Commandant of the unit who took cognizance of the offence report and summoned the petitioner for hearing of the charge and pertaining to the said proceedings issued a charge sheet to the petitioner alleging as under: "BSF ACT SEC-40 AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE OF THE FORCE in that he, at about 1000 hrs on 3/2/96 quarrelled with No.77001462 HC Jai Bhagwan at NJP Railway Station." 3. On 3.09.1996, the Commandant conducted a hearing of the charge as per provision ...
Gyan Gupta Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Road, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
(ORAL) : Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Despite the fact that the applicant has been repatriated vide order dated 30.12.2010 and admittedly he has been getting extension of his deputation, the last being vide order dated 23.05.2011 up to March, 2012, we do not find any justification with the applicant to approach the Tribunal at this stage. Dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh OA if adverse orders are passed against him before the date aforesaid or his further deputation is not extended for some reasons, which may not be justified....
Pooran Singh Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Communi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) : 1. Review applicant has filed this petition seeking review of our earlier order dated 28.7.2011 whereby OA 2692/2011 was dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the review applicant has filed this petition for review of the said order on the ground inter alia that OA was dismissed in limine on the point of limitation without issuing notice to the respondents which is erroneous and contrary to the settled law on the subject. It has further been submitted that the Registry did not raise any objection with regard to limitation. That being so, if at a later stage the OA was found not to be within limitation, it was imperative that the applicant should have been afforded an opportunity to file an application for condonation explaining the delay. Without affording such opportunity, great injustice has been meted to the review applicant. Non-consideration of this aspect resulted in mistake apparent on the face of record warranting review o...
Dilip C. Gawas and Another Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Re ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) : 1. The applicant has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, inter alia, seeking direction to the respondent no.1 to re-employ him as a daily wager and further absorb him in regular grade of Group “D” under respondent no.2 or any other constituents of respondent No.1 in accordance with the Scheme of 1995. 2. The applicant’s case is that he was initially appointed as Field Assistant on contract basis in the Institutional Project under respondent no.2. He was again engaged as Field man on contract basis in National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, w.e.f. 26.09.1992 in its Biological Oceanography Division in the Project, Pilot scale demonstration/transfer of technology of floating cage culture in Goa waters and he continued to work under respondent no.2 in various projects in various categories till May, 2006 when his employment was abruptly discontinued. Earlier certain similarly placed casua...
Promila Gupta and ors. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. W.P.(C) 537/2010 & W.P.(C) 5886/2010 seek mandamus for payment of the compensation for acquisition of land under the Special Rehabilitation Package (SRP) announced by the Land & Building Deptt. of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 1st October, 2008. Though in W.P.(C) Nos.6984 to 6992 all of 2011, besides the said relief, a relief for payment of the award amount was also claimed but the counsel for the petitioners state that the same has been since received and now does not survive; however the said writ petitioners also seek direction for payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the award amount from the date the said amount was deposited by the DDA with the office of the respondent Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and till the date of its disbursement. 2. I will first take up the aspect of claim for interest. 3. Though at first blush, it appeared that the claim for interest should have been a subject matter of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but the co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »