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.
Sharda Devi and ors Vs. Jaspal Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.11.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, whereby a sum of ` 2,00,000/- was awarded in favour of the appellants with interest at the rate 12% per annum from the date of the institution of the petition till the date of the award. 2. The facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that one Raje Singh, while he was going on his cycle to Shahdra on 04.10.1984 at 11:00 p.m., was hit by a taxi bearing No. DLT 4031 at Koria Bridge. He was taken to the JPN Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on 08.10.1984. A claim petition was filed by his legal representatives being his wife and two minor children under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation in the sum of ` 5,00,000/- for the untimely demise of their bread-earner against the driver, the owner and the insurer, (the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) of the offending taxi. 3. A joint written sta...
Harvir Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
(ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Applicant in the matter of promotion to the post of Head Constable has been overlooked. In the present Original Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the obvious prayer is to direct the respondents to admit his name in Promotion List “C” drawn on 10.12.2009 and promote him to the rank of Head Constable w.e.f. 27.01.2010, with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case culminating into filing of this Original Application would reveal that the applicant came to be appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 03.03.1986. In 2001, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and the order passed of the disciplinary authority was set aside by the appellate authority, vide orders dated 18.12.2002 and fresh departmental enquiry was held against the applicant. Disciplinary authority passed order against the applicant on 19.04.2004 wherein he was inflicted the punishment of r...
S. C. Kudaisya Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (R), Cabinet Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. S. C. Kudaisya, the applicant herein, has been overlooked in the matter of promotion to the grade of Director despite the fact that he was approved by the DPC that was held for the purpose on 25.5.2009. The applicant through present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 takes exception to his having been so ignored, and thus prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to accept the recommendation of the DPC for his promotion with effect from May, 2009. Inasmuch as, during pendency of the OA, it transpired that the applicant has been ignored despite the recommendation of the DPC for his promotion by the concerned Minister of the department, who happens to be the Prime Minister, because some of the ACRs of the applicant were below benchmark, which were taken as commensurate to benchmark by the DPC without giving any reasons, the applicant amended the OA wherein a prayer has also been made to d...
Har Charan Singh, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the General Man ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
(Oral) 1. Feeling aggrieved of the respondents’ refusal to grant benefit of leave encashment to the applicant, the applicant has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 12.3.2010 read with order dated 26.12.2010 by which the applicant has been denied leave encashment due to non-availability of leave account. 2. The applicant retired on 30.6.1991. Vide their letter dated 31.3.1994, DPO, Firozpur, Northern Railway informed the applicant that his leave account for his active service period is neither traceable in the office nor in the office of LF/LDH and the applicant was, therefore, called upon to furnish detail of leave, absence, suspension etc. by way of an affidavit duly verified by LF/LDH, as the payment of settlement dues was held up on account of his leave account. The applicant informed the DMR Office vide his letter dated 11.4.1994 that he did not have any leave record with him. The...
Mahendra Singh Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, Allahabad a ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the orders of the respondent authorities passed in connection with the disciplinary proceedings started against him. His prayer is to set aside all the impugned orders and to direct the respondents to restore the applicant to his original post with all consequential benefits. 2. While working as Booking Clerk at Agra, a chargesheet was issued to him on 13.05.2005 alleging that during his duty hours at Booking Window No.1 on 7/8.03.05 at Amernath Booking Office, he over-charged a decoy passenger by Rs. 44/-; moreover, the check revealed a cash shortage of Rs. 20/- with him. A regular inquiry was conducted in which the Inquiry Officer (IO) found that the first charge was partially proved and the second charge fully proved. He made a representation to the Disciplinary Authority (DA) who held that both the charges were proved against him, besides the applicant was also guilty of negligence in not correcting the printed fare applic...
R.P.S. Panwar, G.M. Vs. Union of India, Through, Secretary, New Delhi
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
(ORAL) : Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman 1. This case was adjourned sine die vide orders dated 15.12.2008 by recording the following order:- “Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the present case is also the subject matter of decision before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP Nos. 17221-22 of 2004 (Union of India and Ors.). It is further stated that one of the matters aforesaid was listed for hearing on 11.12.2008. Adjourn this matter sine die with liberty to apply when the matters aforesaid are disposed of by Hon’ble High court.” 2. No information came to be given by either side to this Tribunal that two writ petitions referred to above, by a common order have since already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court on 21.10.2010. It is only because of order passed on administrative side by one of us (V.K. Bali, Chairman) that all old cases were to be listed, that this matter came up for hearing on 13.9.2011 and since the learn...
Shri Raj Narayan Jha Vs. Union of India, Through, the Secretary, New D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2011
(ORAL) : Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman 1. The applicant is facing an inquiry as regards allegations pertaining to the year 1999-2000, whereas the charge sheet has been issued to him on 20.01.2010. Challenge in the present OA is to the charge sheet on variety of grounds including inordinate and unexplained delay in issuing the same, which is said to have caused prejudice to the applicant. This matter has been pending in this Tribunal since November, 2010 and as by now, we find from the records of the case that the Inquiry Officer on 04.06.2011 wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary/Commissioner Forests and Rural Development Uttarakhand Shasan, Dehradun that it would be in the interest of justice to withdraw the charge sheet on the facts of the case. The last paragraph of the letter aforesaid reads as follows:- “Therefore, in my opinion also, it would be in the interest of justice to withdraw the Charge Sheet on above facts and this is recommended with force.” 2. In view of...
Sushil Kumar Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. Land measuring 43-07 bigha was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on 21.07.1993. The acquisition was for a public purpose, namely, Rohini Residential Scheme under the Planned Development of Delhi. The notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the L.A.Act which was issued on 15.07.1994. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced an award bearing No.4/1996- 97, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land @ `96,875/- per bigha. Statutory benefits payable as per the L.A.Act 1894, as amended from time to time, were directed to be paid to the claimants. 2. Dissatisfied with the determination of the fair market value by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the L.A.Act before the learned Reference Court. After affording an opportunity to lead evidence to the parties, the learned Reference Court, vide judgment and decre...
Bimla Gupta and ors. Vs. Mahinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek to assail the judgment and award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 4th December, 1990 on the ground that a very meagre amount of compensation has been awarded to them which deserves to be enhanced. It is also prayed that the liability of the Insurance Company may be held to be unlimited and the Insurance Company may be ordered to pay the entire amount of compensation payable to them. 2. The appellant No.1 is the widow and the appellants No.2, 3 and 4 are the sons of one Shri Jagan Nath Gupta, who met with a road accident on 12.05.1980, resulting in his demise. The appellants No.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. In the claim petition filed by them, it is asserted by the appellants that the deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of his unfortunate death and was a Government contractor, working as a partner of M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar. The income of the deceased in the Claim Petition is stated to be in the su...
Rajbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2011
1. Upon a complaint made by SI Mahender Singh alleging that the petitioner, a constable with Central Industrial Security Force, deserted his duty post on 6.7.1997, the Commandant of the unit BNP Dewas (Madhya Pradesh) issued a charge sheet dated 23.08.1997 against the petitioner listing 2 Articles of Charge which read as under:- "CHARGE NO.01 Serious negligence of duty, violation of lawful orders and gross indiscipline i.e. Force No.902334728 Constable (Under suspension) Rajbir Singh, C.I.S.F. Unit Bank Note Press, Devas (M.P.) who was deputed at Chandigarh Dispatch Security duty along with Rifle 7.62 MM Butt No.52 and 50 Rounds under the subordination of Party In charge Dy.Inspector/Work Mahender Singh on dated 05.7.97, remained absent unauthorizedly without the prior permission/sanction of competent authority along with 50 Rounds from 06.7.97 and remained absconder till 17.7.97, which is a serious offence under Section 18 of the C.I.S.F. Act. CHARGE NO.2 Serious carelessness and indi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »