Delhi Court January 2012 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.
Vijayinder Kumar Vs. India Trade Promotion Organization Through the Ch ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. Applicant had filed this Writ Petition (Now TA-06/2011) before the High Court of Delhi, which was registered as Writ Petition No.4509/2001, whereby the main grievance of the applicant was regarding retrospective promotion granted in favour of respondents No.3-20, which Writ Petition was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal consequent upon conferment of jurisdiction pursuant to the issuance of notification dated 04.10.2010 under Section 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whereby the India Trade Promotion Organization (ITPO) was included in the Schedule to the said Act and the same was registered as TA-6/2011. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Deputy Manager (Travel), re-designated as Manager (Travel) w.e.f. 7.3.1991. Respondents 3-20, who were already promoted in the grade Deputy Manager, re-designated as Manager on ad hoc basis, services of some of them were regularized w.e.f. 20.02.1987 vide th...
Jamwant Pathak Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary 5 ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. By this OA, Shri Jamwant Pathak working as the Upper Division Clerk (UDC) with the Government of NCT of Delhi, has approached the Tribunal with following relief(s):- “(a) direct the respondents to immediately release the withheld salary and Last Pay Certificate of the applicant with penal interests; and (b) direct the Govt. to deal with the erring official in an appropriate manner. (c) award exemplary costs of the proceedings and (d) pass any other order/direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief factual matrix of the case would reveal that the applicant who joined as LDC on 30.05.1994 in Deputy Commissioner’s Office, was transferred to Maulana Azad Medical College w.e.f. 26.11.2001 and was detailed on diverted capacity in the Department of Health and Family Welfare (DHFW) w.e.f. 03.01.2005. He was promoted on 13.07.2007 as Upper Division Clerk (...
Ranvir Singh and Another Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Two applicants who have retired from the post of Vice Principal from the services of the respondents, have joined together in the instant OA seeking promotion to the post of Principal on notional basis against the vacancies for the year 2008-09 and consequently to grant increments and revise pension appropriately. They are assailing the letter dated 29.11.2010 (Anneuxre-A1 and A2) by which they have been informed that they are not entitled for the promotion either actually or notionally as none of their juniors have been promoted before the date of issue of the promotion order dated 29.6.2010 (Annexure-A3). 2. Shri K.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicants retired as Vice Principals. Though they were eligible to be promoted to the post of Principals then vacant for the year 2008-09, they were not promoted. It is contended that the respondents vide order dated 29.6.2010 promoted some Vice Principals but the nam...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S. Ambica Polytubes
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
Per Archna Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he set aside the penalty on the respondents while confirming the duty of Rs.1,04,819/-, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard both the sides duly represented by Shri Fateh Singh, SDR for the Revenue and Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the respondents. 3. As per facts on record, the respondents factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 21.6.07, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result shortage of 14245 Kgs. of PVC pipe and fittings were detected in the stock of their final product. Shri Anoop Agarwal, authorised signatory of the appellant admitted such shortages and offered to pay duty of Rs.1,04,819/-. The said duty was also debited by the respondents. 4. Thereafter proceedings were initiated by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 4.6.08 proposing confirmation of demand and for impo...
Cc, New Delhi Vs. M/S Krishna Engineering Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. When the case was called out no body was present for the Respondents. On previous two occasions, when it was called, the matter was adjourned at the request of the ld. Advocate. On 5.12.2011, the matter was adjourned to 24.1.2012, that is the date of present hearing, at the request of the Advocate but still there is no one present to represent the Respondents. So we have gone through the file with the help of the A.R. for Revenue. 2. The Respondents imported old and used machinery viz. used continuous strip casting line comprising machine furnace. They submitted invoice No. 16081 dated 22.7.2005 issued by M/s Metro Alloys and Residues Limited, U.K. showing the value of the goods as GBP 35,450 (CandF) equivalent to Rs.26,95,972.50 at the exchange rate of GBI=76,050/. They also submitted a certificate issued by M/s Pual Clarkson, Charte...
Satish Umesh Prabhu Vs. M/S Matoshree Infrastructure Private Limited a ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
Environmental Clearance granted by the Maharashtra State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority vide its letter dated July 5th, 2011, has been assailed in Appeal No. 15/2011 on various grounds. The said Appeal being one under section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the prescribed period of limitation is thirty days from the date of the order or communication thereof. Proviso to section 16 sub section (j) stipulates that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. 2. In the case in hand, the Appeal was filed on September 5th, 2011, i.e., after a lapse of thirty days. The Appeal is thus barred by time. This Application is filed to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. It has been submitted that the Appellants were misguided by clause 11 of the order dated July 5th, 2011, granting EC. The said clause reads...
Delhi Pollution Control Vs. Splendor Landbase Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : 16th January 2012 Judgment Pronounced on: 23rd January, 2012 + LPA 895/2010 DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Appellant Through: Mr.C. Mohan Rao and Mr.Lokesh Sharma, Advocates with Mr.Dinesh Jindal, L.O. versus SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr.B.B. Gupta, Ms.Mandeep Kaur and Mr.Harsh Hari Haran, Advocates LPA 1/2011 and CM No.6781/2011 (Cross Objections) DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Appellant Through Mr.C. Mohan Rao and Mr.Lokesh Sharma, Advocates with Mr.Dinesh Jindal, L.O. versus SACHDEVA BUILDON PVT LTD and ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Sanjay Goswami, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Neeeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with Mr.Akshay Chandra and Mr.Khalid Arshad, Advocates for UOI LPA 6/2011 and CM No.6779/2011 (Cross Objections) DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE ..... Appellant Through Mr.C. Mohan Rao and Mr.Lokesh Sharma, Advocates with Mr.Dinesh Jindal, L.O. LPA 895/2010 and connected matters Pag...
Sh.Kishan Pal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.424/2012 % Date of Decision: 23.01.2012 Sh.Kishan Pal Singh .... Petitioner Through Ms.Deepakshi Jain, Advocate Versus Union of India and Ors. .... Respondents Through Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, Advocate for Mr.B.V.Niren, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA ANIL KUMAR, J. *.1. The petitioner, is a constable G.D, and has sought quashing by the respondents of the adverse entries made in the ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2002 and has also sought quashing of communication dated 2nd May, 2008 and list "C" of 2007. The petitioner has also sought directions to the respondents to draw a fresh seniority list without considering his adverse entry of the ACR of 2002 and to include his name in the list "C" of 2007 onwards and to award him ACP as per the rules and his seniority. WP(C) 424 of 2012 Page 1 of 9.2. The petitioner contended that a major punishment was imposed on him by ...
Cit Vs. Tedco Granite Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 414/2011 % Date of Decision : 23rd January, 2012. CIT ..... Appellant Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, sr. standing counsel versus TEDCO GRANITE LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rakesh Gupta and Ms. Rani Kiyala, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR.1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL) The Revenue is aggrieved against the order dated 22nd January, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA 414/2011 Page 1 of 7 (Act, for short)..2. For the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee had returned loss of Rs.(-)5,72,51,810/-. Assessment order was passed making several additions and the taxable income was assessed at Rs.2,59,52,863/-. The Assessing Officer...
Mahender Malik Vs. M.S.Saluja and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-2012
.* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on: 23.01.2012 + I.A. No.13110/2011 and I.A. No.14390/2011 in CS (OS) No.2013/2011 MAHENDER MALIK ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Vidhi Gupta and Mr. Rahul Bakshi, Advs. Versus M.S.SALUJA and ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K.Chaudhry, Adv. for D-1. Ms. Neha Kapoor, proxy counsel for Mr. N. Waziri, Adv. for D-2 to D-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J..1. The plaintiff filed the suit on the allegations that the defendant No.1 along with defendants No.2 to 4 have dispossessed the plaintiff from the property bearing No.C-1 (old No.WZ-900/1) ad measuring 92 sq. yds. out of Khasra No.568/1 and 568/2 min. situated in the area of village Tihar abadi known as Fateh Nagar, Block-6, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). In this suit the plaintiff is seeking decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »