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.
Ganeshi Lal and Others Vs. the Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The applicants, five in number, are working as Assistant Security Officers under the DDA. Their existing pay scale (pre-revised) is 4500-10-7000. Through this OA, they are agitating claims for higher pay scale of Rs.5000-175-9000 (pre-revised). This is on the basis of pay parity on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. 2. The following are the main reliefs sought:- “A. To Direct the respondents to keep the applicants in pay scale of Rs.5000-175-9000/-[pre-revised] at par with the Assistant Security Officers of the other departments like HUDA, AIIMS, DTC. PUDA, Transco Ltd. and Railways. B] To direct the respondents to pay the arrears to the applicants arose out of inequality of their pay w.e.f. 1-1-996 @ 18% p.a.” Besides, award of cost of proceedings in their favour and directions for any other relief deemed fit have been prayed. As their representation on the subject has been rejected by the respondents vide the order dated 6.1.20...
Rajeev Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary Ip ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant has challenged the following orders: Order dated 6.12.2010, imposing the penalty of reduction to two lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year upon the applicant with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during this period and after the expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay, and further that the entire period of his suspension be treated as `Not Spent on Duty’ for all purposes, of the disciplinary authority, and Order dated 11.03.2011, dismissing the appeal dated 10.01.2011 of the applicant, of the appellate authority. 2. The brief facts of the case, as gathered from the pleadings, are that the applicant, who was appointed as TGT in GBSSS Khajuri Khas, Delhi, and was working as a Drawing Teacher, was issued a recordable warning on 27.06.2007 on a complaint alleging corporal punishment to students of GBSSS, Khajuri Kh...
Himgiri Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CEAC 1/2012 % Date of Decision : 18th January, 2012 HIMGIRI PLASTICS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Mullick and Mr. Daman Preet singh, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv. 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) CM No.1023/2011 This is an application for condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the appeal the appellant has impugned two orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14.3.2011 and CEAC 1/2012 Page 1 of 10 10.10.2011. Order dated 10.10.2011 was passed on an application for modification/rectification. It is stated that as the rectification appli...
V.N.Verma Vs. Smt.Veena Mahajan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : 4th January, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on: 18th January, 2012 + RFA(OS) 86/1998 V.N.VERMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Rana Ranjit Singh, Advocate and Mr.Jaswant Singh, Advocate. versus SMT.VEENA MAHAJAN ....Respondent Through: Mr.P.S.Bindra, Advocate for the respondent. Mr.Ashok Gurnani, Advocate and Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate for Applicant of CM No.2058/1998. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. CM No.2058/1998.1. While admitting the appeal on September 23, 1999 it was directed that CM No.2058/1998 would be taken up for hearing at the time of final hearing of the appeal..2. Arguments were heard in the appeal and the application, on January 04, 2012..3. We decide CM No.2058/1998 first..4. The respondent Veena Mahajan filed a suit on 29.04.1988 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated February 14, 1986 alleging that she had paid the RFA (OS) 8...
L.Queth Khong Decd. Thr.Lr'S Vs. Prem C.Soni Decd. Thr.Lr'S andOrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 18.01.2012 + CM(M) No. 341/2007 and CM No. 3534/2007 L.QUETH KHONG DECD. THR.LR'S ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Bambha, Adv. versus PREM C.SONI DECD. THR.LR'S and ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Adv. for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 17.01.2007 vide which the application filed by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant had been declined.2. Record show that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord against his tenant which had been decreed in favour of the landlord. An appeal had been filed against the said judgment which was pending disposal before the Appellate Tribunal. During CM(M) No. 341/2007 Page 1 of 6 the...
Madhu Panchal and anr Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 191/2012 % Judgment delivered on:18th January, 2012 MADHU PANCHAL and ANR ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. K.B.B. Singh, Adv. versus STATE and ANR ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CRL. M.A. 712/2012(Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.C. 191/2012 1 Notice issued.2. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State/respondent No..1.3. Respondent No.2. is personally present in the court today. CRL. M.C. 191/2012 Page 1 of 4 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.267. dated 21.11.2010, a case under Sections 420/120- B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at P.S. Karawal Nagar.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and respondent No.2. does not want to pursue the case fu...
Shri Dayal Chand and Another Vs. Sh Gulshan Kumar and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13.01.2012 Judgment reserved on:18.01.2012 + R.C.R. No. 16/2005 and CM Nos.2144/2005 and 4036/2007 SHRI DAYAL CHAND AND ANOTHER ...........Petitioners Through: Mr. G.P. Threja, Advocate. Versus SH GULSHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER ..........Respondents Through: Mr. Hari Shankar, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. Order impugned is the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2004 vide which the petition filed by the landlord Dayal Chand under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) had been dismissed.2. Record shows that the petitioner claims himself to be the landlord of property bearing No. 1/5695, Gali No. 17, Delhi-10032; the respondent Gulshan Kumar was a tenant on the ground on the said premises; he was in occupation of one room, kitchen with common use of a latrine and bathroom. Contention of the RCR No. 16/2005 ...
Varinder Prasad Vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Limited and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 15.12.2011 % Judgment delivered on: 18.01.2012 + W.P.(C) 8924/2007 VARINDER PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate versus B.S.E.S. RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED and ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna and Jitendra Kumar, Advocates for DTL Mr. Samrat Nigam for R-2 Mr. Sachin Chopra and Shashi Mohan for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J..1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, inter alia, to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.26. lacs as compensation to the petitioners. W.P.(C) 8924/2007 Page 1 of 21.2. The petitioners are the parents of an unfortunate boy named Ajay Kumar, who died on 16.06.2007 when he was only about 10 years of age, due to the collapsing of the shed (chajja) of a house situated at DESU colony, Najafgarh..3. The petitioner No.1...
Rajat Export Import India Pvt.Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8341/2011 Reserved on : December 19, 2011 % Date of Decision : January 18, 2012. RAJAT EXPORT IMPORT INDIA PVT.LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Kaanan Kapur, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Adv. 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? R.V. EASWAR, J.: M/s. Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(2), New Delhi, the respondent herein, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 28.3.2011 as well as all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom. It has also been prayed that the order passed by the respondent on ...
Teka Singh @ Titu and ors Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.189/2012 % Judgment delivered on:18th January, 2012 TEKA SINGH @ TITU and ORS. ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Avinash Lakhanpal, Adv. versus STATE and ANR ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP with SI Bansi Lal, PS Roop Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl. M.A. 705/2012 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. + Crl.M.C. 189/2012.1. Notice issued..2. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is present in person in the Court..3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No.180/2011 dated 22.11.2011, a case under Sections 323/324/354/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at PS Roop Nagar against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no.2. Crl.M.C.No.189/2012 Page 1 of 4.4. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »