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.
Lalit Kumar Vs. Union of India Through Secretary to the Government of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman: 1. The claim of the applicant sought through this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is for pay of two periods, one between June, 2002 and July, 2003 and the other for the period August, 2005 to 13.02.2006. The claim is based on limited facts but voluminous pleadings have been made, most of which appear to be unnecessary verbiage. That being so, we may refer to only the relevant facts that may be germane to the relief asked for by the applicant, as mentioned above. 2. It is the case of the applicant that in May, 2000 he was working in Delhi in the capacity of SW (EandM), when he was transferred vide order dated 12.05.2000 in the capacity of SW(E) Nagpur. However, on his representation, the order aforesaid was modified vide another order dated 07.06.2000, and he was posted within Delhi in the capacity of SW(E). It is stated that the order transferring the applicant...
Sh. Niraj Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others Through: the Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. Challenging the orders of the respondent authority initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and appointing Inquiry Officer (IO) and Prosecuting Officer (PO) for the inquiry, the following reliefs have been sought:- “(i)To quash and set aside the charge Memo dated 8th Feb 2006 (A-2). To declare the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant vide charge memo dated 8/2/2006 as abated. To direct the respondents to release all consequential benefits consequent upon the quashing of charge memo dated 8th Feb. 2006. To allow the O.A. with costs.” 2. The applicant is a Section Officer with Government of India, his Cadre Controlling Authority is the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). He worked in the MHA during 26.02.1999 to 30.03.2000, then in Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MSPI) from 01.04.2000 to 02.08.2007 and then in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment from 30.08.2007 onwards. On allegati...
P.P. Verma Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
1. This matter has been referred to me, as there was difference of opinion between the members of the Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) and Hon’ble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A), who had expressed contrary opinion in the matter. Although no reference has been made on the point or points they differ but from the facts arising out of this case the question which requires determination is whether the applicant, who has retired from service and no person junior to him has been promoted till his retirement can be given retrospective promotion? 2. Hon’ble Member (J) held that applicant is not only entitled to retrospective promotion but such promotion should be given along with consequential benefits and further a cost of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed upon respondents. 3. On the contrary, Hon’ble Member (A) did not agree with the finding recorded by the Hon’ble Member (J) in para-11 of the order. At this stage, it will be...
Ashok Golas Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Department of Te ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. By this common order, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we are deciding two interlinked OAs relating to the applicant where the issues for our determination are inter dependent. 2. In respect of OA No.114/2010, the applicant has been aggrieved by the actrion of the respondents; (i) in not declaring the alleged incomplete ACRs for the year 1995-96, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05; (ii) in converting the Secret Note on his integrity to ‘Integrity Doubtful’ and (iii) consequently not placing correct ACRs before the review DPC for considering his case for promotion to the post of of Adviser. His ultimate grievance is against the recommendations of the Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the post of Adviser in the Department of Telecommunication (DOT) in which the case of the applicant though considered but he was found ‘Unfit’ for promotion to the said post for the vacancy ye...
Sh. S.P. Singh Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, New Delhi a ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant, who was promoted to the rank of Section Engineer on 14.10.1996, faced criminal trial and was convicted by the trial Court on 17.11.2008 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years with a fine of Rs.5000/-. His criminal appeal is pending with the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and he has been released on bail on 01.12.2008. A show cause notice was issued to him by the respondent authority why he would not be removed from service in view of his conviction in a criminal case. His reply to the show cause notice was rejected and he was removed from railway service by the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority (DA) of 19/23.02.2009. According to the applicant, he made an appeal against this order on 04.11.2009 which was again rejected by the Appellate Authority (AA). Finally, his Revision Petition was dismissed by the Revising Authority (RA) in his order dated 18.08.2010; hence this O.A. has been filed with a prayer to ...
Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs. Gurnam Kaur and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 4th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 17th January, 2012 + MAC.APP. 588/2011 ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD. .... Appellant Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. versus GURNAM KAUR and ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Adv. for R-1 to.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J..1. The Appellant seeks reduction of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), for the death of Harvinder Singh, who died in an accident which took place on 04.11.2009..2. The only ground of challenge is the addition of 50% to the minimum wages taken by the Tribunal to determine the loss of dependency. During inquiry before the Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased was engaged in repair, sale and purchase of second hand AC, washing machine and other electrical appliances and was earning ` 10,000/- per month. MAC APP 588/2011 Page 1 of 7.3. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Trib...
Naveen Mathur Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.3414/2011 % Judgment delivered on: 17th January, 2012 NAVEEN MATHUR ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Rajiv Kanwar, Adv. versus STATE and ANR ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State/R-1. Respondent No.2 in person with his father Mr.Kuldeep. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral).1. Notice issued. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1/State..2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide FIR No.165/2009 dated 19.09.2009 case under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Kanjhawla..3. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 is a minor, therefore, father of respondent No.2 has filed affidavit and stated that he has amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR due to the Crl.M.C.3414/2011 Page 1 of 4 intervention of the neighbours and common friends...
Sharma Contracts (India) Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No. 2351/2011 % Judgment reserved on :11th November, 2011 Judgment delivered on: 17th January, 2012 SHARMA CONTRACTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Subhasish Mohanty, Adv. versus STATE and ANR. ...... Respondents Through: Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP for State. Mr. J.K. Bhola, Adv. for Respondent no..2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J..1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.4.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi whereby summons have been issued against the petitioner..2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No.2/complainant dealt in plywood, Block board flush door, Laminates Decorative and Adhesive with terms of the sale. The petitioner approached the respondent No.2 for the purpose of supplying of ply timer veneer of various sizes and quantity and after due negotiations, the complainant agreed to supply the same. From April, 2010...
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Balwant Singh Negi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 6th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 17th January, 2012 + MAC.APP. 157/2010 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. L. K. Tyagi, Adv. versus BALWANT SINGH NEGI and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shahid Ali Adv. with Mr. Mohd. Shariq Adv., Mr. Anwar Khalil, Adv.for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J..1. The question for determination in the Appeal is whether the Oriental Insurance Company Limited had cancelled the policy on account of dishonour of the cheque and therefore could avoid the liability to pay the compensation..2. A compensation of `1,93,000/- was awarded by a judgment dated 23.12.2009 for the death of a young boy Narain Singh, aged 16 years in an accident which took place on 25.01.1996. The Tribunal while holding that the driver and the owner of the truck number DNG 0515 are liable to pay the compensation which is to be indemnified by the Appellant, rejected the Appellant...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii Vs. Software Consultants
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
$~26. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 914/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II..... Appellant Through Mr. Kiran Babu, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus SOFTWARE CONSULTANTS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER % 17.01.2012 This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) impugns the order dated 26th September, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in ITA No. 2554/D/2004 in the case of Software Consultants (India) Private Limited. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1993-94..2. By order dated 17th October, 2011, the following substantial question of law was framed: "Whether the tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income ITA No. 914/2010 Page 1 of 10 Tax had wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.".3. The assessee is a company and for the assessment year ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »