Delhi Court January 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Unknown Vs. Leela Devi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 31st January, 2012 + MAC.APP. 594/2011 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. versus LEELA DEVI and ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Aatreya Singh, Adv. for R-1 to.5. Mr. S. Madhur Bajaj, Adv. for R-6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL).1. This Appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 9,65,150/- awarded for the death of Prem Ram, who was aged about 49 years at the time of the accident, which took place on 05.09.2010..2. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal), PW-1 Bhupinder Kumar (the deceaseds son) deposed that his father was working as a Security Guard and was earning ` 8,000/- per month. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the deceaseds income or his educational qualification, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker i.e. `5278/-, added 50% towards inflation; deducted one-fourth to...
Kapil Dev Sharma Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant has challenged the Office Memorandum (charge-sheet) dated 24.03.2011, proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a Gram Dak Sewak (GDS) Mail Carrier in Khungai B.O. w.e.f. 17.05.2000. He had applied for the examination for promotion to the post of Postman on 23.06.2009 through the Inspector of Post Offices, Jhajjar, who forwarded his application with the remarks `Provisionally recommended’ and stating that he was ‘absent from duty from 01.05.2006 to 25.11.2007’. The applicant was declared successful in the said Postman examination held on 26.07.2009, vide Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Rohtak Memo dated 10.12.2009. Although, other persons who had participated in the said examination and had been declared successful have been selected and issued appointment orders for the said post, orde...
Ranbir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Depot Manager ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 17.06.2010 of the Competent Authority by which he was superannuated from the service of the respondent Corporation on completion of 55 years of age. He has made the following prayers:- “(i) Set-aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2010 (ANNEXURE A-1) passed by the respondent no.1, vide which the services of the applicant have been ordered to be superannuated at the age of 55 years on the ground of his being found medically unfit. (ii) Award costs of the present original application in favour o the applicant and against the respondents; and (iii) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.” 2. The applicant was appointed with the respondent Corporation as a Driver in the year 1985. He received a notice dated 10.06.2010 to the effect that he would be attaining th...
Sandeep Singh Vs. Ministry of Defence Through Its Secretary and Anothe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 13.07.2007 of the Disciplinary Authority (DA) whereby the penalty of removal from service was imposed on him and the order dated 20.02.2008 of the Appellate Authority (AA) whereby the penalty was confirmed and his appeal was rejected. He has sought the following reliefs: “(a) the impugned orders annexed as annexures be quashed and set aside. (b) respondents be directed to revoke the orders of removal from service and reinstate the applicant with immediate effect. (c) respondents may further be directed to grant all such other consequential relief (s). (d) may pass such other order(s)/directions deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The applicant was working as Fatigue Man at Indian Military Academy, Dehradun on 27.11.2006 when a charge-sheet was issued against him on the allegation of frequent unauthorized absence from duty without intimation to the competent authority....
Dr. Ashima Nehra Wadhawan Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Dr. Ashima Nehra Wadhawan, who was erstwhile working on the post of Assistant Professor in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as PGIMER) and later came to be selected on the same post in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as AIIMS), seeks counting of her past service for purposes of promotion only as Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology at Neurosciences Centre, AIIMS. We may clarify that when we say promotion only, the applicant, we may specify, is not asking for seniority. The discordant view between the parties is that, whereas the applicant would say that the service rendered by her on the same post in PGIMER has to count for purposes of her promotion to the next higher post in AIIMS, the respondents would state that the two institutions being autonomous and governed by their own sets of rules and regulations as approved by their respective...
Rajeshwari Chauhan, Supdt. (Retired) Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nct ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
1. Feeling aggrieved with Order No.F.6(5) 2000/DSW/Estt/Pt/6981 dated 3.8.2011 ordering withholding of Rs.1,87,357/- out of leave encashment amount, the applicant has filed this Application challenging the said order and seeking directions to the respondents to pay to the applicant the amount of leave encashment as admissible to her under the applicable rules. 2. The applicant retired on superannuation as Superintendent in the office of respondent no.2 on 30.4.2010. While in service, FIR being FIR No.03/09 was registered by the Anti Corruption Branch of Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 2.2.2009 in which the applicant was implicated. When leave encashment amount was not released to the applicant on her retirement, the applicant filed OA 1336/2011 seeking directions to the respondents to release leave encashment amount to the applicant. The said OA was disposed of at the admission stage itself with directions to the respondents to take a decision in the matter, as the applicant has not been info...
M/S Rajdhani Crafts Vs. Cce, Jaipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
Mathew John, Member (Technical) The appellants are a 100% Export Oriented Unit registered for manufacture and export of wooden furniture. They had taken Cenvat credit taken for service tax paid on various services like transportation of goods from the factory to the port, services of the custom house agents and terminal handling charges and similar other charges incurred within the port area. Since they were not able to utilise the Cenvat credit taken for payment of excise duty, they claimed refund of such credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. At that stage Revenue took the objection that the services could not be considered as input services and refund was rejected on the ground that they were not eligible for the credit. 2. The counsel for the appellant submits that the issue whether transportation from factory to the port is an input service is already decided in the case of CST Vs. ABB Limited - 2011 (23) STR 97. She also submits that the issu...
Suresh Banjan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
The Order Dated 14th October, 2011, passed by State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (Respondent No. 2) granting Environmental clearance, to the project of slum rehabilitation of Indira Nagar Hutment Dwellers CHS Ltd. at C.S.No. 11(pt) of Sion Koliwada Division , Jai Shanker Yagnik Marg, F/N ward, Mumbai, in favour of M/s. Harekrishna Builders(Respondent No. 4 ) is assailed in this Appeal mainly on the following grounds:(a) That the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted the Environmental clearance on the basis of faulty, forged and incorrect representation of facts, without conducting any enquiry. (b) M/s Harekrishna Builder (Respondent No.4) had time and again altered the number of stories in the proposed structure, thus there is variation in approved plan. (c) The Builder had misrepresented and misleaded, regarding the status of the construction. (d) No prior information was intimated to members of the Society about the change in plan. (e) That no P...
Rajbir Singh Vs. Chief of Army Staff and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-2012
1. This case was originally filed in the Honble High Court of Delhi as WP(C) No.3558 of 1997 and after coming into force the Armed Forces Tribunal, it was transferred to this Tribunal on 17.11.2009 and registered as T.A. No.317 of 2009. 2. Vide this OA, the applicant has prayed for reinstatement in service from the date of his dismissal and to grant pecuniary benefits of service. He has also sought quashing of the order of dismissal dated 11.02.1994. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 29.03.1988. The applicant has put in 5 years and 319 days of service as on 11.02.1994 when he was dismissed. 4. It has been alleged that the applicant was suffering from severe Asthma and was admitted in MH, Namkum on a number of occasions for treatment. On 24.04.1993, the applicant was referred to Medical Specialist and he was declared medical category CEE on 11.5.1993. 5. The applicant proceeded on leave w.e.f. 26.08.1993 to 24.09.1993. During his leave, he aga...
Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs. Master Manmeet Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 4th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 30th January, 2012 + MAC.APP. 590/2011 ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD. .... Appellant Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. versus MASTER MANMEET SINGH and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Adv. for R-1 to.4. + MAC.APP. 563/2010 Reserved on: 16th January, 2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD..... Appellant Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv. versus KESHAV PARSHAD and ORS ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Manjeet Chawla, Adv. + MAC.APP. 753/2011 Reserved on: 16th January, 2012 DULI CHAND and ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava, Adv. versus INDER PAL and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for R-3. MAC APP 590/2011 Etc. Page 1 of 32 + MAC.APP. 772/2011 Reserved on: 16th January, 2012 ARUN SHARMA and ORS ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Advocate versus RAM KUMAR TYAGI and ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »