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.
# Yogender Vs. $ Mcd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % W.P.(C) 211/2012 + Date of Decision: 11th January, 2012 # YOGENDER ....Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate Versus $ MCD ...Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. A.S. Tuisem Shimray, Advocates CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN JUDGMENT P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL) The petitioner challenges the award dated 2nd May, 2011 rendered by the Labour Court whereby the industrial dispute raised by him directly before the Labour Court regarding termination of his services by the respondent has been decided against him and it has been held that his services had not been illegally terminated and, in fact, he had got entry into the Health Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' in short), respondent herein, as a Ward Boy on the basis of forged documents..2. The claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he W.P. (C) 211/2012 Page 1 of 9 had got employment with the MCD on 4th July, 2005 and he was posted at Chest...
Md.Shahbaz Alam Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.7353/2011 and CM No. 16676/2011 % Date of Decision: 11.01.2012 Md.Shahbaz Alam .... Petitioner Through Mr.Arvind Nayar and Mr.Zeyaul Haque, Advocates Versus Union of India and Ors. .... Respondents Through Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA ANIL KUMAR, J. *.1. The petitioner, an Airman with the Indian Air Force, has sought an appropriate writ directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to discharge him from the service in view of his offer of appointment to the higher post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force. The petitioner has also sought a direction to respondent No.3 to not fill the post of Assistant Commandant offered to him vide appointment letter dated Nil September, 2011 requiring him to report to the CRPF Academy at Kadarpur, Gurgaon, (Haryana) on or before 12th October, 2011. W.P(C) No.7353/2011 Page 1 of 23.2. The pe...
Date of Decision: 11th January, Vs. $ Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % W.P.(C) 209/2012 + Date of Decision: 11th January, 2012 # JOSHI RAM ....Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate Versus $ MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ...Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. A.S. Tuisem Shimray, Advocates CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN JUDGMENT P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL) The petitioner challenges the award dated 2nd May, 2011 rendered by the Labour Court whereby the industrial dispute raised by him directly before the Labour Court regarding termination of his services by the respondent has been decided against him and it has been held that his services had not been illegally terminated and, in fact, he had got entry into the Health Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' in short), respondent herein, as a Safai karamchari on the basis of forged documents..2. The claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he had got employment with the MCD on 16th December, 2002 and he W.P. (C)...
Deepak Vig Vs. Avdesh Mittal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1136/2011 Reserved on: 14.12.2011 Pronounced on: 11.01.2012 DEEPAK VIG ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.L. Madan and Mr. K.K. Madan, Advocates versus AVDESH MITTAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashish Middha and Mr.Y.R. Yadav, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. This petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. read with section 227of the Constitution of India is preferred against the impugned order dated 23.12.2009 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby in a complaint case under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short the Act), filed by the respondent herein, he ordered for issuance of summons to the petitioner..2. Though the facts of the case are plain and simple, but, there is an interesting legal issue. By virtue of lease agreement dated 14.08.2008 arrived at between the petitioner/lessee and respondent/lessor the property of respondent situated at E-582 ...
Murari Lal Sharma Vs. Nct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.3824/2011 % Judgment delivered on: 11th January, 2012 MURARI LAL SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Robin Kamra, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus NCT OF DELHI and ORS ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP with ASI Ram Gopal, PS Mukherjee Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral).1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No. 507/2006 PS Mukherjee Nagar dated 7.11.2006 a case under Section 336/506 read with Sections 27/30/54/59 of the Arms Act has been registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 has amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR, therefore, he does not want to pursue the case any further against the petitioner..2. Respondent No.2 is present in person who is identified by ASI Crl.M.C.3824/2011 Page 1 of 3 Ram Gopal Singh, PS Mukherjee Nagar. He submits that he...
# Usha Vs. $ Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % W.P.(C) 208/2012 + Date of Decision: 11th January, 2012 # USHA ....Petitioner ! Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate Versus $ MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ...Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat and Mr. A.S. Tuisem Shimray, Advocates CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN JUDGMENT P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL) The petitioner challenges the award dated 2nd May, 2011 rendered by the Labour Court whereby the industrial dispute raised by her directly before the Labour Court regarding termination of her services by the respondent has been decided against her and it has been held that her services had not been illegally terminated in fact she had got entry into the Health Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' in short), respondent herein, as a Ward Aaya on the basis of forged documents..2. The claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that she W.P. (C) 208/2012 Page 1 of 9 had got employment with the MCD on 6th June, 2005 and sh...
Pawan Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary, New Sec ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
George Paracken: 1. This is the second round of litigation by the applicant before this Tribunal. Earlier he had filed OA No.616/2008 which was disposed of by directing the respondents to give the same benefits as was granted by this Tribunal in the case of Victoria Massey and anr. Vs. NCT of Delhi and ors. in OA-1330/2007 and OA-1331/2007 decided on 23.7.2008 by a full bench. 2. In Victoria Massey’s case, the background of the appointment of the applicant therein made by the respondents was considered in detail. What was under challenge in the said OA was an attempt on the part of the respondents in denying the benefit of equal pay to the applicants therein on the strength of their circular dated 3.2.2005 which, according to the respondents, has been issued in supersession to their earlier circular dated 12.9.2002. The said circular dated 3.2.2005 reads as under: “It is informed that the Finance Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in a matter regarding grant of equal pay to...
Amar Singh Vs. S.K. Budlakoti and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. The Contempt Petition has been filed alleging that the order dated 19/20.10.2010 of the respondents advising that he may prefer representation/petition addressed to appropriate authorities under the provisions of DandA Rules, is in violation of the directions of this Tribunal in its order dated 09.08.2010. In this connection, it is submitted that the contempt is further aggravated by the fact that the respondents are in the knowledge as to what the directions of the Tribunal were and that they should comply with these directions, yet they have purposely not considered the representation of the applicant dated 20.11.2009. Therefore, there is willful/deliberate non-compliance of the directions issued by this Tribunal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have been through the Contempt Petition and the annexures attached thereto. 3. O.A.No.2569/2010 had been disposed of with the following directions: “2. The learned counsel fo...
M/S High Tech Engineers Vs. C.C, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
Per Mr. D.N. Panda, J. 1. At the commencement of hearing , Revenue mentioned that Misc. Order No.C/148-150/11 dated 3.6.2011 passed by Tribunal in three cases of M/s High Tech Engineers in Customs Appeal No.610/2006, M/s Lindt Exports in Customs Appeal No.609/2006 and Rajesh Verma in Customs Appeal No.611/2006 has been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 27.09.2011 in Appeal No.CUS AA No.39 - 41/2011. All the questions below involved in those appeals were answered in favour of Revenue. a) Whether the learned CESTAT has got jurisdiction under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 to restore the appeals dismissed by it four years ago, by reviewing it...
M/S. Kamal Steel Fabricators Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both the sides, we find that the demand of Rs. 55 lakhs approximately stands confirmed against the appellants who is engaged in the manufacture of Elastic Rail Clips. The appellants during the relevant period, i.e., 29.01.90 to 30.05.92 was availing benefit of exemption under Notification No.175/86, dtd. 01.03.86. The said Notification prescribed different slabs for payment of Central Excise duty. The duty attracted for the first clearances of a particular amount was ‘Nil’ and for the subsequent slabs, the Notification provided concessional rate of duty. Though the appellants were availing the benefit of above Notification, they were collecting the full amount of duty from the Railways, i.e., the purchaser of clips in question. Revenue procured the quantum of Excise duty paid by the Railways to the appellants and proposed to confirm the same in terms of the provisions of Section 11D of Central Excise...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »