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.
M.P. Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. This case had already been adjourned on six occasions earlier but the counsel for the respondents has again not appeared on 08.12.2011. Accordingly, we have proceeded to hear the counsel for the applicant by resorting to Rule 16 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. 2. In this OA, the applicant has challenged the following Memorandums in terms of which an amount of Rs.56000/- has been ordered for recovery from him: Memo. dated 02.02.2010 issued by the Supdt. of Post Offices, Etah Dn., Etah (Annexure-A1). Memo dated 17.06.2010 issued by the Director Postal Services, Agra Region (Annexure A2). 3. The brief facts of the case, as gathered from the pleadings, are that the applicant, while working as Sub Post Master (SPM), Jalesar Town, SO during the period 6.10.2006 to 31.05.2007, was stated to have authorized for payment, without proper verification, a large number of fake money orders received with forged high value money order lists on different dates. It ...
Pradeep Hooda Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Commissioner of P ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Pradeep Hooda, a constable in Delhi Police, has filed this Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, calling in question orders Annexure A-1 to A-3, and in consequence of setting aside the orders aforesaid, to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion and pay and allowances etc. Annexure A-1 is show cause notice dated 04.02.2011, vide which the applicant was put to notice as to why his services be not terminated under rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1985). We do not know why Annexure A-2 dated 17.06.2011, whereby the show cause notice aforesaid has been withdrawn, has been challenged. Annexure A-3 is order dated 30.06.2011 vide which services of the applicant have been terminated under rule 5 of the Rules aforesaid. 2. The facts of the case would reveal that the applicant was selected as constab...
M/S Science Centre Vs. Cce, Jaipur-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Per Mathew John , J. 1. The Appellants were engaged in the business of providing commercial training or coaching which is taxable under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1.7.2003. Though the Appellant had taken service tax registration in the year 2003, they did not collect service tax from the students and remit the same to the Government till 2006. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 18.8.2006 demanding Service Tax on fees received by them for financial year 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 along with appropriate interest and penalties. On Adjudication of the Show Cause Notice demand for Service Tax of Rs.1,93,238/- was confirmed along with interest. Further, a penalty of Rs.1,04,600/- was imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act and penalty of Rs.1000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the Act and penalty of Rs.1,93,238/- was imposed under Section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants filed an appeal be...
Delhi Jal Board Vs. Dinesh Kumar
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the District Forum North, Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in complaint case No. 263/03 wherein the District Forum directed the appellant-respondent to withdraw the impugned bill and to issue a fresh bill after ensuring service of show-cause notice and to pay Rs. 500 as a costs of litigation. 2. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for condonation of delay has also been filed. We thought that before we assail the order of the District Forum, it will be proper to dispose of the delay condonation application. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent, but none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service. 4. We have heard Miss Arti Bansal, Counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application and perused the application along with the record. 5. We have to mention here that it is a very carelessly drafted application....
Delhi Jal Board, New Delhi Vs. Dinesh Kumar, Delhi
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Salma Noor, member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the District Forum North, Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in complaint case No.263/03 wherein the District Forum directed the appellant respondent to withdraw the impugned bill and to issue a fresh bill after ensuring service of show cause notice and to pay Rs.500/- as a costs of litigation. 2. Along with the appeal, an application under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for condonation of delay has also been filed. We thought that before we assail the order of the District Forum, it will be proper to dispose of the delay condonation application. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent, but none appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of service. 4. We have heard Miss Arti Bansal, Counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application and perused the application along with the record. 5. We have to mention here that it is a very carelessly drafted applicatio...
HusaIn Saleh Mahmad Usman Bhai Kara Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Gujarat (SLEIAA) by order dated 11th June, 2010 granted environmental clearance (EC) for establishing 300 MW (2x150 MW) imported / Indian coal based Thermal Power Plant at Village Bhadreshwar, Taluk Mundra, District Kutch in favour of M/s OPG Power Gujarat Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No.3. Alleging violation of certain conditions stipulated in the aforesaid EC, more particularly violation of the guidelines issued under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Applicant has filed an application, invoking jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The said application has been registered as Application No.32 of 2011. 2. Along with the application, the Applicant has also filed a petition under Section 19 (4) (i) of the NGT Act, 2010 inter alia praying to restrain Respondent No.3 from carrying out any construction in consonance with the EC granted in its favour, on the ground that, it would cau...
The Synodical Board of Health Vs. Director General of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.12897/2009 % Date of Decision : 9th January, 2012. THE SYNODICAL BOARD OF HEALTH SERVICES ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Somnath Shukla and Mr. Amit Sachdeva, Advs. versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mr. Anupam Tripathi, sr. standing counsel with Ms. Anusha Singh, 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) The Synodical Board of Health Services has invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to challenge and question the order dated 30th April, 2009 passed by the WPC 12897/2009 Page 1 of 12 Director General of Income Tax(Exemptions), respondent herein. By the impugned order respondent has dismissed the application...
Amar Singh Sewara Vs. Regional Director, Rbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EX.P. 133/2011 Reserved on: January 6, 2012 Decision on: January 9, 2012 AMAR SINGH SEWARA ..... Petitioner In person. versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR, RBI ..... Respondent Through Mr. H.S. Parihar with Mr. K.S. Parihar, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMEN T 9.01.2012.1. The prayer in this petition under Order 21 CPC is for the execution of an Award dated 30th July 2002 (published in the Gazette on 1st August 2002) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal ('CGIT') in Industrial Dispute No.29. of 2000..2. It may be noticed at the outset that the Petitioner has erroneously described himself as 'Decree Holder' whereas the Award in question is one passed by the CGIT under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act'). For enforcement of an Award under the ID Act there is a separate provision Ex.P. No.133. of 2011 Page 1 of 7 under the ID Act. In any event, for the reasons set out hereafter, the prayer is misconceived since the said A...
Sb Yadav Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Criminal Appeal No.666/2011 % Judgment reserved on : 12th October, 2011 Judgment delivered on : 09th January, 2012 SB YADAV ..... Appellant Through : Mr.O. P. Khadaria, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J..1. The instant appeal is being filed under Section 341 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned order dated 26.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (North-west) Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby, learned Judge has formed an opinion that a complaint under Section 195 of the Code has to be filed against the appellant. Thereafter, file the complaint before ACMM (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi under Section 193/195/211 r/w Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and others..2. Brief facts of the case are that a case bearing FIR No.10/2010 was registered at P.S. Jahangir Puri, (North West) Delhi on 09.01.2010...
Gail (India) Limited, (Formerly Vs. Hindustan Construction
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. 170/2004 Reserved on: December 2, 2011 Decision on: January 9, 2012 GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED, (Formerly known as GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal with Mr. Rahul Bhandari, Advocates. versus HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 9.01.2012.1. GAIL (India ) Ltd. (formerly Gas Authority of India Limited) (hereafter `GAIL') has, in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (`Act') challenged an Award dated 11th August 2003 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the dispute between GAIL and Hindustan Construction Corporation (`HCC')..2. On 6th July 1994 GAIL awarded HCC a contract for upgradation of the Auraiya Gas Compressor Station for HBJ Pipeline. The contract was to be completed by 27th February 1995. However, the contract was actually completed on 31st October 1996 with a delay of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »