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.
Jitender Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Jitender Singh, the applicant herein, joined Delhi Police as Sub Inspector in 1986 and is working on the same post till date, primarily because of his involvement in FIR No.13/88 us 304B/498A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Act dated 29.01.1988. We may mention at the very outset that the applicant is brother of the husband of the deceased, whose death resulted into registration of the FIR as mentioned above. The applicant has since been acquitted, but his promotion is still not coming about for the reason that at the relevant time when DPC was held, he was facing the criminal trial, and his case was put in sealed cover. It is not being opened even after his acquittal for the reason that for the same allegations, as were subject matter of the criminal case against him, now a departmental enquiry is pending. In the context of the facts and circumstances of the case to be mentioned hereafter, the applicant has approached this Tribunal through present Original App...
Gauri Shankar Daksh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(i) release the amount of pension of the applicant from the date of retirement to the date of payment with interest; (ii) release the amount of gratuity/DCRG of the applicant from the date of retirement till the date of payment with interest; (iii) release the amount of leave salary with interest; (iv) release the amount of insurance with interest; (v) all communication of pension as per rules with interest.” 2. The grievance of the applicant in this case is that although he has sought voluntary retirement from service on and from 01.06.2009 after putting in 30 years of unblemished service with the respondents, respondents are not releasing the retiral benefits. At this stage, few relevant facts, necessary for determination of the matter in dispute, may be noticed. Applicant pursuant to his transfer order and posting order issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kan...
Rajeev Kumar Tomar Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Sec ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
Oral: Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The five OAs bearing Nos. 2638/2011, 2641/2011, 2645/2011, 2650/2011 and 2958/2011 have been filed aggrieved with the decision of the respondent authority in not confirming the appointment on the post of Librarian advertised by the respondent No. 2 under Post Code No. 017/07 and canceling their candidature. All the five applicants had applied pursuant to the advertisement of the respondent Selection Board. They had been selected and occupied fairly high position in the merit list; applicant (Rajeev Kumar Tomar) in OA-2638/2011 had 2nd position in the Scheduled Caste (SC) category; applicant (OA-2641/2011) Ghanshyam Das had 10th position in unreserved (UR); the applicant (Mohd. Naim) in OA-2645/2011 had 6th position under OBC category; applicant (Ajay Kumar) in OA-2650/2011 had 23rd position in UR category; and applicant (Syed Zulfiqar Ali) in OA-2958/2011 had 8th position in UR category. Their cases were recommended by the respondent Selection Board...
Jashpal Singh Vs. Itdc (India Tourism Development Corporation) Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
M.L. Chauhan: 1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Telephone Operator Grade I, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for use of abusive language, physical assault at his superiors and obstruction in discharge of duties, which was duly inquired into and proved during the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 7.1.1998 (Annexure A-19/II) whereby the charges against the applicant were held to be proved. Based upon the findings given by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of termination from service vide order dated 15.9.2001 (Annexure A-2/V). However, the appellate authority, on the appeal being filed by the applicant, set aside the termination order dated 15.9.2001 and vide order dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure 2/IV) imposed the punishment of demotion in rank from Telephone Operator Grade I to the next below post, i.e., Telephone Operator Grade II. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the ...
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Deepak Bansal, New D ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
Salma Noor, Member, J. 1. This appeal has been filed before this Commission on 16.11.2009 with a delay of 166 days by the appellant Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent before the District Forum against the order dated 1.4.2009 by which District Forum order the appellant to pay Rs.2,48,400/- as claim amount and Rs.90,000/- as mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of litigation. 2. Along with the appeal, an application under section 15 of the CPC for condonation of delay has also been filed. 3. We have heard Shri Yogesh Kumar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sameer Nandwani, Counsel for the appellant and Shri Abhishek, Counsel for the respondent on delay condonation application. 4. It is the contention of the appellant Counsel that he has not received the copy of the impugned order and came to know about the order only on 8.10.2009 when he received notice of the execution and thereafter he seeks permission to file the appeal from the Head Office and the app...
Indian Railways Catering and Vs. Cox and Kings India Ltd. and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 28.11.2011 % Judgment delivered on:06.01.2012 + FAO(OS) 433-35 OF 2011 INDIAN RAILWAYS CATERING and TOURISM CORP. LTD. ... APPELLANT Through: Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Mr. Bhagat Singh, Ms.Vidit Gupta, Mr. Yash Wardhan Tewari, Ms. Titash, Advocates VERSUS COX and KINGS INDIA LTD. and ANR. ...RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ashok Desai, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Rishi Agarwala, Mr. Peter Lobo, Mr. Akshay Ringe, Ms. Misha Rohtagi, Advs. for Respondent No.1 Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Abhimanyu Mahajan, Adv. for Respondent No.2 Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Ms. Ekta Kapil, Advs. for applicant in CM No.18815/2011 in FAO(OS) No.433-35/2011 FAO(OS) No.433-35/2011 Page 1 of 58 + CONT.CAS(C) No.770 of 2011 INDIAN RAILWAYS CATERING and TOURISM CORP. LTD. ... APPELLANT Through: Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG wi...
Surender Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.6150/2011 % Date of Decision: 06.01.2012 Surender Pratap Singh .... Petitioner Through Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate Versus Union of India and Ors. .... Respondents Through Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA ANIL KUMAR, J. *.1. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents denying the admission of the petitioner to the training for joining the CISF and has sought directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the training in the CISF Organization for the post of Sub-Inspector..2. The brief facts to comprehend the controversy are that the Staff Selection Commission, respondent No.4. had invited WP(C) No.6150/2011 Page 1 of 9 applications on behalf of respondent Nos.1. to 3 for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force..3. The eligibility conditions for the recruitment were that the candidate had to qualify the ...
# Kewal Krishan Jaitely Vs. $ Acharaj Ram Kapur and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % RSA 186 of 2005 + Date of Decision: 6th January, 2012 # KEWAL KRISHAN JAITELY .....Appellant ! Through: Mr. G.P. Thareja and Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocates Versus $ ACHARAJ RAM KAPUR and ORS. ....Respondents Through: Respondent no.3. CORAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN JUDGMENT P.K BHASIN,J: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge as the First Appellate Court whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.03.1998 passed by the Court of Civil Judge in a suit filed by one Shri Achraj Ram Kapur, who died during the pendency of this appeal and is now being represented by his legal heirs, against the appellant herein for a decree of possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit land had been affirmed..2. This being a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was admitted for hearing on the following two RSA 186/2005 Page 1 of 12 substantial questions of...
Cit Vs. Sasan Power Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 10/2012 % Date of Decision : 6th January, 2012. CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, sr. standing counsel versus SASAN POWER LTD ..... Respondent Through 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 Revenue by present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (Act, for short) impugns the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in ITA No.2819/2010. ITA 10/2012 Page 1 of 10 The appeal relates to assessment year 2007-08..2. The respondent-assessee had filed its return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring nil income. By assessment order dated 30.10.2009, the Assessing Officer assessed income of Rs.2,71,92,899/- by disallowing interest expenses of Rs.1,36,...
State Vs. Munazir Alam @ Munna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 06.01.2012 + CRL.L.P. 533/2011 STATE ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. Sanjay Lao, APP. versus MUNAZIR ALAM @ MUNNA ..... Respondent Through : Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % Crl. M.A. 17587/2011 in Crl. L.P. 533/2011.1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, Crl. M.A. 17587/2011 is allowed. Crl. M.A. 17587/2011 is accordingly disposed of. Crl. L.P. 533/2011.2. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Crl.L.P. 533/2011, CRL. M.A. 17587/2011 Page 1 Addl. Sessions Judge dated 18.01.2011 in S.C. No. 06/10/08. The respondent (accused before the Trial Court) has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 376/307/506 IPC..3. The prosecution case was that the police received information - through D.D. Entry No. 8A on 06.10.2007 that a girl, "X", aged 14 years, resident of Sant Nagar had bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »