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.
Vimal Chandra Mishra 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.104/2012 % Date of Decision: 06.01.2012 Vimal Chandra Mishra .... Petitioner Through Mr. Ron Bastian, 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 sought the recall of the Court of Inquiry which allegedly took place and the quashing of his order of dismissal, if any, from the service w.e.f. 31st August, 2005. The petitioner has also prayed for directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity in service and to grant all the benefits of the service to him as if the he was in the service throughout the period starting from the date of his dismissal from service..2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV Staff Cook with the Border WP(C) No.104/2012 Page 1 of 10 Security Force on the basis of the proceedi...
M/S Dhootapapeshwar Industries Vs. Sh. Atma Ram and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 06.01.2012. + CM(M) No. 128/2007 and CM No.1091/2007 (for stay) M/S DHOOTAPAPESHWAR INDUSTRIES LTD. ...........Petitioner Through: Mr. Y.P. Ahuja, Advocate. Versus SH. ATMA RAM and ANOTHER ..........Respondents Through: Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral).1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 16.11.2006 passed by learned ARCT (Additional Rent Control Tribunal) which had reversed the findings of the ARC (Additional Rent Controller) dated 12.07.2001..2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by Atma Ram and others under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA). The premises in dispute is property No.6517, Chand Bhawan, Plot No. 34-D, Ward No. XII, Kamla Nagar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi; tenancy was qua two rooms, one kitchen, one verandah, and balcony on CM (M) No. 128/2007 Page 1 of...
Ranbir Sharma Vs. Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: November 04 , 2011 Pronounced on: January 06, 2012 (GRID-A) + LA.APP.1195/2008 (VILLAGE- BHARTHAL) RANBIR SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates Mr.Anand Yadav and Ms.Anita Tomar, Advocates. Mr.Rohtas, Advocate. Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.M.Azam Ansari, Advocates. Mr.Pankaj Vivek, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Mr.Deepak Khosla, Mr.Samit Khosla and Mr.Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates Mr.H.S.Rautela, Advocate Mr.I.S.Dahiya, Advocate Mr.Sandeep Thakhur, Advocate Mr.Atul Tripathi, Advocate. Mr.N.S.Negi and Mr.H.S.Rautela, (Advocates for respondent in appeals filed by UOI) versus UNION OF INDIA and ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.Kaumudi Kiran, Advocates for LAC/UOI Mr....
Rishi Pal Singh Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision : 06.01.2012 + FAO (OS) No.5 of 2012 RISHI PAL SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ankit Khetarpal, Advocate. Versus HARINDER PAL SINGH and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anshu Mahajan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. Caveat No.17/2012 Learned counsel for the Caveators has entered appearance and, thus, the Caveat stands discharged. CM Nos.274-275/2012 (Exemptions) Allowed subject to just exceptions. It is, however, noted that despite the lapse of almost six months, no certified copy of the impugned order has been filed, though the same was required to be filed as per law. FAO (OS) No.5/2012; CM No.276/2012 (for condonation of delay of 1 day in filing the appeal) and CM No.277/2012 (for condonation of delay of 76 days in refiling the appeal).1. The present appeal is one more endeavour by the appellant to cause continued harassment to the wife...
Smt. Deva Rani Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Health ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
Oral: Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant has challenged the inaction on the part of the respondents in not granting her Promotion and ACP up-gradation along with others who were junior to her. She has prayed the following relief(s) in this OA: The respondents may be directed to grant promotion to the applicant to the suitable post, when her other batch-mates and juniors were promoted to that scale, along with arrears of the pay and allowances with interest @ 12% from the due date the same fell due. Any other relief may also be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant in her OA, are that she was appointed as Hospital Attendant vide letter dated 03.01.1973 in the pay scale of Rs.80-110 by the then Vishwayatan Yogashram. Further, vide order No.34/36, the applicant was appointed as Aya w.e.f. 10.04.1976 in the pay scale of Rs.196-323, and was further promoted as Senior Aya in the scal...
Sanjeev Kumar Gautam Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Departmen ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records of this case; (ii) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 28/12/2011 (Annexure A-1), 11/11/2011 (Annexure A-2) and 27/10/2011 (Annexure A-6); (iii) Direct the respondent to give all consequential benefits to the applicant; (iv) Direct the respondents to pay the cost of litigation to the applicant. (v) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal thinks fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Shri Pankaj Nayan and Shri Devender Kumar Singh filed OA-3305/2010, thereby impleading the present applicant as one of the respondents in the said OA. The grievance raised by the applicant in the said OA was regarding circular/letter No.F.No.A-22015/19/2006-Ad.III.A dated 27.03.2009 and subsequent clarification issued vide letter No.F.No.A/22015/18/2009-Ad.IIIA dated ...
S.K. Tiwari Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Communi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J): 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 20.8.2010 (page 25) whereby he has been declared unfit for promotion. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to delete the adverse remarks mentioned in his ACR for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 and also challenged order dated 9.3.2010 whereby respondents No.3 to 6 have been promoted to the post of Junior Wireless Officer (hereinafter referred to as JWO) with a further direction to the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of JWO as per his seniority by granting him all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are he was appointed as Junior Engineer (Wireless) in the year 1988. In the seniority list issued on 16.4.2002 (page 28 at 30), applicant was shown at Sl.No.32 while private respondents at Sl.No.33, 34, 35 and 36, namely, S/Shri J.K. Mukherjee, B.D. Chattopadhyay, Brahm Pal Singh and R.K. Yadav meaning thereby they were junior to ...
Association of Radio and Television Engineering Employees (Artee) Thro ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
Oral: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicants, who are 3 Associations, viz. Association of Radio and Television Engineering Employees, All India Radio and Doordarshan Technical Employees Association and Programme Staff Association of All India Radio and Doordarshan through their Joint Secretaries had filed this OA seeking the following relief: “8.1 impugned office order No.120/2011-PPC dated 08.09.2011. 8.2 transfer of office bearers at serial No.8, 24, 26, 27, 38 in order No.36/2011, Transfer of officer bearers at serial No.1 and 4 in order No.37/2011, Transfer of office bearers at serial No.8, 16 and 18 In office order No.38/2011 dated 12.9.2011. Transfer of office bearer of applicant No.1 vide Office Order No.CEW/EA-TRANSFER/2011/PCELL dated 14.9.2011. Office Order No.40/2011 dated 15.9.2011 and Transfer of Office Bearers at Sl.No.6 in Office Order No.70/2011-SI (B) dated 12.9.2011. Transfer of office bearers at Sl.No.1,2,3 and 4 in Office Order No.32015/3/P-CELL/CEW/201...
M/S. Shamken Spinners Ltd and Another Vs. Cce, Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
Per Rakesh Kumar, J. The facts leading to filing of this appeal and stay applications are, in brief, as under:- 1.1 M/s. Shamken Spinners Ltd., Kosikalan, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant company) are a 100% EOU engaged in manufacture of spun cotton yarn, spun yarn of synthetic fibres and spun yarn of blended fibres for export. The goods being manufactured fall under Chapter 52 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff and would attract excise duty when cleared into DTA. Shri V.P. Yadav is the General Manager (Tech.) of the Appellant Company. For manufacture of synthetic spun yarn and polyester cotton blended yarn, polyester staple fibre (PSF) was being procured by the Appellant Company from M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. free of duty. Scrutiny of invoices of M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics revealed that the PSF was being cleared by them to the Appellant Company as deemed export by availing&nbs...
Satish Chandra Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.12252/2004 % Date of Decision: 05.01.2012 Satish Chandra Sharma .... Petitioner Through Mr.Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Versus Union of India and Ors. .... Respondents Through Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Central Government Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA ANIL KUMAR, J. * CM No.19240/2011 This is an application by the petitioner seeking early hearing of the writ petition filed by him against the order of his dismissal from the Central Reserve Police Force. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the application may be allowed and that the writ petition be heard. For the reasons stated in the application it is allowed. WP(C) No. 12252/2004 Page 1 of 23 WP(C) No.12252/2004 With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for hearing for final disposal. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the order of dismissal dated 19th September, 2003 passed by the Comma...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »