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.
G.S. Matharaoo Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. 2695/2010 and Crl.M.A. 13999/2010 (stay) % Reserved on: 21.12.2011 Decided on: 25th January, 2012 G.S. Matharaoo ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anil Grover and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, Advs. versus CBI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP with Mr. Manoj Pant, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA.1. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present petition is to the incompetency of the authority granting sanction for prosecution against him for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (POC Act) in RC EOU-1 2005 A 0005 and thus the initiation of proceedings against the Petitioner is illegal and void ab initio be set aside..2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in terms of the Regulations as empowered to be framed under Section 480 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (in short DMC Act), the authority competent to rem...
Rakesh Ranjan Singh and Others Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, M ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Rakesh Ranjan Singh and three others, have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to declare the process of region-wise selection for the post of Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer (EO/AAO) as illegal and unjustified, and in consequence thereof to direct the respondents to declare them as selected for the post of EO/AAO and promote them as per rules, as also to quash and set aside the selection made by the respondents region-wise and direct them to declare the select list on all India basis. The applicants also seek a declaration that the scheme of examination for the post of EO/AAO circulated vide letter dated 18.12.2002 and applied in their case, is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts on which the reliefs as indicated above are sought to rest reveal that as per the Employee’s Provident Fund Organization (Enforcement Officer/Assistan...
Mahinder Singh Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Thro ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had filed OA No.3116/2010, which was decided on 20.09.2010 at the admission stage with liberty given to the applicant to file representation within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order claiming his seniority over the juniors and giving specific grounds on which he should be considered by the Respondents for re-engagement as casual labourer, absorption and regularization in appropriate post with the Respondents. Respondents were also directed to consider the said representation of the Applicant alongwith the copy of that OA as a supplementary representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal in the aforesaid terms respondents have passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure A-1), which is under challenge in this OA and the applicant has prayed...
A.K. Tiwari Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Railway Board, Minis ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. Challenging the order dated 07.09.2009 of the Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposing the penalty of removal from service, the order dated 13.11.2009 of the Appellate Authority (AA) by which the penalty was modified to compulsory retirement from railway service, the order dated 02.03.2010 of the Revising Authority (RA) rejecting his Revision Petition, the applicant has sought the following relief in the present O.A.:- “(i) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned orders. (ii) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be further pleased to reinstate the Applicant with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may also be pleased to award any other or further relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. (iv) That the cost of these proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of Applicant.” 2. Th...
Const. Ram Chander Vs. Through the Commissioner of Police, Police Head ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Constable Rama Chander, the applicant herein, working in Delhi Police is aggrieved by the Order dated 02.02.2010 (page-10) whereby his name has been removed from the Select List of Doubtful Integrity with effect from 14.11.2009 i.e. after completion of three years of doubtful integrity period and the Order dated 21.12.2010 by which his representation was rejected. Being aggrieved, he has approached this Tribunal in the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash and set aside the said impugned order dated 02.02.2010 with all consequential benefits. 2. The applicant along with three others (Constable Naresh Kumar, Constable Rajbir Singh and Constable Sunil Kumar) filed the OA No.2152/2007 challenging the order dated 01.6.2007 wherein the penalty of forfeiture of three years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in their pay. While disposing of the said OA on 08.12.2009. The Tribun...
Vandana Travels and Tours Vs. C.C.E. and S. Tax, Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2012
Per Mr. S.S. Kang: 1. A common issue is involved in all these applications, therefore, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of total service tax amount of Rs.5,69,819/-, interest and penalties. Four show cause notices were issued to the applicants for demand of service tax on the ground that the applicants provided rent-a-cab operator service during the period April 2002 to July 2008 to M/s IFFCO. 3. The adjudicating authority under four orders confirmed the demand with interest and imposed penalties. The appellants filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) directed them to deposit a part amount of service tax for hearing of the appeals. The appellants failed to comply with the condition stay order. Hence the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35Fof the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. The contention of the applicants is that ...
Mona Thakur Vs. Uoi and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24th January, 2012 + W.P.(C) 8748/2008 % MONA THAKUR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Mr. K.B. Thakur and Mr. Wasim Ashrar, Adv. Versus UOI and ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar, Adv. CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW JUDGMENT RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J..1. The petition impugns Rule 58(b)(ii) of the Army Welfare Housing Organization Rules, 1987 as violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently seeks quashing of the list of allottees of the dwelling units constructed by the respondent no.2 Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) at Sector 22 and 23, Dwarka and seeks a mandamus to the respondent no.2 AWHO to allot a dwelling unit in the construction aforesaid to the petitioner, under the category of War Widows. Rule was issued and the respondent no.2 AWHO has filed its counter affidavit to which rej...
In the Matter Of: Vs. Department of Education, Govt. of
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4982/2011 and CMs 10094/2011 and 11552/2011 Reserved on: 06.01.2012 Date of decision: 24.01.2012 IN THE MATTER OF: KARAN RAJ SINGH (MINOR) THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN SH. S.K. SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Vandana Bhatia, Advocate versus DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate for R-1 and R-3 with Ms. Asha Monga, EO-14, Department of Education. Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-2/CBSE. Mr. Abhijat, Advocate for R-4/School. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J..1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner through his father as his natural guardian, seeking directions to respondent No.4/School to allow him to attend and pursue his course in Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers in class XI in which he claims to have got admission on 14.06.2011. W.P.(C) 4982/2011 Page 1 of 29.2. The facts of the case which lie in a narrow compass are that th...
Delhi Subordinate Services Vs. Ram Kumar Gijroya and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24th January, 2012 + LPA 562/2011 % DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD and ANR ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum and Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocates. Versus RAM KUMAR GIJROYA and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. D.P. Sharma and Mr. Rajender Yadav, Advocates for R-1, 2 and 5. AND + W.P.(C) 8087/2011 % MS. RENU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Tyagi and Mr. K.K. Gautam, Advocates. Versus THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY, D.S.S.S.B and ORS. ........... Respondents Through: Mr. Sachin Chopra and Mr. Amit Kumar Dadhich, Advocates for R-2 and 3 CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW LPA 562/2011 and W.P.(C) 8087/2011 Page 1 of 18 JUDGMENT RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J..1. The appeal impugns the order dated 24th November, 2010 of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.382/2009 preferred by the five respondents seeking mandamus commanding the appellants Delhi Subordinate Services Select...
Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd Vs. Director General of Income Tax and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NO. 7932/2010 Reserved on: 24th November, 2011 % Date of Decision: 24th January, 2012 ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PTE LTD. ...Petitioner Through Mr. Yogesh K. Jagia, Ms. Sandhya Kohli and Mr. Akshay Singh, Advocates. VERSUS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX and OTHERS ...Respondent Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.: The petitioner Alpine Electronics Asia Private Limited is a company incorporated in Singapore and was allowed to open a liaison office in India vide permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India dated 15th July, 1997. The petitioner thereafter obtained registration with the office of the Registrar of Companies vide registration order dated 21st November, 1997. The permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India on 15th July, 1997 was extended from time to time upto 14th July, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »