Delhi Court October 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.
Surinder Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of F ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: The applicant, a Superintendent under the Central Board of Excise and Customs, is aggrieved at his non promotion as Assistant Director. As this is linked with finalizing the draft revised RRs, he has also challenged the delay in their finalization. The OA seeks the following reliefs :- (i) to direct the respondents Nos.1and2 to consider the proposal dated 06.10.2010 as submitted by the Directorate and after finalizing the recruitment rules in all respect including Gazetted Notification for the post of Asstt. Director (Communication), and consider the case of applicant for promotion to the post of Asstt. Director (Communication) and if the applicant is found fit he may be promoted with all benefits; (ii) to pass such other and further order as deemed fit and proper. 2. Shri S.K. Gupta and Shri R.N. Singh would appear as the counsels respectively for the applicant and the respondents. 3. The brief facts are that the applicant had been transferred on deputation from th...
Sub Otrp Devendra Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
1. Twice the Petitioner was given opportunity to file a rejoinder and he was given last opportunity on 27th August 2012 for a period of four weeks to file a rejoinder and it was clearly mentioned that in case he does not file rejoinder, the matter will be heard without rejoinder. Till date Petitioner has not filed a rejoinder. Now the matter has come again and is being taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the relevant records may be called and the warning issued to the Petitioner vide letter dated 19th November 2010 for approaching superior authorities through his representation may be quashed. He has also prayed that the Respondents may be directed to grant all legitimate dues of the Petitioner as mentioned st Para 4.27 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. He has further prayed that the Respondents may be directed to initiate appropriate action against Respondent No. 4 for improper acts/omissions resulting in denial in legitimate dues to the Petit...
Naib Risaldar Lm Pandey Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The writ petition challenges the decision dated July 20, 2012 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal dismissing OA No.194/2012 in which the challenge by the writ petitioner was to the decision taken by the Army authorities to not permit petitioner to withdraw his unwillingness to serve for two more years and as a consequence the writ petitioner prays that he be granted extension in service by two years upto October 30, 2014. 2. The undisputed position is that the petitioner was enrolled in the Remount and Veterinary Corps of the Indian Army on October 18, 1986 and was promoted as a Naib Risaldar on January 1, 2011. He would have completed 26 years service by October 18, 2012 and would be liable to be superannuated on October 30, 2012. 3. But, admittedly there exists a policy as per which the petitioner could have opted to serve for another two years or opt not to serve for another two years, and only if he had opted to serve for another two years were the Army aut...
New Delhi Television Limited Vs. Icc Development (international) Limit ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. T.20 : Slam-bang : Loud music : Cheerleaders : Food Fiesta, a million-dollar propaganda machine; a product of the marketing age which only understands the language of profit requires this Court to revisit its country cousin - The 50 Over Format (The subject of 2008 (38) PTC 477 (Del) ESPN Star Sports v Global Broadcast News Ltd.); both forms of sports which some feel have devalued the very basics of sports, endangering the DNA of cricket - Test Matches - where the gripping climax is reached over a period of few days. 2. The essence of sports lies in the joy of watching two combatants trying to outwit each other with skillful interplay at a level playing field and not a field designed in favour of one - the batsman; to grind the ball to dust and the helpless bowler chucking the ball in supreme indignity. But millions sit in front of the idiot box, not perhaps to see cricket, but to have fun. We are confident that if the boisterous crowd, ...
Suresh Prasad Vs. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
ORDER (ORAL) G. George Paracken: 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Memorandum No. DPPERSII2007/896/C-14011/6/06 dated 19.03.2007 proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The statement of article of charge framed against him is as under: Shri Suresh Prasad S/o Sh. Machhan Prasad, Head Clerk, CBI Head Office, Policy Division, North Block, New Delhi, who belonged to Nonia Caste, which comes under OBC category dishonestly, obtained a fake Caste Certificate dated 05-02-82 in his name, under the forged seal and signatures of Zila Padadhikari, Saran (Chapra), showing him of Kharia caste and used this caste certificate as genuine, knowing it to be a fake and forged and on the basis of which, secured employment in Central Bureau of Investigation on 04-09-1989, against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Shri Suresh Prasad by his above acts failed to maintain absolute integrity and exhibited conduct becoming of a public serv...
Saghir Ahmad and Others Vs. Mohd Ifran
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the ‘Act’) is directed against the order dated 03.01.2012 of the learned ARC, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioners in the eviction petition filed against them by the respondent, was dismissed. 2. The petitioners are the tenants under the respondent in respect of one shop bearing No. 5176-77, Main Road, Ballimaran, Delhi. Their eviction is sought by the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement thereof for the purpose of storing his material of Halwai business, which he is running in the adjoining shop, where the accommodation available with the respondent is stated to be highly insufficient, being only of 1 square yd. 3. The respondent’s case is that due to shortage of accommodation with him, he could not flourish his business of Halwai, which he has been doing. It is his case that in the accommodation presently available with him...
Om Prakash and Others Vs. Vijay Shri Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
P.K. BHASIN These revision petitions under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(in short ‘the Act of 1958’) have been filed by the petitioners-tenants against the order of the Rent Controller whereby their applications for leave to contest the eviction petitions filed against them by their landlord, respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act of 1958 to have the possession from the shops under their tenancy in a cinema complex known as ‘Liberty Cinema’ at New Rohtak Road, New Delhi(hereinafter to be referred as the ‘tenanted shops’) were rejected and eviction orders were passed against them giving them six months time to vacate the tenanted shops. Since the petitioners-tenants had sought leave to contest the eviction petitions from the Rent Controller on almost identical grounds and the learned Rent Controller also had disposed of the leave to contest applications on common grounds and these petitions were also heard together...
R.K. Agarwal Vs. the Secy. Brdb and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Appointed on May 10, 1985 as an AEE (Civil) in Border Roads Organization, the petitioner was attached with 387 Road Maint Platoon (hereinafter referred to as the “387 RMP’); deployed at Rishikesh sector. 2. In December 1987 the petitioner was transferred to 331 Surfacing Platoon (hereinafter referred to as the “331 SPL’) deployed at Manali sector. 3. In July, 1988 the petitioner submitted a TA/DA claim in sum of Rs.5,100/- for transporting his luggage from Rishikesh to Manali in a civil truck. In support of the said claim the petitioner submitted a receipt in sum of Rs.5,100/- issued by “Himachal Hill Truck Operators Benevolent Funds and Charitable Association, Kullu’recording that luggage had been transported from Rishikesh to Manali in truck bearing registration No.HIE 555. 4. A doubt was raised by the audit department pertaining to the correctness of the claim. In view thereof, vide order dated December 03, 1988, a Court o...
Jetlite (India) Ltd. Vs. M/S. T.V.C. Sky Shop
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1. Jetlite (India) Limited (‘JIL’), earlier known as Sahara Airlines Limited (‘SAL’), has in this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenged an Award dated 16th November 2011 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between JIL and the Respondent M/s T.V.C. Sky Shop. 2. JIL (earlier SAL) is a well known airline company operating a large number of passenger flights in India and abroad. Sometime in April 2004, the Respondent approached SAL and expressed its willingness to participate in a “Bid and Win” programme. On 21st April 2004, SAL wrote to the Respondent informing it that its product i.e. TVC gift voucher at the rate of Rs.10,000 each had been finalized for inclusion in the catalogue of the ongoing Bid and Win programme. The Respondent was to supply SAL 1,000 TVC gift products/vouchers at a maximum retail price (‘MRP’) of Rs.10,000 each. In exchange, SAL wa...
Ex. Sep Rambir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the letter dated-10.6.2011 and the Pension Payment Order dated-0314/2011 issued by the Respondent may be quashed and the applicant should be granted disability pension @ 50% from the date of his discharge from service along with the arrears and 12% interest and also to impose heavy cost on respondents. 2. This is a second round of litigation. The petition was enrolled on 31.12.1972 and he was discharged on receiving an injury on left knee with 30% disability. Thereafter, on 30.9.1983, petitioner sought voluntary discharge and prayed for the disability pension which was denied to him. Therefore, he was driven to file a petition before this Court and this Court by its order dated-14.9.2010 allowed the petition and its Para -5 reads as under: However, so far as the present case is concerned, applicants disability was assessed @ 30% for a period of two years, therefore, he was entitled to the pensionary benefits for two years as per Regulation...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »