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.
Smt. Sarita Devi Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager and Ot ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1. This Application is directed against the respondents - communication dated 28.11.2011 addressed to the applicant herein informing her that her claim for payment of lump-sum ex-gratia compensation could not be accepted for the reasons that (1) there is no casual connection between death while on duty and employment; and (2) this case does not fulfill the conditions of lump-sum ex gratia compensation. 2. The applicant is legally wedded wife of late Shri Dhananjay Singh, who was working as a Peon under ADEN, Northern Railway, Jind, in Delhi Division. ADEN, Jind sent Shri Dhananjay Singh on tour duty to Delhi to deliver certain official documents of the office of the respondents at Jind to the office of the respondent no.1 on 24.9.2004. On his way back to Jind from Delhi, he met with an accident at Jind Junction Railway Station and died on 24.9.2004. The applicant filed a case no.9/2006 before the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as WCA) on 4.5.200...
Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by 16 petitioners to assail the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, (for short, “the Appellate Tribunal”) whereby the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”), has dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners as being not maintainable. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased small parcels of land carved out of plot No. 8 (NIT), Industrial Area, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as, “the plot”) between the period 1992 to 1995 from the owners. The plot had been allotted to M/s Bharat Rasain Pvt. Ltd. (BRPL) by the Government of India on leasehold basis in the year 1963. The same was registered in favour of BRPL on 28.8.1963. BRPL was wholly owned subsidiary of M/s South India Carbonic Industries ...
Hukum Singh Vs. the Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM No. 10681/2012 (early hearing) Early hearing is allowed. The writ petition is being taken up for hearing today itself. This application stands allowed. W.P.(C) 751/2002 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4th September, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2259/2001. 2. The main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the punishment meted out to the petitioner was excessive and was in any event contrary to Rule 8 (d) (ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 inasmuch as two alternative punishments of reduction in pay and deferment of increments have been foisted on the petitioner at the same time. 3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner who, at that time, was a Head Constable in the Delhi Police. From the impugned order, we notice the following statement of allegations:- “1. That he while posted in P.S. Punja...
Satpal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Police Police Head Quarters and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): The applicant was a candidate for appointment in the Delhi Police, against the post of Constable (Exe) Male, and cleared the physical and written examination conducted for recruitment in the year 2009. However, later his candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment Cell, Delhi, on behalf of Commissioner of Police. The applicant represented against that on 29.04.2011, but the respondents have through their order dated 17.06.2011 rejected his appeal/representation also, through Annexure A-1, page 19 of the OA. Hence the applicant is before us with the following prayers:- a) Direct the respondents to withdraw their orders of cancellation of the candidature of the applicant as Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and grant him an appointment of constable in Delhi Police; b) Direct the respondents to grant him the appointment from the back date as that of his other counterparts/batchmates; c) Gr...
M/S. Rocksmelt Company (India) Vs. M/S. Ganga Automobiles Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J. In this winding up petition filed by the petitioner above-named for the winding up of the respondent Company M/s Ganga Automobiles Ltd.(to be referred hereinafter as ‘the Company in liquidation’ since it stands already wound up) because of its failure to repay the money due to the petitioner Company this Court was informed at the initial stages of the petition that the Company in liquidation had to pay money not only to the petitioner, M/s Rocksmelt Company(India), but also to many more persons and its liability was running into crores of rupees and those other persons had also filed winding up petitions. However, before any formal order for the appointment of provisional liquidator of this Company could be passed one of its directors Mr. Mukhinder Singh(who died during the pendency of these proceedings and the four applications which are being disposed of by this common order had been moved his legal heirs) and Mr. G.Sagar Suri, who was the Chairman of its s...
M/S. Kirat Chand JaIn Family Trust Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1. This judgment disposes of the objections by State Bank of India (‘SBI’) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (‘1940 Act’) by way of I.A. 1570 of 2006 to an Award dated 5th August 2005 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the Plaintiff M/s. Kirat Chand Jain Family Trust (‘Trust’), i.e., the Contractor and the SBI arising out of an agreement dated 8th September 1992 executed between the parties in terms of which the Trust was entrusted with the task of constructing the pile foundation work in the Zonal Office Building of the SBI at Plot Nos. 59/4 and 61/4 at Sanjay Place, Agra. Background facts 2. SBI invited tenders from intending Contractors for participating in the bid for the aforementioned work and after negotiations the Trust was issued the award letter on 1st July 1992 through SBI’s Architect M/s Kuldip Singh and Associates (‘Architect’). The Trust was put in possession of the site o...
Attar Singh Vs. the Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Defe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
G. Shanthappa, Member (J): The above applications are filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the legality and propriety of the decision taken by the 3rd respondent in considering the existing Casual Labourers with Temporary Status (CLTS) with modified educational qualification of matriculation only being eligibility criteria for their regularization against erstwhile Group D is legally unsustainable as contended in clarification dated 20.09.2011 and 14.06.2012. Further relief of direction to the respondents not to hold any selection of earmarked 2/3 vacancies from amongst the CLTS workers as advertised out of 35 till final decision from Ministry of Defence is assured to fill up in erstwhile Group D post with the modified procedure to meet requirement under revised system as per 6th Pay Revision so far as CLTS workers are concerned. Further relief of direction to respondents to obtain appropriate clarification in regard to existin...
Tarsem Chand Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary Ministry of Defe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
(ORAL) Shri G George Paracken: This is a second round of litigation by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:- (a)This Honble Tribunal is pleased to call for record and pass order in the interest of Justice. (b) To declare the action of respondents in not promoting the applicant to the Post of Lecturer/PGT English (Male) as well as promotion given to their juniors and similarly place person denied as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. (c) To direct the respondents to promoted the applicant to the post of Lecturer/PGT English (Male) from the date of juniors and similarly placed person got promotion with all consequential benefits and arrears of pay. (d) Cost of OA to be saddled on Respondents. 2. Earlier the applicant had approached this Tribunal vide O.A.3603/2011 and the same was against the alleged inaction on part of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 29.11.2010 for grant of compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 197...
Shri Rama Nand Vs. the Chief Secretary Govt. of Nct of Delhi Delhi Sec ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
(Oral) By G. George Paracken, Member (J): The grievance of the applicants in this OA is that though they were working as Telephone Operators under the Director, Delhi Fire Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Respondent No.3) from 01.06.1981 and 01.07.1979 respectively, yet they have not been given a single promotion in their career so far. According to them, the next promotional post of the Telephone Operators is the post of Assistant Wireless Officer (Operational) but according to Annexure A2 - Recruitment Rules for the said post notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi on 10.12.1997, there are only 82 sanctioned posts. 2. The background of the case is that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide his letter dated 29.08.1983 sent a draft proposal to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Coordination (Police Wireless) for the reorganization of the Delhi Fire Service and to create Wireless and Communication System for it. According to the said pro...
Sh. Ashok Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
G. George Paracken: The applicant was initially appointed as Grade-II officer in Delhi Administration Subordinate Services (`DASS for short) on 26.11.1990. He was promoted as Grade-I DASS on 31.12.1996. In the year 2011, even though he was also eligible and senior enough to be considered for promotion to the ex-cadre post of DANICS, the respondents did not do so but issued the Annexure A-1 Office Order No. 467 dated 19.10.2011 promoting 106 Grade-I DASS officers with immediate effect, on ad hoc and emergent basis against ex-cadre post of DANICS carrying higher responsibilities, for a period of six months or till further orders or the posts are filled up on regular basis. The applicant challenged the non-inclusion of his name as illegal, unjustified and arbitrary. He has also submitted that on the relevant date, he was neither under suspension nor he was charge sheeted nor any prosecution or criminal charge was pending against him. He has also stated that depriving him for promotion by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »