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.
Bhup Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Shri G. George Paracken: This case was originally filed by the applicant before the Honble High Court of Delhi vide Writ Petition No. 17883/2006 as the respondents-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (`BSNL for short) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (`MTNL for short) were under its jurisdiction. However, later when the aforesaid organisations have been notified under Rule 14 (3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this case has been transferred to this Tribunal vide order dated 21.05.2009. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this case are that the applicant was an employee of the Department of Telecommunication (`DOT for short). According to him who appeared in person, when the employees of DOT got transferred to BSNL, till they were fixed in IDA pay scales, they were paid an ad hoc sum of Rs.3000/- per month by the BSNL and it was not subject to any recovery. Later on, vide DOTs Order No. Director (Estt.)/MTNL to BSNL/Delhi/1 dated 24.04.2004, he was permanently absorbed ...
Shri Ram Bharosi and Another Vs. Shri Shailesh Nayak
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
(ORAL) Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) The Contempt Petition No.522/2012 has been filed for alleged non compliance of the Tribunals directions vide its order dated 11.01.2012 in the OA No.1080/2012. The order of the Tribunal in question is reproduced in toto :- This application has been filed against the inaction/delay of the respondents No.1 and 2 for not considering and not granting the revised pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to the applicants as Mechanical Grade-II w.e.f. 1.1.1996 or date of appointments whichever is later, on the basis of recommendation of the 5th CPC duly accepted by the Govt. of India. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Respondent No.2 namely, Director General, Meteorology had referred the matter to the Respondent No.1 namely, Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences in January 2009 (page 15 and 16 of the OA) but that in spite of over two years having elapsed, no decision in the matter has been taken and that he would be satisfied if a d...
Shri Akhil Gupta Vs. Chief Secretary Govt. of Nct of Delhi Delhi Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
(ORAL) Shri G George Paracken: The facts in this case are not disputed. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 558/2010 and it was disposed of vide Annexure A-2 order dated 08.07.2010. The relevant part is as under:- 4. Leaving other grounds open, this OA is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 22.4.208 is set aside. Respondents are now directed to regulate the suspension period of the applicant strictly in accordance with law, rules and instructions on the subject and before it, a reasonable opportunity to a show cause notice shall be afforded to the applicant. 5. Insofar as recovery is concerned, as no show cause notice was issued on that, the recovery ordered against the applicant is set aside. Keeping in light the decision in suspension, the respondents would be at liberty to act in accordance with rules, instructions and law on the subject. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this orde...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. M/S. Harcharan Dass Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1. The Petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’), has in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenged an Award dated 12th April 2006 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the MCD and the Respondent M/s. Harcharan Dass Gupta, arising out of a contract entered into between the parties whereby the work of construction of staff quarters at Model Town, Sub-Head: Construction of four blocks of Type-A, Group C, was entrusted to the Respondent by the MCD. 2. The date of the start of the work was 13th April 1992 and the stipulated period of completion was 15 months. However, work did not actually begin till 25th November 1992. As against the stipulated date of completion of 12th October 1993, the work was actually completed on 15th May 1995. Extension of time (‘EOT’) was granted by the MCD to the Contractor without levy of any compensation. The Contractor gave an undertaking t...
Satish Bansal Vs. Neelam Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This revision petition u/S 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short “the Act”),impugns the order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the Ld. ACJ-cum- RC (central/Delhi) whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, in the eviction petition, was dismissed. 2. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent in respect of two rooms/office measuring 10.0’ x 11.3’ and 12.6’ x 8’ and open court yard on the first floor and one room of 14’ x 11.3’ on the second floor with open terrace, along with staircase leading from ground floor to the upper floor, latrine bathroom on the first floor, forming part of the property bearing No. 3667, Ward VI, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit premises”). In this petition it was stated that the suit premises was first acquired by late Sh. Shree Ram vide a registered sale deed. On his death, his wife, Smt. Premwati became the owner of th...
Sushil Kumar Sobti Vs. Dinesh Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 07.04.2012 of District Judge/ARCT (West), whereby appeal against the judgment dated 07.02.2008 of Addl. Rent Controller (Rohini), was dismissed. 2. This is another case in the series of cases coming to this court, where the unscrupulous parties have manipulated the process of law in very deceitful manner to the disadvantage of lawful owners of the properties. The respondent Dinesh Chand Jain (landlord) had filed an eviction petition on 16.11.1989 on the ground of sub-letting against tenant Lavtar Singh as also the petitioner Sushil Kumar Sobti. The said petition came to be dismissed by the then Addl. Rent Controller vide his judgment dated 05.10.1996. The respondent Dinesh Chand Jain carried the matter in appeal before the Addl. Rent Controller Tribunal, who vide his order dated 07.05.2002 remanded the matter back to the Addl. Rent Controller with the permission afforded ...
Sudershan Lal Arora Vs. Jaswinder Pal Singh Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short ‘the Act’) impugns order dated 21.03.2012 of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) North, whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, in the eviction petition, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is tenant in respect of one shop with two shutters on the ground floor of property bearing No.2026,Gali No.157,Tri Nagar, Delhi-35, which was let out to him by the mother of respondent herein, at a monthly rent of Rs.550/- per month, excluding electricity and other charges. His eviction is sought by the respondent/landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises for the needs of his elder son to start a new business. It is stated that the respondent has two sons and a married daughter. The tenanted premises is stated to be required by the respondent for his elder son Sahib Singh Bhatia, aged about 25 years and, a qualified mechanical engineer ...
M/S. Chiragh Coop. H. Bldg. Society Ltd. and Another Vs. D.D.A. and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
1. The subject matter of above captioned two petitions is identical i.e. to challenge allotment of a plot of 800 sq. yards to respondent- Tagore Education Society for a nursery school and so, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. A Mandamus to respondent- DDA to execute necessary documents in respect of allotment made by DDA in favour of petitioner- Society of a plot admeasuring 1890.60 sq. yards ear-marked for nursery school in Chirag Enclave, New Delhi is sought in the above captioned first writ petition. Respondent- DDA vide its Communication of 21st June, 1979 (Annexure-C) had decided to allot aforesaid plot of land for nursery school @ Rs.3,00,000/- per acre, which is assailed only on the ground that the aforesaid premium demanded is unreasonable, as development on the land in question had been undertaken by petitioner- Society. 3. Alternate relief sought by petitioner- Society is to quash the allotment of land earmarked for nursery school to respo...
Sukh Dev Raj Sharma Vs. Kuljeet Singh Jass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 25B-8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the „Act’) seeks assailing the order dated 14.3.2012 of CCJ-cum-ARC, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a shop No.J-5/101-C, Nehru Market, Rajouri Garde, New Delhi under the respondent. The eviction of the petitioner is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop by the respondent for running of his business as also for residential requirement for himself and his family members dependent upon him. The case as set up by the respondent/landlord in the eviction petition is that he is engaged in running Snooker Parlor since 2004 on the ground floor of the suit premises, except in the portion in the tenancy of the petitioner. It is averred that his younger son is doing his business in a rented shop at Sadar Bazar, and he being permanent disabled and unable to d...
Nnr Global Logistics (Shanghai) Co Ltd. and Another Vs. Aargus Global ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2012
Introduction 1. These petitions arise out of a foreign Award dated 14th October 2011. The successful party in the arbitral proceedings NNR Global Logistics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (‘NNR’) has filed OMP No. 61 of 2012 under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) seeking enforcement of the foreign Award. In the said petition, the unsuccessful party Aargus Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (‘Aargus’) has filed objections under Section 48 of the Act. Aargus has also filed OMP No. 201 of 2012 under Section 34 of the Act seeking the setting aside of the foreign Award. The grounds for setting aside the foreign Award are identical to the grounds urged by Aargus in the objection to the enforcement petition, i.e., OMP No. 61 of 2012. Background 2. The background to the petitions is that Aargus is a company incorporated in India having its registered office in Delhi and is engaged in the business of freight forwarding and associated inte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »