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.
CaptaIn G.S. Bindra Vs. Air India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This Intra-Court appeal impugns the judgment dated 24th July, 2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.4625/1997 preferred by the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal and appeared before us in person. Finding that before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had been provided legal assistance by appointing an Amicus Curie for him, we enquired from the appellant whether he required legal assistance in the appeal. The appellant, being a well qualified person, able to freely communicate and express himself denied the same stating that none can explain his case better than he himself. In the circumstances, we heard the appellant and have also requisitioned the writ record and perused the same. 2. The appellant filed the writ petition pleading:- (i). that he was employed as a Pilot in the Indian Air Force and had an unblemished record of over 25 years of distinguished service with over 5700 hours of accident free flying experience and was...
Roshan Lal Vs. Uoi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. The OMR answer-sheet of the petitioner has been produced. The question paper has also been produced. Instruction No.7 in the question paper clearly highlights:- “A machine will read the coded information in the OMR Answer-Sheet. In case the information is incomplete/different from the information given in the application form, the candidature of such candidates will be treated as cancelled.” 2. In the OMR answer-sheet, the petitioner has not coded the “TEST FORM NO.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the OMR answer-sheet contains the following:- “Note: Invigilator to sign after verifying whether all particulars have been filled in by the candidates properly.” 4. It is urged that it may be true that the petitioner was negligent in not shading the relevant figures and letters in the answer-sheet pertaining to the TEST FORM NUMBER, but since the invigilator was also negligent in not ensuring that all parti...
Joginder Singh Vs. Amar Nath Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 29.11.2011 of Sr.Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North West. 2. The petitioner was the tenant under the respondent in respect of an office space on the ground floor of premises C-6, Wazirpur Industrial Area. The respondent filed eviction petition against them under Section 14(1)(a) (c) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the ‘Act’). The respondent (plaintiff in the suit) examined himself as his witness and tendered the documents Ex.PW1/1 to 11 on 26.05.2010. He was cross examined by the petitioner on 17.10.2011. On 29.11.2011, one PW2, summoned as a witness from the DDA (Delhi Development Authority), was present along with the summoned record. He was examined as PW2. In his examination, he had proved a notice dated 17.11.1993. 3. In the instant petition, the grievance of the petitioner as set out was that this notice dated 17.11.1993 was neither sum...
Mahaswetta Saikia Vs. University of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) in the Botany Department of respondent no. 2, which is under the control of respondent no. 1 2. The petitioner is also seeking seniority from 13.12.2010, the date petitioner was asked to collect her appointment letter to join duty. 3. Respondent no. 1 advertised for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) as a regular post for which the petitioner applied under the reserved category of OBC as the petitioner belongs to the said category. 4. Petitioner called for interview by respondent no. 2 telephonically on 10.12.2010 to which she appeared before the Selection Committee. On 13.12.2010, petitioner was informed telephonically from the office of respondent no. 2 that the petitioner has been selected against the reserved post of OBC and she was asked to come on the same date to collect her appointment letter. Wh...
Shri Shiv Kumar Kaushik Vs. P.K. Tripathi, Chief Secretary and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
(ORAL) G. George Paracken, Member (J) This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the order of this Tribunal in OA No.2166/2011 dated 03.01.2012. 2. Shri Surendra Kumar, Deputy Education Officer, representing the Department assures that he will examine the case and all the documents mentioned in Annexure-C2 letter dated 16.2.2012 will be supplied to the applicant, if they are included in the list of documents already furnished to him.3. In view of the aforesaid assurance of Shri Surendra Kumar, this Contempt Petition is closed. Notices issued to the alleged contemnors are discharged. No costs....
Ms. Seema Pathak and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi Through the Chief S ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
(ORAL) Shri G George Paracken: The applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 2883/2012. However, the applicants counsel wanted to withdraw it to pursue the grievance of the applicant departmentally. His request was allowed and the OA was disposed of as withdrawn, vide order dated 31.08.2012. It was also stated in the said order that for any subsisting grievance, the applicants could approach this Tribunal as per law. 2. Thereafter, the applicants have made the identical Annexure A-8 representation dated 05.09.2012 followed by the reminder dated 18.09.2012. According to them, later on they came to know about the office order dated 11.07.2012 wherein it has been stated that the extension of their contract was only till 31.08.2012 and releasing of their salary has been made subject to their signing of the contract. The learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Yogesh Sharma has also invited our attention to the blank contract agreement form placed as Annexure A-2 of this ...
Association of Group 'A' Officers (Technical) of Training Directorate ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
(ORAL) Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman M.A. No. 2745/2012 This is a fresh MA seeking early hearing of the case and no notice has been issued to the respondents. However, Shri T.C. Gupta, learned Senior Government Counsel appeared later on and took notice of the MA. With the consent of the parties, we heard the OA today. O.A. No. 311/2012 2. From the perusal of MA No.2745/2012, it is evident that the respondents have already constituted a Cadre Review Committee on 22.06.2012 and the said committee has also submitted its report on 07.09.2012. However, the recommendation of the Cadre Review Committee is now only to be implemented or acted upon by taking a final decision in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the OA has become infructuous in respect of the main relief. However, the respondents are required to take effective decision in the light of the report submitted by the Cadre Review Committee expeditiously and, therefore, this application alo...
Smt. Minoti Roy Scientific Officer Vs. the Chairman, Atomic Energy Com ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
(ORAL) Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman We have heard Mrs. K. Iyer, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri H.K. Gangwani, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this application, the applicant is praying to direct the respondents to consider and promote her to the grade of Scientific Officer G w.e.f. the year 2008 when the applicant completed 5 years of service in the grade of Scientific Officer F, with all consequential benefits admissible under the law. 3. The facts of the case as set in the OA indicated that the applicant was appointed as the Scientific Officer C on 29.09.1986. She was promoted periodically and reached the rank of Scientific Officer F w.e.f. on 01.08.2003. It is the case of the applicant that despite her fulfilling the eligibility criteria to be promoted to the grade of Scientific Officer G w.e.f. 01.08.2008, she has been denied promotion whereas others have been granted the said promotion in the year 2008. It is noticed that during the pendency of the OA, the appl...
S. Balachandran Vs. the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of External Affair ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
The applicant who is posted as Consul General of India at Shanghai has filed the present Original Application questioning the order of his transfer dated 13.04.2012 saliently on the following grounds: (i). The order of transfer is contrary to the relevant circular and policy decision issued by respondent No.1 in as much as:- (a) when he was posted to Shanghai for a fixed tenure of three years starting from 14.12.2009, he could not be transferred out of the said station prior to 13.12.2012. (b) in view of the educational requirement of his eldest daughter studying in International Baccalaureate Diploma (XIIth board), he is entitled to extension of tenure by 12 months, i.e. till 31.12.2013. (c) The order of transfer is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as when one Ms. Riva Ganguly Das who completed her tenure in Shanghai in November, 2011 was granted one year extension solely on the ground that her son was completing his 12th grade in an empanelled school in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›