Delhi Court November 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.
M.M.Chandnani Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:1. t November, 2012 % + W.P.(C) 4966/2002 M.M.CHANDNANI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. A.P. Dhamija and Mr. J.P. Singh, Advs. versus BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Sangel and Mr. Siddharth Sangel, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking Mandamus by directing the respondents to grant the benefits of 4th Stagnation increment in terms of Clause 5 of the 7th Bipartite Settlement.2. Consequently, after granting the notional increase in the pay on the basis of 4th Stagnation Increment, the petitioner would be entitled for the release of difference in payment of pension. Accordingly, the respondents would continue to pay the revised pension to the petitioner.3. For the convenience, Clause 5 of the 7th Bipartite Settlement is reproduced as under:5. Stagnation Increments (i) In parti...
Nand Ram and ors. Vs. Prem Pal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t November, 2012 + MAC. APP. 517/2009 NAND RAM & ORS. Through: ..... Appellant Mr.M.K.Sinha, Advocate versus PREM PAL & ORS. Through: .... Respondents Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The learned counsel for the Appellants undertakes to file the amended memo of parties during the course of the day.2. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `2,91,250/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellants for the death of Smt.Meena, aged 39 years, who died in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 03.09.2007.3. Before the Claims Tribunal, it was alleged that Smt.Meena, who was a housewife, died on account of the injuries suffered in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle not DL-1PA-1753 by the First Respondent.4. The Appellants tried to improve their case by stating that in addition to working as a housewife...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:1. t November, 2012 + MAC. APP. No.424/2009 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate. Versus SURESH KUMAR & ORS. Through: .....Respondents None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appellant Insurance Company takes exception to a judgment dated 11.05.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding a compensation of `78,133/- in favour of the First Respondent, the plea of breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy was rejected by the Claims Tribunal.2. The only ground of challenge raised by the Appellant Insurance Company is that the vehicle involved in the accident was a TSR and as per one of the conditions of the permit, it could be plied only by a permit holder. It is stated that since the vehicle was being driven by a person other than the registered owner, the insured committed b...
Nandan Singh Mahalwal and Others Vs. Mcd Through Its Commissioner, Civ ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): The present applicants of this OA are the Legal Representatives (LRs) of the deceased applicant Late Smt. Prem Mahalwal, who had approached this Tribunal by filing this O.A. on 01.06.2011 not on the basis of any adverse orders against her rights having been passed by the Respondent, but on the basis of information supplied to her under the Right to Information Act, 2005, through Annexure A-2 dated 17.03.2011. Her prayers also did not relate to any immediate cause of action, which may have been pointed out in this OA to have been the reason for this OA to be filed, and she had prayed for the following reliefs:- 8.1 Call for the records of the case for perusal; 8.2 Direct the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the applicant on the post of Headmistress and pension accordingly after giving her the benefit of FR22-(I)(a)(1)/FR 22-C alongwith 12% interest thereon and pay the same to the applicant in a time bound manner; 8.5(3) Allow costs of application; 8.6(4) Pass a...
Suba Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman, I.P. ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): The applicant in this case is a driver with the respondent Corporation, and is before this Tribunal aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure A-1) by which the punishment of stoppage of his next due two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon him after a departmental enquiry held in this regard. After passing of the impugned order by the Disciplinary Authority dated 23.11.2010, the applicant had submitted his appeal, which has also been rejected by the Appellate Authority, Regional Manager (East) through Annexure A-2 dated 23.3.2011. He has, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs:- a) the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by respondent No.2 vide letter No.NND/SP(T)/DIS115/2010/1080 i.e. Annexure A-1 may kindly be quashed/set aside. 2) the order dated 23.03.2011 intimated to applicant vide letter No, NND/SP(T)/DIS115/10/2011/268 passed by Senior Manager and respondent No.2 i.e. Annexure A-2 be also set aside. 3) the findin...
Gyanender Singh Vs. Gnct of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police and O ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
ORDER (Oral) G. George Paracken: 1. The applicants grievance in this Original Application is against the Annexure A-2 order dated 26.04.2012 to reopen the departmental inquiry already initiated against him from the stage it was kept in abeyance and his name was removed from the list of criminal cases. Further, according to the said order, the respondents have stated that the period under which he remained under suspension will be decided later on, on completion of the departmental inquiry now proposed to be reopened. Shri M.S. Bist, ACP (Crime) has also been appointed as Inquiry Officer for conducting the departmental inquiry on day to day basis and he has to submit his findings to the disciplinary authority. 2. Earlier, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant vide order dated 25.05.1990 and a notice dated 26.12.1990 was issued to him as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Later on, in terms of a direction of this Tribunal dated 25.09.1992 in OA 93/91, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- Next ›