Delhi Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Sunita Mann Vs. Delhi Police, Through Commissioner of Police and Anoth ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Oral: 1. This Application is directed against the respondent’s order dated 24.2.2011, as at Annexure P-1, whereby the applicant’s request for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected for the reason that she being the daughter-in-law of the deceased employee does not come under the category of dependent family members under the Scheme for compassionate appointment of employees died in harness leaving the dependents in a state of penury. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Dharambir Singh father-in-law of the applicant was working as Head Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in South Delhi. He died in harness on 6.4.2009. After his death, his wife Smt. Suman Lata sent a request to the respondents for appointment of her son Shri Manish Mann (husband of the applicant) in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds. Unfortunately, Shri Manish Mann, the applicant’s husband, also expired on 20.6.2010 in an accident. The wife of the deceased employee and mother...
Lokesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through I ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
G. George Paracken, J. 1. This Original Application is directed against the Respondent No. 1 - Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (`DSSSB’ for short) for their alleged arbitrary action in withholding the result of the applicant. 2. The undisputed facts in this case are delineated here. The Respondent No. 1-DSSSB, as per the requisition of Respondent No. 2 i.e. Delhi Jal Board (‘DJB’ for short), the user department, advertised two vacancies (SC-01 and OBC-01) for the post of Assistant Chemist under Post Code 152/03, vide Advertisement No. 04/2003. The applicant is a Lab. Technician already working in the DJB. The post of Assistant Chemist is the promotional post for Lab. Technician. The applicant having qualified for the aforesaid post, as per the Recruitment Rules, applied for the same under the OBC category. As per practice, the DSSSB carry out physical scrutiny of the application forms only at the time of final selection to the post and the admit card for ap...
Dr. Digambar Behera Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. The applicant, though considered for the post of Director PGIMER Chandigarh, was not selected. Impugning the selection process on various grounds, the OA seeks by way of relief; Quash and set aside the composition and proceedings of the selection committee with all its consequences. Direction to rectify the composition of the selection committee and other illegalities as averred in the OA and hold a fresh and transparent selection afresh confining to nominations received from authorized authorities with all its consequences. Direction to give all consequential benefits to the applicant on the basis of the prayers made. Besides, calling of the records of the case, direction for payment of litigation cost to the applicant, and passing any other order deemed fit, have been prayed. 2. On behalf of the applicant, the learned counsel Shri A.K. Behera, would appear. The official respondents No.1 to 3 would be represented by the learned counsel Shri Amit Anand, responden...
M/S Metalman Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. Cce, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Shri D.N. Pand, Judicial Member Today the appeal of M/s Metalman Industries Ltd. and M/s Amulya Export Ltd. in Appeal case No. C/154/2011 and C/155/2011 respectively are listed for compliance. Registry reports no compliance. Revenue also says they have not received any evidence on record showing compliance. Shri Manish Saharan, Ld. Advocate states that the appellant is seeking remedial measure before the higher forum. 2. There is no evidence before us about the action proposed by learned Counsel. Compliance to stay order being condition for hearing these appeals, these two appeals are dismissed. 3. While dismissing above two appeals, we found that there was also direction to M/s Laxmi Exports to make deposit of Rs.70,00,000/- (Seventy lakhs) and date of compliance of the same was fixed on 31.01.2012. Registry is directed to list this matter expeditiously to serve interest of revenue preferably during 1st week of March, 2012....
Cce, Jaipur Vs. Vinayak Agrotech Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri I.Baig, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Ms. Sukriti Das, ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Vanaspati, Acid Oil, Soap Stock and Spent Nichel Catalyst falling under sub-heading No.1504.00, 3823.00, 1507.00 and 2620.00 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants were availing exemption under Notification No.8/2002-CE, dtd. 01.03.02. At the time of imposition of duty on Vanaspati with effect from 01.03.02, the appellants cleared the excisable goods during March, 2003 under proper invoices showing duty payable @ 8% advalorem but charged Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.2,39,888/- from their customers and did not debit the same in their personal ledger accounts in as much as in terms of the said Notificat...
Johnson Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
S.P.GARG, J. CRL.M.A.7412/2011 (condonation of delay) For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. Application is allowed and disposed of. CRL.A.No.775/2011, CRL.M.B.1660/2011 1. The appellant-Johnson has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 22.03.2010 and order on sentence dated 01.04.2010 of Ld. Addl.Sessions Judge in SC No.571/2006 by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2. Criminal law was set into motion at around 9:25 P.M. on 08.03.2006 when DD entry No.32/A (Ex.PW-12/A) was recorded by ASI Vijay Pal Singh to the effect that an individual has been stabbed near Sharma Dairy, at G-1/77, Shahid Chand Marg, Uttam Nagar, in front of State Bank of India. Investigation was assigned to Insp.Bhagwan Singh (PW-16) who along with ASI Jagpal and Ct.Rajnish reached the spot and came to know that the injured had been taken to DDU hospital. Leav...
Guddi Vs. Phool Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellant who is legal representative of the deceased Ram Bati being her daughter seeks enhancement of compensation of `80,000/- awarded for her death.2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that for a claim of compensation, the Claimant need not necessarily be financially dependent on the deceased and the legal representatives are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance is placed on a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gajanand and Ors. v. Virendra Singh and Ors., 2010 ACJ 145, wherein it was held as under:“13. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, since no assessment has been made by the learned Tribunal, therefore, the case could have been remanded to the learned Tribunal for assessment of compensation. However, since appellants are elder brothers and financially well settled and were not dependent on the deceased financially, but were dependent on the deceased for num...
National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Shyam Sunder and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant National Insurance Company Ltd impugns a judgment dated 02.02.2011 whereby a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the First Respondent was allowed. He was awarded a compensation of `51,000/- for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 17.01.2006. By the impugned judgment, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) held that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Taxi No. DL-IT-5649 which was driven by the Second Respondent, owned by the Third Respondent and insured by the Appellant.2. Two Taxies were involved in the accident. According to the First Respondent’s (the Claimant) version, on 17.01.2006 at about 7:30 p.m. he along with his nephew was returning from his office, and when they reached Ring Road within the jurisdiction of P.S. Naraina and were in the process of crossing the road, a taxi No.DL-IT-5652 (Taxi No.1) which was toeing Taxi ...
Puran Chand and Another Vs. Abhay Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
JUDGMENTG. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellants who are the parents of the deceased Kamal Kashyap seek enhancement of compensation of `7,12,000/- awarded for his death in a motor accident which took place on 25.10.2010.2. The deceased was working as a Branch Officer with M/s. GIR Logistics Pvt. Ltd. since June, 2008. Thus, he had worked with the company for a period of two years and four months before his death. The DAR(Detailed Accident Report) was converted into a Claim Petition under Section 166 Sub-section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The documents including the salary certificate having been admitted by the Respondent Insurance Company, the Claims Tribunal took the deceased’s income to be `8,000/- per month; deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses and applied the multiplier of 14 to compute the loss of dependency as `6,72,000/-.3. The sole contention raised during the course of the Appeal is that although it was established from the documents filed with DAR(Detailed Acc...
Ram Chander and Another Vs. Chakardhari and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
JUDGMENTG.P. MITTAL, J.1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `3,94,000/- awarded for the death of Ravinder who was aged 21 years and was a driver by profession.2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was a matriculate, the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Trailer bearing registration No.HR-38K-6535 and that the deceased was a driver by profession in a company called Golden Earth Movers.3. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the Trailer bearing registration No.HR-38K-6535. The Claims Tribunal did not rely on the salary certificate Ex.PW2/2 and computed the loss of dependency on the minimum wages of a skilled worker.4. Since no Cross-Appeal or Appeal has been filed by the Trailer’s driver or the Insurance Company, the finding on the aspect of deceased’s death due to negligence of the driver of the Traile...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »