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.
Ajit Thaphiyal and Others Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. The applicants, 28 in number, are working as Dark Room Assistants in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and are aggrieved by the decision taken by the Standing Finance Committee of the AIIMS, vide its Minutes dated 24.08.2010 (Annexure A1), to reject the proposal for accord of higher pay scale to Dark Room Assistants at the AIIMS. They have sought the following relief(s): “Set aside the impugned decision dated 24.08.2010 refusing to grant the benefit of revised pay scale to the applicants. Direct the respondents to implement the benefit of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission. Order payment of cost of litigation Any other order which this Tribunal deems fit.” 2. The applicants had earlier filed OA No.1038/2009 claiming higher pay scale (and certain other reliefs) on the basis of the 5th Central Pay Commission Report from the date of acceptance of the recommendations by the Government. The said OA had been disposed of by this Trib...
Sona Ram Kataria and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
Oral: Dr. Veena Chhotray, J. 1. The OA 104/2012 and the OA 180/2012 are being disposed by this common order as they involve common issues of facts and law. The OA 104/2012 is being taken as the lead case, with references in the order pertaining to this OA, unless otherwise specified. 2. The applicants are represented in both the OAs by the learned counsel Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and the respondents by the learned counsels Shri R.N. Singh and Shri Hilal Haider. 3. All the applicants (8 in the OA 104/2012, and 1 in the OA 180/2012) belong to DANICS. They are aggrieved at their non-promotion to the JAG-II and JAG-I on account of non-convening of regular DPCs by the respondents. By way of relief, the following directions have been sought:- “To immediately convene year wise DPC for regular promotion against the vacancies in JAG-II and promote the applicants from due date with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. After convening DPC for regular promotion to JAG-II, to conven...
Bhopal Singh and Another Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council Through Its D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had filed OA No.3656/2009, which was disposed of by this Tribunal by giving direction to the respondents to treat the OA as a representation of the applicants and consider and redress their claim as made in the said OA. Pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal respondents have passed order dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure A-1), whereby the claim of the applicants for their regularization on the posts of Pump Attendant has been declined. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the said order in extenso, which thus reads: “NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PALIKA KENDRA: NEW DELHI EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT-II No.:42/4/SA-I/Edn.Estt.II./2011 Dated: 15.12.2011 ORDER Vide its orders dated 10.09.2010, the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Princip...
B. Venkatesan and Others Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. This is the second round of litigations for the applicants. Earlier, they approached the Tribunal in OA No.1675/2006. The first applicant joined on deputation the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the second Respondent, and then absorbed there as Sub-Inspector. Other applicants joined the Respondent on direct recruitment as Sub-Inspectors. These four applicants were engaged in EDP work since their appointments in NCRB. Following the OM issued by the Ministry of Finance, the first respondent conveyed the sanction of the Government by Order Number 42/4/89-Ad.II/NCRB/FP.II dated 6.05.1991 for re-designation and revision of pay scales of various EDP posts under the second Respondent. The Sub-Inspector was redesignated as DPA-Grade ‘A’ in the scale of pay of Rs.1600-2660 (pre-revised). The post of Inspector, the next post on promotion, was redesignated as DPA Grade ‘B’ in the scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200. The number of pos...
M/S. Dabur India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Ghaziabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench), J. 1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of dues, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as we find that the lower authorities, while passing the present impugned orders in de novo proceedings have not carried out the directions of the Tribunal’s earlier decision vide which the matters were remanded. 2. For better appreciation of sequence of facts, we reproduce the facts as placed on record by the appellants: a) Appellant is a multi-product, multi-locational company, having a number of factories. The present proceedings are in respect of Sahibabad unit of the appellant, under the jurisdiction of CCE, Ghaziabad. b) The issue in the present case is regarding admissibility of deduction from the assessable value on account of (i) Octroi, (ii) Additional Sales Tax, (iii) Freight and (iv) Additional Trade Discount, on equalized basis, for the financial years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. c) In respect of the...
Hemant Dhawan Vs. the State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral)Crl. M.A. 10615/2005 (Delay) For the reasons explained, delay stands condoned.Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.Crl. M.A. 10616/2005 Not maintainable.Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.Crl. A. 842/2005 1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed the instant Appeal as noted above in the year 2005.2. The amendment in Section 372 were inserted by Act 5 of the 2009 Section 29 w.e.f 31.12.2009 vide which the right of the aggrieved party accrued to file the Appeal against the acquittal order.3. Order sheet reveals that vide order dated 14.05.2009, passed by Predecessor Court to the effect that instant matter be treated as L.P.A / Revision.4. However vide order dated 28.09.2010, it is clarified by another Predecessor Court that leave to Appeal has not been granted.5. In my view, instant matter has wrongly numbered in the category of Crl. Appeal, whereas the challenged against the acquittal order would have been filed by way of revision onl...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baleshwar and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J(ORAL) 1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. seeks reduction of compensation of `6,13,500/- awarded for the death of Nitant Lakhanpal to the Respondents No.1 and 2 who are mother and brother of the deceased.2. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are:i) That a sum of `50,000/- has been awarded for loss of love and affection which is on the higher side;ii) The interest has been awarded @ 9% per annum which is high.3. Loss of love and affection cannot be `50,000/-. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted only `25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. I would follow the same. The compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is reduced from ` 50,000/- to `25,000/-.4. As far as reduction of the interest granted @ 9% is concerned, in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporat...
Anya Gupta Vs. the State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in respect of the estate of Late Shri Abhik Gupta(hereinafter referred to as “deceased”).2. Petitioner is the daughter of the deceased; whereas respondent no. 2 is her brother.3. As per the petition, the deceased died intestate, on 25th May, 2009 at New Delhi. He has left behind the petitioner and respondent no. 2 as his only Class-I heirs. It is stated that mother of the petitioner and respondent no. 2, had taken divorce from the deceased in the year 1995. Even prior thereto she had permanently shifted to United States of America (U.S.A.) in the year 1993, inasmuch as, she is not the Class-I heir of the deceased. However, by way of abundant caution, petitioner had obtained a “No Objection Certificate” from her mother Mrs. Meena Tharmaratnam.4. Mother of the deceased had predeceased him on 2...
Clearwater Capital Partners (Cyprus) and Others Limited Vs. Satyajit S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
1. OMP No. 951 of 2011 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) and CS (OS) No. 277 of 2012 arise out of the same set of facts and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Background facts 2. The Petitioner in OMP No. 951 of 2011, Clearwater Capital Partners (Cyprus) Limited (‘CCPCL’), is a company incorporated in Cyprus. It entered into a Share Subscription Agreement (‘SSA’) and a Shareholder’s Agreement (‘SHA’), both dated 11th December 2005, with Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, all residents of New Delhi and promoters and shareholders of Saraya Industries Limited (‘SIL’), a company incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956 (‘CA’). Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 own 72.5% of total issued equity share capital of SIL and are in control of its management and day-to-day affairs. By virtue of the SSA and SHA CCPCL was issued 11,13,800 shares of SIL resulting in the CCPCL holding 26% ...
Chander Kant Pandit Vs. Dapinder Pal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The said petition being filed against the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2010, whereby the learned ASJ has reversed the order dated 09.04. 2010 passed in Criminal Complaint No.4910/2009 instituted by Dapinder Pal Singh/respondent.2. Vide the said petition, the petitioner has raised the legal ground that the ld. ASJ has violated the principle of Audi Alteram partem by not issuing notice and even not given a chance for hearing to the petitioner before passing the order/judgment dated 21.10.2010 in Crl. Rev. No.30/2010.3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2010 passed by ld. Magistrate, respondent filed the revision petition No.30/10 before the sessions court while challenging the same as the petitioner not been summoned by the trial court.4. The co-accused, Vaid Prakash Sharma also challenged the same order passed by the ld. Magistrate, vide revision petition No.54/10.5. Learned ASJ, thereafter, clubbed both the revision petitions and passed the common impug...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »