Delhi Court February 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.
Arvind Garg and Another Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray, J. 1. The applicants belong to the Central Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Group ‘A’. Both the applicants as well as the private respondents No.5 and 6 belong to the 1987 Batch. Whereas the applicants are from the Mechanical stream, the respondents are from the Electrical stream. In the combined examination, the applicants had secured more marks and therefore, higher rank than the private respondents. Their grievance is that despite obtaining higher rank in the recruitment examination, the applicants have been assigned lower seniority than the private respondents. This has been from the basic rank of Assistant Executive Engineers to Executive Engineers as also Superintending Engineers. As per the averments, the seniority list of Executive Engineers was published vide the office memorandum dated 23.7.2003 (Annex. A-2). In case of the Superintending Engineers, a provisional seniority list was issued on 9.5.2006 (Annex. A-3). It is the case of...
Shiv Narayan Vs. Indian Red Cross Society Through the Secretary Genera ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged Indian Red Cross Society (hereinafter referred to as IRCS) Rule for allotment of Staff Quarters and eligibility list dated 18.1.2010 with a direction to the respondents to correct the seniority list prepared for the post of allotment of Type ‘A’ Staff Quarters, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-23, and allot one of Type ‘A’ Staff Quarter No.RC-13 and RC-22, Srojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023, to the applicant, who is first on turn for allotment of Type ‘A’ Quarter as per seniority from the date of joining in the Indian Red Cross Society, i.e., 2.7.1973. 2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was appointed as Packer in the IRCS on 2.7.1973 in Group ‘D’. After the appointment of applicant, one Shri Ram Nath, a general candidate, was appointed in Group ‘D’ as Peon on and from 1.3.1977. The applicant is senior to Shri Ram Nath as per the date of appointment/entry in the Society...
M/S. Universal Dairy Products (P) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
Per Archna Wadhwa, J. 1. Common issue is involved in these appeals and, therefore, both are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ice cream falling under Heading No. 2105 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A fire accident took place in their factory on 1st May, 2005 and destroyed ice cream. They filed application dated 26.5.2005 for remission of duty on the ice cream destroyed in fire. A show cause notice dated 24.11.2006 was issued proposing to reject the remission application. Further, another show cause notice dated 28.4.2006 was issued demanding duty of Rs.1,39,837/- in respect of the quantity of 11902 units / 19912.80 Ltrs. of Ice cream reportedly damaged during the fire accident occurred in the factory on 1.5.2005. The Commissioner of Central Excise vide Or...
Commissioner of Central Excise Noida Vs. M/S. Vardhman Precision Profi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench), J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner vide which he had dropped the proceedings against the respondents, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned DR appearing for the revenue. Shri Mayank Jain, appears for the respondents. The respondents have also filed written submissions which we have gone through. 3. After hearing both sides, we find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of angles, shapes and sections, fabricating structures and pre-fabricated building (hereinafter referred to as PFB) classifiable under Chapter 72, 73 and 94 of the Central Excise Tariff. During the period relevant for the purpose of appeal, they were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification. Their factory was visited by the audit on 21.1.02 and 31.1.02, who entertained a view that the respondents were clearing fabricated building in guise ...
Ram Lal and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Rastogi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
G. P. MITTAL(ORAL) 1. The Appellants seek enhancement of compensation of Rs. 5,28,000/- awarded for the death of Raksha Devi, who was a housewife.2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) took the value of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and computed the loss of dependency as Rs. 4,68,000/-.3. This case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Master Manmeet Singh and Ors., MAC.APP. 590/2011, decided on 30th January, 2012. This Court noticed the following judgments of theSupreme Court:-(i) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176,(ii) National Insurance Company Limited v. Deepika and Ors., 2010 (4) ACJ 2221,(iii) Amar Singh Thukral v. Sandeed Chhatwal, ILR (2004) 2 Del 1,(iv) Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197,(v) Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Anr. v. R.M.K. Veluswami and ...
Zoro Daniel Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral)1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to modify the impugned order dated 27.1.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in a case FIR no. 29/2011 under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, PS Special Cell, New Delhi and allow the petitioner to deposit cash amount in lieu of the surety.2. Vide order dated 19.11.2011, learned Trial Judge, keeping in view the amount of contraband recovered from the petitioner, and the period already undergone by him in custody and also taking into consideration the report filed by I.O. that the petitioner has no previous antecedents, admitted the petitioner to interim bail for a period of one month on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount.3. The trial court admitted the petitioner on interim bail on the ground that the petitioner was found to be in possession of a genuine passport with a valid vis...
Sanjeev Bhatia and Another Vs. State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi) and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral)2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 23.02.2011, the matter between the parties got compromised and the total payment was made to the son of the complainant/respondent being the attorney.3. In the instant petition, notice was issued vide order dated 27.07.2011. Thereafter process to serve the notice has been filed by the petitioner to serve respondent No.2, however, both the times, service report were awaited.4. I note that vide order dated 25.02.2011, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi has recorded that Sh. J.P. Gupta son of the complainant received the settlement amount of Rs. 1 lac on behalf of his father complainant as full and final settlement. The letter of authority has also been filed on record. Statement of the son of complainant was recorded as under:“I have received a sum of Rs. 1 lac from Smt. Harmohinder Bhatia, mother of the accused Sanjeev Bhatia towards full and final settlement in the present case vide FIR No. 26...
Brahm Prakash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 1st September, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge upholding the order of conviction of the Petitioner passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 304A/279 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 27th January, 2010 sentenced the Petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days and Imprisonment for two years and Rs. 1000/- fine under Section 304A IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 23rd April, 1994 at around 9 p.m. at Faiz Road Crossing, D.B.G. Road, the Petitioner was driving Truck bearing No. UP 15B 3642 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others an...
Sandeep Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
1. The petitioner has sought quashing of Office order dated 22nd October, 2011, whereby he was boarded out from the service and has also sought directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages.2. The petitioner contended that he was recruited in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as „CRPF‟) on 29th December, 2005 after fulfilling all the criteria and norms as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. The petitioner had been found to be physically and medically fit for enlistment as a Constable (GD).3. After the enlistment in the CRPF and completing the training at Shivpuri (M.P.), the petitioner was posted at 156 Bn CRPF, Pehlgaon (Jammu and Kashmir).4. According to the petitioner, he suffered a paralytic attack in December, 2007 due to which he was admitted in the Hospital. After paralytic attack, he was on leave from 9th January, 2008 to July, 2008 as per the recommendation of the doctors who treated the petitioner. There...
Cit Vs. Ekl Appliances Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2012
This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) relates to assessment year 2002-03 and arises out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) dated 11th February, 2011 in ITA No. 3895/Del/2010. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 30th July, 2007 holding that the royalty payment of Rs.108.64 lacs was capital expenditure, inter alia, for acquisition of a capital asset. 3. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the said addition. The said order has been affirmed by the tribunal. 4. We reproduce the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to make the said addition: “3. The assessee vide his letter dated 23.07.2007 has submitted that royalty of Rs.108.64 cannot be considered as capital as it is not for acquisition of any capital asset (trade mark). It is only for “user”thereof and is payable every year, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »