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.
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...
Vikas and Others Vs. State Election Commission and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J 1. The notifications issued reserving seats for Scheduled Castes (for short ‗SC‘) candidates in the impending elections to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short ‗MCD‘) has given rise to the present batch of writ petitions by prospective candidates. The changes effected in pursuance of the notification in the wards of the Corporations of which elections are to be held has resulted in the grievance. One set of petitions only seek to impugn the notification dated 27.1.2012 reserving the wards for the SC and for women (both SC and General category) while the other set of petitions also seek to lay a further challenge to the delegation of powers by the Department of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi (for short ‗GNCTD‘) to the State Election Commission (for short ‗SEC‘) vide notification dated 24.1.2012 to carry out the exercise of identifying the reserved wards. We may notice that though earlier there ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Rakesh Kumar and Others.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. In these Appeals a common question of law falls for consideration i.e. whether in case of a willful or intentional breach of the terms of the policy by the Insured in terms of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act), would the Insurer still be liable to satisfy the award of compensation in favour of third parties and avail the right to recover the same from the Insured or whether Insurer would not be so liable, leaving the third party to enforce the award against the Insured/owner and driver of the offending vehicle?2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Insurers (the Insurance Companies) that once a willful breach is established, the Insurer can avoid the liability to pay even to third parties. In support of their argument, reliance is placed on Malla Prakasarao v. Malla Janaki and Ors.(2004) 3 SCC 343, National Insurance Company Limited v. Kusum Rai and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 250; National Insurance Company Limited v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala ...
Mahender Singh and Others Vs. Mcd and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Both these OAs are being filed by the same advocate and the facts and relief claimed are also same, therefore, with the consent of all the counsel, both these matters were heard together, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of narrating facts, OA No.1997/2010 is being taken as a lead case. 2. There are 36 applicants in OA No.1997/2010 while 6 in OA No. 2117. The relief claimed in both the cases are as follows:- “(a) quash the impugned orders along with impugned SCN and circular with consequential benefits. (b) award costs of the proceedings and (c) pass any order/direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The brief facts, as alleged by the applicants, are that they were appointed as Surveillance Worker on regular basis by way of direct recruitment on 23.5.1978 after there was a mal...
Ramphal Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant is working as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Mail Deliverer (MD) at Shalimar Bagh Post Office of Delhi Postal Circle. He appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for appointment on the post of Postman/Village Postman in Delhi Circle held on 27.08.2006. According to Recruitment Rules (RRs), 50% of the vacancies are to be filled up by way of LDCE from among GDSs. The applicant belongs to unreserved category and there were two vacancies meant for such category in the unit for which he applied. According to his merit, he could not be selected for any of the two vacancies. As per departmental instructions, his name was to be circulated for consideration in other units of the Postal Circle where suitable candidates were not available. 2. It is the grievance of the applicant that although his name was sent for circulation, yet it was not recommended on the ground that there was sanction for prosecution of a criminal case which wa...
Rajender Ram and Others Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary and O ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
1. This is the second round of litigation between the parties. The applicants, working as Chowkidars in National Centre for Disease Control (in short ‘NCDC’) have earlier filed OA No.168/2009 praying for the same reliefs as are prayed in the present Application. The said OA has been disposed of vide Order dated 6.10.2009, by issuing directions to the first and second respondents to consider the case of the applicants afresh for grant of Patient Care Allowance (in short -PCA) and if the case of the applicants does not find favour with the respondents, the respondents would pass a speaking order as to why the applicants are not found eligible for grant of PCA when similarly situated employees in other institutions under the first respondent have been granted this benefit. These directions have been directed to be complied with within a fixed time frame as mentioned in the said Order. In compliance with these directions, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 25....
Niranjan Singh Dabaodia and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. The OA 3655/2011 and the OA 3618/2011 are being disposed by this common order as they involve common issues of facts and law. The OA 3655/2011 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 counsel Shri Nelish Sharma for Shri Arun Bhardaj. 3. The cause of grievance in both these OAs is withdrawal of the order of ‘look-after charge’ of Executive Engineer (Civil) by the impugned corrigendum dated 29.9.2011. Though the OAs seek a number of reliefs including directions pertaining to the regular promotion as Executive Engineer, the matter as argued before us, would be confined to the relief sought vide Para 8 (i) i.e. quashing and setting aside the impugned corrigendum with all consequential benefits. 4. The facts in this case do not need much elaboration. Vide the ...
Roop Chand Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant was engaged as Parcel Porter through Railway Contractor. He filed OA-28/1998 for absorption as regular Group-D railway employee, which was decided with a direction to consider the cases of Parcel Porters keeping in view the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject. The Railway prepared seniority list of 285 Parcel Porters. The applicant’s claim is that his name was placed at Serial No. 52. When he was not regularly appointed, he filed OA-256/2004, which was decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal on 03.02.2004 in which the respondents were directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order on the representation of the applicant. The respondents took the stand that as and when a post falls vacant, the applicant’s case would be considered for regularization according to Rules/Instructions. In compliance thereof, the respondents passed order dated 03.05.2004 and rejected the claim of the applicant. The applican...
Jai NaraIn Meena Vs. the Commissioner of Police and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. Under challenge is cancellation of candidature of a provisionally selected candidate for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police on the basis of a recruitment held in the year 2009. The cancellation has been done on the grounds of unsuitability as revealed from the criminal antecedents of the candidate. The OA has sought quashing the impugned cancellation order dated 3.2.2011 along with the show cause notice dated 16.8.2010 (Annex A/1 and A/2 respectively). Besides, directions for offering appointment to the applicant to the said post with all consequential benefits have been prayed for. 2. The character and antecedents verification report received in respect of the applicant had revealed a criminal case FIR No.114/2007 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC and under Section 134/187 MV Act P.S. Kanota, Rajasthan registered on 27.2.2007. The applicant was charge sheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, where he had voluntarily pleaded guilty and the ...
Ravinder Kaushik Vs. M.C.D. Through Its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chand ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Oral: 1. In this Application filed by the applicant working as Ward Boy with the respondent’s Corporation under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the following reliefs have been sought :- “(a) To direct the respondents to set aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2010; (b) To direct the respondents to review the case of the applicant once again for regular appointment on compassionate grounds as Ward Boy against the vacancies available in the year 2005 for which compassionate appointment committee was constituted in the year 2007 in terms of Old policy and the applicant may ordered to be regularized accordingly. (c) To direct the respondents to consider regularization of the applicant by way of formulating phase manner policy which was being applied in earlier cases by which number of compassionate appointees were benefited. (d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »