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.
M/S Engineering Udyog and General Kamgar Union (Regd.) Vs. Berry Sons ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
MANMOHAN, J (Oral) Co. Appls.311/2009 and 907/2009 in Co. Pet. 294/2006 While application being Co. Appl. No. 311/2009 has been filed by the purchaser of property bearing No. K-78, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, seeking release of the property from the Official Liquidator, Co. Appl. No. 907/2009 has been filed by the workmen of the respondent company for release to themselves Rs. 60 lacs deposited with the Official Liquidator by the purchaser as well as former Directors of the company. Mr. L.B. Rai, learned counsel appearing for workmen states that by virtue of a Compromise Deed dated 19th September, 2004, two Directors of the respondent company namely, Mr. Ajay Kumar Berry and Mr. Ashwani Berry had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 60 lacs to the workmen from the sale proceeds of the aforesaid property. Mr. Rai, learned counsel has drawn this Court’s attention to paragraph 1 of the aforesaid Compromise Deed which reads as under:- “1. Both the parties have agreed that the managemen...
Abhipra Commodity Consutltants P. Ltd. and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide order dated 03.11.2011, this court has passed the following order:- 1. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the Managing Director and Director of the petitioner No.1 respectively. Since the year 2006, respondent no.2 had been doing transactions through the petitioner No.1 at the registered office at GF-1, Abhipra Complex, Dilkhush Commercial Complex, A-387, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi and also a member of NCDEX, NMCE and MCX. 2. In the year 2006, some differences arose between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 in relation to some transactions carried at the aforesaid Exchanges. Consequently, in 2006 respondent No.1 preferred a claim before Arbitration Department of the National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Ltd. Thereafter, as per its bye-laws and regulations, NCDEX appointed Shri Ajant Kumar as Sole Arbi...
Era Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2012
Petitioner vide this petition has challenged the impugned order passed by the respondents on 23.04.2004. Respondents have raised a preliminary objection of delay in filing the present petition. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Navy on 09.08.1973. At the time of enrolment, he was medically fit and declared S1A1 which is akin to Shape I of the Indian Army. Subsequently he was boarded out of the Indian Navy on 26.02.1981 on account of Epilepsy. At the time of discharge, a Release Medical Board was held which though quantified the assessment of disability as 30% but declared his ailment of Epilepsy as neither attributable to military service nor aggravated by military service vide letter dated 23.04.2004. Therefore, petitioner was not granted disability pension from the date of discharge till date. The grievance of the petitioner is that he be granteddisability pension from the date of discharge till the year 2006 @ 30% of disability pension and from 2006 till date @ 50% of the disabi...
Airports Authority of India Vs. Shri Shakti Resorts and Hotels
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. 388/2005 Reserved on: January 30, 2012 Decision on: February 16, 2012 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Sood and Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocates. Versus SHRI SHAKTI RESORTS and HOTELS LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Dr. Aman Hingorani, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 16.02.2012.1. The challenge by the Petitioner Airports Authority of India ('AAI') in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') is to an Award dated 20th July 2005 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent, Shri Shakti Resorts and Hotels Limited ('SSRHL'), arising out of a lease deed dated 5th January 1990 executed by the AAI in favour of SSRHL for the development of land measuring 18,061.98 sq. yards situated at Hyderabad, belonging to the AAI, for the construction and commissioning of a...
Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs. Union of India and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13.02.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 16.02.2012 + W.P.(C) 850/2012 RAJENDRA PRASAD DWIVEDI ... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA and ANR ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr S.S. Duggal and Mr Manish Shanker Srivastava For Respondents : Mr Rajinder Nischal CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J..1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby OA No. 4249/2010, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition can be summarized as follows: The petitioner, at the relevant time was working as a Deputy Legal Advisor in the CBI. Disciplinary proceedings for imposing major penalty on the petitioner were initiated...
Sahib Singh Vs. Union of India, Through General Manager, Northern Rail ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
1. The Applicant, working as an Assistant Financial Advisor in the Northern Railways, has challenged the transfer order dated 10.6.2011 and the relieving order dated 22.9.2011. By the aforesaid orders, the applicant has been transferred from Delhi to Lucknow in the same capacity. By way of relief, the OA seeks quashing the impugned orders. Considering the prayer for interim relief, after hearing the respondent’s counsel on 7.10.2011, directions to maintain status quo as on date and the applicant not to be forced to join the new place of posting were issued. 2. The applicant would be represented by the learned counsel Shri Anil Hooda and the Respondents by the Learned Counsel Shri V.S.R. Krishna with S/Shri Shailendra Tiwary and J.P. Tiwary. 3. This is the second round of litigation. In compliance with the Tribunals directions vide its Order dated 9.9.2011 in the OA No.2273/2011, by a speaking order dated 22.9.2011, the General Manager, Railways has rejected the applicant’s ...
D.K. Vatsa Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Shri D.K. Vatsa, the applicant herein, is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) by putting the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for his promotion to the post of Sr. Manager (EandM) in sealed cover. Assailing the said action of the ITDC, he has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following prayers:- “(a) Declare that the convening of the DPC on 29.11.2010 and the decision of the DPC to keep the fate of the promotion of the applicant to the post of Senior Manager (EandM) in sealed cover is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and against all canons of justice and fair play. (b) Declare that the decision of the Respondents ITDC to convene a fresh DPC on20.02.2009 and then again on another fresh DPC on 16.04.2009 and then not declaring the results of the said DPCs was illegal, arbitrary and dehors the law. (c) Decla...
Dr. Amitabh Misra and Others Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Health an ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray, J. 1. The applicants, seven in number, are Medical Officers in different Institutes under the ICAR. Through this OA, they are agitating claims for benefits under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (DACP) in accordance with the GOI Resolution No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 29.8.2008, Office Memorandum No. F.A.45012/2/2008/CHS-V dated 29.10.2008 and Office Memorandum even No. dated 21.7.2009. The benefits of DACP are sought from the date of the Resolution. 2. The learned counsels Shri Rajesh Srivastava and Shri Gagan Mathur would appear respectively for the applicants and the respondents. 3. Shri Rajesh Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicants, would refer to the Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 29.8.2008 on the subject of acceptance of the 6th CPC recommendations by the Government of India. Para 12 of this Resolution would be referred which provides for the DACP Scheme for doctors to be extended, upto a particular grade and subject to certain stipulat...
Union of India and Others Vs. L.S. Rawat, Production Assistant Central ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
ORAL: George Paracken, J. RA-139/2004 1. This Review Application has been filed by the respondents in OA No.1776/2008 decided on 24.9.2008.The relevant part of the said order reads as under: “2. By virtue of this OA, applicants, Production Assistants, seeks pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. Earlier OA No. 1462/2005 in Sanjay Kumar and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors., decided on 28.8.2006 directed consideration of grant of higher pay scale to the production assistants with a direction to re-examine the issue, which on re-examination though subject to the outcome of the writ petition No. 2071/2007 sub-judice before the High Court where stay has not been granted implemented the order where Production Assistants have been given pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-.Applicants also assailed non-grant of pay scale in OA.2250/2007, which stood disposed of on 4.12.2007 and in pursuance thereof, in compliance an order passed on 24.1.2008 rejected the claim of the applicants on the ground that no Junior ...
D.M. Chaubey Vs. Union of India (Through) the Secretary, Ministry of U ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray, J. 1. The Applicant, working as a Chief Engineer (Electrical) under the CPWD, is aggrieved at denial of promotion to him from the date it was accorded to his juniors. Though granted non-functional upgradation w.e.f 3.1.2006, vide the Order dated 23.8.2011 (Annex. A/6) as well as promotion as Chief Engineer against a vacancy for the year 2010-2011, vide the order dated 11.11.2011; the Respondents have rejected his representation dated 20.7.2011 requesting for promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer (Elect.) against vacancies for the year 2008-09 by conducting review DPC (Annex A/1). The occasion for the Review DPC has arisen because the below bench mark ACRs of the Applicant for the years 2000-01 (Part), 2001-02 (entire year in two parts) and 2003-04, on representation have been expunged (Annex A/4 and A/5). 2. By way of relief, the OA seeks the following directions:- Quash and set aside the Order dated 30.12.2011 (Annex A/1). Direct the Respondents to hold Review D...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »