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.
National Highways Authority Vs. R.S.B. Projects Ltd
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. No. 300/2005 Reserved on: January 12, 2012 Decision on: February 15, 2012 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Sood and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates. versus R.S.B. PROJECTS LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Arvind Minocha, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 15.02.2012.1. National Highways Authority of India ('NHAI') in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') challenges an award dated 9th May 2005 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal holding that NHAI will pay to the Respondent, RSB Projects Limited, a sum of Rs.1,14,11,468/- against all its claims. It was further directed that in the event NHAI fails to make the payment within 90 days, the Respondent would be entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. Background Facts.2. NHAI has been constituted under Section 3 of ...
Balbir Tyagi Vs. Smt.a Dhanwanti Chandela and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No.438 OF 2011 Reserved on: 13.2.2011 % Pronounced on:15.2.2012 BALBIR TYAGI . . . APPELLANT Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Mr. Dhananjay, Adv. VERSUS SMT.A DHANWANTI CHANDELA and ANR ..RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Seema Rao, Mr. Rajiv Misra, Mr. Virender Singh, Advocates CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.1. The appellant herein was elected as Municipal Councilor from Ward No. 116, Vikaspuri East, Delhi in the municipal election held in April, 2007, results whereof were published on 9th April, 2007. The respondent no.1 filed Election Petition under Sections 15 and 17 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the election of the appellant alleging that the appellant had indulged in corrupt practices and a prayer was made that the election LPA 438/2011 P...
P. Ravi Kumar and Others Vs. National Technical Research Organisation, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. By this common order, we are proposing to decide three Original Applications with the consent of the counsel for parties, as the issues involved in these OAs are same. 2. This is the 2nd round of litigation for some of the applicants. The OA No.2951/2011 was disposed of vide order dated 16.8.2011 with directions to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants pending with them within a period of six weeks. Consequently, the NTRO finding their representations devoid of merits rejected the same in the order dated 30.9.2011 (Annexure-A1). Impugning the said order, the applicants are before the Tribunal in the instant OAs. As per the consensus of the parties, the OA No.3808/2011 has been taken up as the lead OA to outline the facts and flag the issues for our consideration and determination. Relief(s) claimed in the OA No.3808/2011 are as follows:- “a) Quash and set aside the order No.V(B)/Misc/11017(61)-10662 dated 30.09.2...
Nar Singh and Another Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation I.P.Estate New D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. The applicants (Drivers in the Delhi Transport Corporation) have challenged report dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure A3) and order dated 04.01.2012 (Annexure A4), declaring them as unfit for the post of Driver and the orders dated 20.03.2009 (Annexure A1); order dated 06.05.2009 (Annexure A2) retiring them from service, and have sought the following relief(s): quash and set aside order dated 20.03.2009, 06.05.2009 and 04.01.2012. quash and set aside the report dated 15.12.2011 and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicants in service with full back-wages and consequential benefits with interest. 2. The brief facts, as are relevant to this application, are that applicant No.1 and 2 had been appointed as Drivers in the DTC in the year 1980 and 1979 respectively after being found fit by the DTC Medical Board. It is stated that they put in satisfactory service with the respondents for over 29 years and had not been involved in any accident nor was there a...
K.S. Meena Vs. the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Ne ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. The applicant is a confirmed DANICS Officer w.e.f. 01.07.1992. He on completion of four years w.e.f. 01.07.1996became eligible along with his batch officers to get time scale in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500.Vide order dated 28.05.2002 (Annexure-A2), 51 of the DANICS Grade-II officers got the said pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996, 8 officers w.e.f. 01.07.1996, but the applicant was not allowed the said pay scale for which he submitted his representation dated 29.06.2001 (Annexure-A4). Further the respondents promoted officers of DANICS to Grade-I (selection grade) in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 vide order dated 17.04.2003 (Annexure-A5) but the applicant was not granted the said benefit. He represented to the respondent in his letter dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure-A6)and followed up with reminders on 17.10.2007 (Annexure-A8) and 01.09.2009 (Annexure-A9).It is noticed that due to minor penalty charge sheet and a criminal case where the sanction of pro...
Khushwant Singh Vs. Union of India Ministry of Road Transport and High ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. The only controversy that has been brought out in the present Original Application for our consideration and determination is that whether the post of Lieutenant Colonel is equivalent to the post of Superintending Engineer (SE) or not? 2. We may refer to the facts of the case briefly, as may be relevant to the above issue. The Applicant joined the Indian Army as Second Lieutenant on 18.06.1983.He was B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) passed in the year 1980 and, however, while he was working in the Indian Army as Lieutenant Colonel he completed the Master of Engineering in the year 2001. He continued to work as Lieutenant Colonel with effect from October 1998 up to January 2001 and was posted as Staff Officer Grade-I (Design) in the Office of Chief Engineer, Udhampur Zone from January 2001 to September 2003. Thereafter, he worked in the Border Road Organization (BRO) from September 2003 to August 2005.On 01.08.2005, he joined on deputation as General Ma...
Yudhvir Chopra Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of A ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Through this MA No.3090/2011, the second respondent, namely, Managing Director, National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) has sought extension of time for completion of the inquiry by a further period of six months and has also prayed to direct the applicant to cooperate and attend the inquiry proceedings for completing the inquiry in a time bound manner. 2. We heard Shri B.K. Satija, learned counsel for the respondents and the applicant who appears in person. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that inspite of the best efforts taken by the Inquiry Officer, as the applicant is not cooperating and raising one ground or the other, the Tribunal’s direction in the order dated 19.4.2011 in OA No.3407/2009 has not been complied. In support of the contention, he drew our attention to (a) the order dated 16.5.2011 whereby the Inquiry Officer was directed by the Disciplinary Authority to complete the inquiry proceedings with...
Rahul Sharma Vs. Ministry of Labour Rafi Marg Shram Shakti Bhawan New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant has challenged his non-recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk by Respondent No.2 despite his having secured higher marks in the written examination than the candidates who had been selected for the post and despite his getting qualifying marks in the computer skill test. 2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the OA, are that the applicant appeared in the selection held by the respondents in 2009 for recruitment of LDC in ESIC. The selection was to be done on the basis of a written examination and skill test followed by an interview. He qualified the written examination and was called for the Computer Skill Test and had secured 124 marks in the written and 42 marks in the skill test (as per received under RTI).However, his name did not figure in the final list of selected candidates published on 03.05.1022 (Annexure A4).On obtaining information under the RTI Act asking why he had not been selected despite getti...
Virendra Singh Khaira Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. Shri Virendra Singh Khaira working as Executive Engineer (Civil), Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, the applicant herein, is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure-A) by which he was imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect by the Disciplinary Authority. He has also challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 14.07.2008 (Annexure-H). Consequently, he has prayed to quash the said impugned Memorandum and penalty order with prayer to direct the respondents to grant him promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (SE) w.e.f. 9.02.2004 with consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case would reveal that the applicant who joined as Assistant Executive Engineer having been successful in the Indian Engineering Service Examination of 1993 was promoted as Executive Engineer (EE) in 1999 and was transferred on deputation to the National Highwa...
Madhu Panthri and Others Vs. B.K. Gupta, Commissioner of Police, Phq, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2012
G. George Paracken: 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners for the alleged non-implementation of the order of this Tribunal dated 11.07.2011 in OA No. 1924/2010. The relevant part of the said order reads as under: “6. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. From the reply and submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is clear that the respondents are not denying the benefits of pay fixation under Rule 7(1) and the proviso thereto referred to above to the applicants. However, the apprehension of the first three applicants is that their pay is not being fixed with reference to the junior most first appointee between 1.1.2006 to 1.7.2006 rather they are picking up a junior in the Traffic Unit alone. Their other apprehension is that since the respondents have not mentioned anything about bunching as provided in the proviso to the aforesaid rules, there is no clarity with regard to the manner in which pay of the C...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »