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.
Hukam Chand Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Railway, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
ORAL: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged orders dated 28.11.2011, 23.6.1993, 6.7.1994 and 12.4.1993. He has further sought a direction to the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 to dispose of Review and Mercy Petition as per rules. 2. It is stated by the counsel for the applicant that applicant was removed from service vide order dated 12.4.1993 (page 20). Being aggrieved, he had filed an appeal which was rejected vide order dated 23.6.1993 (page 22). Applicant had challenged those orders in the Tribunal by filing OA No.1421/1994 which was dismissed on 29.1.1997 (page 28 at 33). However, thereafter applicant had filed a Mercy Petition, which too was dismissed on 1.12.2000 (page 27). Being aggrieved, applicant had filed Mercy Petition to the President of India followed by reminder dated 11.4.2011 (page 13) but the same has been dismissed by the Divisional Commercial Manager on 28.11.2011 (page 12) who could not have passed the order. In order to substantiate his ...
P. Kathuria Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Through Its Commissioner, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
George Paracken: 1. This is the second round of litigation by the applicant. In the earlier OA No.1671/2007 filed by her, she challenged the impugned Annexure A-4 order dated 29.8.2005 by which the respondent No.1 informed her through respondent No.3 that her name for promotion as Vice Principal in the year 2005-06 was considered but the DPC did not find her suitable. The contention of the Applicant in the said OA was that the respondents have never communicated any adverse or any below Bench mark remarks in her ACRs and no disciplinary proceedings have been pending against her and, therefore, there was no reason for the DPC to find her unsuitable. However, this Tribunal found that the applicant’s CRs for 4 years were graded as ‘Good’ but for the year 2004, it was graded as ‘Average’ and it was not communicated to her. The aforesaid OA was, therefore, disposed of by this Tribunal vide Annexure A-3 Order dated 29.5.2009 with the directions to the respondent...
Deepak Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. Under challenge is the cancellation of candidature for the post of Constable (Exe) in Delhi Police. The order of cancellation has been passed on the ground of unsuitability, considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant. The OA seeks quashing the impugned order dated 11.5.2011 along with directions for considering his case for appointment to the said post. 2. The learned counsels Shri Manish Kumar and Ms. Rashmi Chopra, would appear before us respectively for the applicant and the respondents. On behalf of the applicant, short synopsis of written submission with certain citations relied upon was submitted. The respondents also submitted a list of judgments relied upon by them. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the applicant was a provisionally selected candidate for the post of Constable (Exe) Male in Delhi Police on the basis of the recruitment held in the year 2009 (Phase-II). The selection was subject inter alia to satisfactory verification of char...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan, J. 1. This is a second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant filed OA-47/2008, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.1.2008 and the respondents were directed to treat the OA as representation on behalf of the applicant and consider his case for reengagement on casual basis and pass speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Subsequently, the applicant filed MA-348/2008 in the said OA seeking clarification of the order dated 17.1.2008, which was also disposed of by this Tribunal on 22.2.2008 by passing the following orders:- “I do not find any clarification necessary as prayed by Smt. Rani Chhabra. However, the fact that the direction has been issued to consider the claim of the applicant, treating the OA as representation for which engagement on casual basis, even if vacancies are notified for Group ‘D’ Class-IV. If the applicants apply it will be open for the respondents ...
Krishan Devnani Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through Its Commis ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The Applicant, an Assistant Engineer under the MCD, through this OA is seeking relief at the interlocutory stage. A disciplinary proceeding against the applicant has been initiated by the Charge Sheet dated 26.3.2010 and the additional Charge Sheet dated 9.5.2010, for the charges relating to unauthorized construction. In pursuance of the Tribunal’s directions vide its order dated 23.11.2010 in the OA 390/2010, after consideration of the applicant’s representations dated 9.4.2010 and 24.5.2010 (Annex A/6 and A/8), the Respondents have passed a speaking order dated 18.4.2011. By this Order, holding that prima-facie the charges leveled against the applicant hold substance, a view has been taken that it would not be appropriate to drop the present disciplinary case at this stage. Accordingly, it has been decided to continue the inquiry proceedings. By the present OA, the applicant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.4.2011 along with ...
Amit Kumar JaIn Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Thorough Chief Secretary, D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) MA No.26/2012 For the reasons stated in the MA, we recall the order dated 20.10.2011 whereby the adjournment request was declined and the OA was dismissed in default; and restore the OA to its original number. As the notice was issued to the parties on MA and OA, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, we finally heard the case on 31.01.2012. OA No.517/2011 Shri Amit Kumar Jain working as Zonal Revenue Officer (ZRO) in Delhi Jal Board (DJB), the applicant herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in not granting him the salary attached to the post of Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Director of Revenue which he has been discharging vide order dated 13.2.2009 (Annexure-A1) on Current Duty Charge (CDC). It is his case that he has been found fit for the said higher post, by the Departmental Screening Committee and was entrusted the CDC by the Competent Authority. Despite his frequent representations and the last being ...
M/S Nalwa Steel and Power Ltd Vs. Cce, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. There is a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. An application for condoning the delay is filed explaining that the person dealing with excise matters in the Company was sick and on leave and that is the reason for delay. Considering the explanation, the delay is condoned. 2. The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 26,36,609/- confirmed against the appellant by denying them the benefit of modvat credit availed by them in respect of paints and welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. We further note that the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is on the appeal of the Revenue in as much as the order in original was in favour of the appellant. While hearing the appeal of the Revenue, Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that penalty is also imposable under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for contravention of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.&n...
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd Vs. Cce, Meerut-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
PER: D.N. PANDA, J. 1. The issue of levy of service tax on the Chini Mills holding that goods transport agency service was availed by the Chini mill was common question in all the adjudications under appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri Kakaria appearing in ST/1525/10 brings out that during the harvest season of sugar cane, sugar cane is collected from collection centres by the sugar mill and bring the same to its factory. At the centre, the farmers deliver sugar cane. As it is obligation of the farmers that they shall deliver the sugar cane, respective transport cost is deducted from their bill and that is paid. In such factual scenario when the sugar cane is transported from the collection centre to the factory, service of truck operators, Bullock Carts, Tractors are availed. When the payment of sugar cane is made to farmers, deduction is made from their bills towards transport cost etc. and farmer who bears the transport cost, the appellant does not bear such cost in ...
Fashionage Corporation Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cst, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
PER: D.N. PANDA, J. 1. Shri Malhotra appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appeal is on a very narrow compass as to whether commission paid to the foreign service provider as tabulated in para 30 of the adjudication order is liable to service tax . He points out that liability of the recipient in respect of service received from foreign consultant arose w.e.f. 18.4.2006. Therefore, the liability to the extent of Rs.20,01,620/- raised by Revenue under first row of the table shall not sustain. He further points out that a categorical fact recorded at page 11 of the adjudication order indicating that commission to the extent of Rs.93,41,884/- remained unpaid to the foreign service provider as on 31.3.2006 is evident from balance sheet as on 31.3.2006. It is also recorded there that the appellant had paid service tax of Rs.49,03,839/-. Since the amount payable related to the service provider prior to 18.3.2006, they shall not enter into the pur...
Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan Vs. Rohit Kumar
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The facts of the case are that the complainant for the academic year 2006-07 took admission in August, 2006 in OP Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan for one year diploma course in Hotel Management, and for which he deposited as fees an amount of Rs. 20,000 on 31.8.2006. The complainant met with an accident and his leg was fractured. He lodged an FIR under Sections 279/337, IPC in connection of accident with the Police, the copy of which and a photograph of his fractured leg are available on file. The complainants case is that he contacted the OP several times and requested the OP to return the fee amount, which the OP declined. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum with a prayer that the OP be directed to refund him Rs. 20,000 and a compensation of an amount of Rs. 10,000. 2. The OP opposed the claim and filed the written statement alleging the Information Brochure for the academic year 2006-07 supplied to the candida...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »