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.
Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Ashoka Hotel Through Its General Manager Pa ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) 1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant filed CWP No.3051/2011 before the High Court, which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and was registered as TA No.1439/2009.This Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 disposed of the TA when attention of the Tribunal was brought to the fact that an appeal/request dated 10.08.2010 has been preferred by one of the applicants for sympathetically settling the matter outside the court so as to reinstate the applicants, as was done in the case of 31 persons who were appointed on contract basis and made permanent in the month of July 2010 when the load of work having been entrusted to ITDC in the light of Commonwealth Games. On the basis of the contention so raised, this Tribunal passed the following order: “3. We do not have any such methodology for outside court settlement and it cannot be approved of but we can now safely direct the respondents to treat the present TA (C.W.P. (C) No.3...
M/S Modi Cement Ltd, M/S Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd.) Vs. Cce, Raipur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cement falling under Chapter 25 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For the purpose of packing of cement, HDPE bags were used by the appellants. The dispute in this case is with regard to availing of benefit of Modvat credit on the HDPE bags used for packing during the period from 1987-88 to 16.9.90. With effect from 17.9.90, by Notification No. 35/90-CE (N.T.) dated 17.9.90, Rule 57A was amended to exclude HDPE bags from the scope of inputs on which Modvat credit could be taken. 2. For the period prior to 17-09-90, Modvat credit in respect of durable and returnable packing material was available only if the value of such packing material was included in the assessable value of the goods. Since cement was a specific rated item an issue was being contested by many parties whether HDPE bags used for packing cement would satisfy the criterion. There were many Show Cause Notices,...
Maj (Retd.) Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2012
Petitioner vide this petition has prayed that cut-off date mentioned in the Notification dated 29.09.2009 to the extent of pre and post distinctions of 01.01.2006 for grant of disability pension to those persons who have voluntarily retired prior to 2006 may be quashed. Petitioner was commissioned in Indian Army on 27.12.1982 in Army Medical Corps after having been found fit in all respect. He served with various medical units of Indian Army from 1983 to 1996. During 1996, due to peculiar nature of service and hazardous atmosphere, petitioner suffered two disabilities namely Tear Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Medical Meniscus (Left) and subsequently he was placed in low medical category S1 H1 A3 P1 E1. On account of disabilities, petitioners movements became restricted causing difficulty in performance of his normal duties, therefore, he sought Page premature retirement after 15 years of service. Respondents vide order dated 07.01.1997 approved the request of the petitioner for premat...
Ravinder Kumar Chandolia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL.) NO. 72/2012 Date of Decision: 06.02.2012 RAVINDER KUMAR CHANDOLIA ...... PETITIONER Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocates. Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and ORS. ......RESPONDENT Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate with IO Rajesh Chahal. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. The present petition is against the order of the trial court dated 29/07/2011 whereby the trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner for dropping of proceeding on the ground that the sanction accorded was illegal and without application of mind..2. The instant case was registered on 21/10/2009 against unknown officials of Department of telecommunication (hereinafter referred to as "DOT"), government of India, unknown private persons/companies and others for W.P.(Crl.) 72/2012 Page 1 of 17 the offences punishable under section 120-B IPC read with 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act...
Sanatan Prasad Vs. High Court of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 06.02.2012 + W.P. (C) 4396/2010 SANATAN PRASAD ... Petitioner Versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI and OTHERS ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr Advocate with Mr Rakesh Kumar Garg For the Respondent No.1 : Mr Viraj R. Datar with Mr Chetan Lokur CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.1. The petitioner made several prayers, but, as of now, this petition is limited to the quashing of the ACR in respect of the petitioner for the year 2008, whereby the petitioner was graded as 'B'. This would be evident from the order dated 06.07.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this court when the matter had initially come up for hearing. The said order reads as under:- "In substance, the petitioner has prayed for the following two reliefs:- "II. Issue appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby q...
Asif Balwa Vs. the Cbi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL.) NO. 60/2012 Date of Decision: 06.02.2012 ASIF BALWA ...... PETITIONER Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocates. Versus THE CBI and ORS. ...... RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate with IO Rajesh Chahal. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J..1. The present writ petition under article 226 and 227 of the constitution read with section 482 CrPC is preferred by the Petitioner against the order of the Ld. Special Judge dated 21.11.2011 whereby the Ld. Special Judge had opined that the objections raised by the defense counsel during evidence shall be decided at the time of final arguments and not as and when they are raised..2. The brief facts necessitating the present petition are that the Petitioner has been named as an accused in FIR bearing no. RC No. DAI-2009-A- 0045, ACB/CBI/NEW DELHI dated 21.10.2009. The charge-sheet was filed W.P.(Crl.) 60/2012 Page 1 of 9 before the Ld. Special Judge ...
Lala Sohan Lal Gupta and anr Vs. M/S. T.R.Enterprises and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % RESERVED ON : JANUARY 24 , 2012 PRONOUNCED ON:FEBRUARY 06, 2012 + RFA(OS) No.50/2000 LALA SOHAN LAL GUPTA and ANR. ........Appellants Through : Mr.Ravindra Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Vijay Gupta, Mr.B.B.Gupta, Mr. J.Dass, Advocates. versus M/S. T.R.ENTERPRISES and ORS. ...........Respondents Through : Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Mohd. Farrukh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J..1. The appellants have challenged before us the judgment and decree dated 06.07.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge, in a suit filed by them seeking permanent injunction and damages. Vide impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has dismissed the suit..2. Before adverting to the controversy, we deem it proper to take note of certain admitted facts as pleaded in the plaint and not disputed in the written statement..3. The admitted facts are that the plaintiffs are co- owners of the suit premises be...
inderpal Singh @ Babbal Marwah Vs. State and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 440/2012 % Judgment delivered on: 6th February, 2012 INDERPAL SINGH @ BABBAL MARWAH ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. versus STATE and ANR ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CRL. M.A. 1520/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.C. 440/2012.1. Notice issued..2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State accepts notice..3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the court today. He also accepts notice..4. With the consent of the parties, the instant petition is taken up today for final disposal..5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No. 291/2011, a case under Sections 323/452/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioner and co-accused persons namely Crl.M.C.No.440/2012 Page 1 of 4 Sonu and Sandeep Singh at P.S. Sunlight Colony, New Delhi..6. Further submits that the petiti...
Balwan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 18th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 6th February, 2012 + MAC.APP. 741/2011 BALWAN SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. and ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. K. L. Nandwani, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J..1. The Appellant Balwan Singh impugns the judgment dated 17.04.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding a compensation of ` 3,08,000/- in favour of the Second Respondent, the Claims Tribunal granted right to the First Respondent (the Insurer) to recover the compensation paid from the Appellant who was the owner of the offending vehicle number HR-14-A-5846..2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal held that the driver i.e. the Third Respondent by virtue of driving licence Ex.PW-1/4 was authorized to drive a motor cycle and LMV(NT) and thus, he was not authorized to drive a tractor tro...
Neelima Bagaria Vs. Gnct of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2012
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : February 01, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on: February 06, 2012 + LPA No.827/2011 NEELIMA BAGARIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Pallav Saxena, Advocate. versus GNCT OF DELHI and ORS. ....Respondents Through: Ms.Sangeeta Sondhi, Advocate for R-1 and 2 Mr.Rishi Agrawala and Mr.Nakul Mohta, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J..1. WP(C) No.6877/2009 filed by the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2010 with the observation that such appropriate remedies as may be available to the appellant if a civil suit filed by her challenging the assignment deed dated 29.03.2006 was dismissed. The said suit being Civil Suit No.27/2010 (somewhere recorded as bearing No.77/2010) was dismissed on 19.01.2011 on the ground that the appellant did not have the locus standi to question the deed of assignment. The appellant thereafter filed CM No.6843/2011...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »