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.
Lalit Mohan (Se-retd.) and Others Vs. Dda and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) MA. No.1538/2011 1. After issue of notice to the respondents on 29.09.2010 when the case came up on 31.3.2011, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents and taking note that respondents availed three earlier opportunities and one last opportunity was granted to the respondents for filing reply subject to the payment of cost of Rs.2000/-. The respondents filed the reply affidavit on the same day i.e. on 31.3.2011 and moved the present MA on 13.5.2011 requesting to waive the cost imposed by recalling the Tribunal order. There is no objection from the side of the applicants. Thus, for the reasons given in the MA, the cost imposed on the respondents is waived and the MA is allowed. OA No.3288/2010 2. Pay parity is the claim of the applicants with their counterparts in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD). 3. Fifty four applicants who have retired or are presently serving as Superintending Engineer (SE) in Delhi Development Aut...
Rakesh Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India Secretary, Ministry of Finance an ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. Prayer of the applicant is for quashing the charge sheet dated 08.07.2011 issued against him and for a direction to the respondents not to deny any service benefits which may arise during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. 2. The charge sheet was issued on 08.07.2011 against the applicant who was working as a Superintendent of Central Excise Department, Government of India on the allegation that he along with other members of a Joint Inspection Team recorded a false note in the office of the Joint Director of Foreign Trade to the effect that a firm was located at a specific place having certain machineries and that the unit was in working condition. It is further alleged that none of the plant and machines was installed at the time of joint inspection and no manufacturing activity was going on. However, on the strength of the report of the applicant and others of the inspection party, the unit was allowed to import duty- free brass scraps, for ...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nctd Through the Commissioner of Police, Pol ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
ORAL: V.K. Bali, Chairman, J. 1. The candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police pursuant to show cause notice issued to him on 14.03.2011 has since been cancelled, vide order dated 11.05.2011.It is this order which is under challenge in the present Original Application filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 2. It is not in dispute that the applicant has cleared all the tests, and it is only while verifying about his antecedents, the Screening Committee opined against the appointment of applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) as he was involved in a criminal case pertaining to FIR No.25/2005 u/s 376/342 IPC wherein he being juvenile was tried by Juvenile Justice Board and earned a clean acquittal, vide orders dated 10.12.2010. 3. We have dealt with a number of cases of juvenile to state that even the conviction recorded will not come in the way of a person for securing public employment. The first case...
Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Oral: A.K. Bhardwaj, J. 1. Applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking issuance of directions to respondents to release his regular pension with other retiral benefits. 2. In the detailed reply filed by respondents it is contended that an FIR No.141/04 was lodged in the police by Shri Arvind Kumar and Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma and other officials. The said FIR is still pending, thus in terms of provision of Rule 69 of Pension Rules, 1972,pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment etc. could not be released. 3. Learned counsel appearing for applicant relied upon decision of this Tribunal in the case of TejPal Singh Tuli Vs. UOI and Ors.(OA-3312/2009) wherein it was held that there has to be nexus between allegation in criminal case and official duty of concerned employee in the absence of which there may be no justification to carry on departmental proceedings against employee. Para 9 of the said judgment read as under:- “9. I find that this Tribunal in ...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Kapoor Chand, Security Hawaldar, New D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Oral: M.L. Chauhan, J. 1. The present RA has been filed by Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) against the judgment dated 14.5.2010 whereby the TA was allowed on the basis of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in Shri Sri Chand v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (TA-142/2009) decided on 25.9.2009, which decision was also affirmed by the High Court of Delhi and directions were given to the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the original applicant in service with all consequences within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. The grievance of the review applicant is that since the TA under review was disposed of on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Shri Sri Chand wherein the Tribunal has not granted any relief regarding payment of back-wages, the original applicant in the TA is also not entitled to the back-wages. It may be relevant to state here that the judgment dated 14.5.2010 rendered by this Tribunal in...
inspector Ved Bhushan Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Commissio ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
V.K. Bali, Chairman, J. 1. Ved Bhushan, an Inspector in Delhi Police, the applicant herein,, vide order dated 31.01.2011 has been censured. The appeal carried by him against the order aforesaid has since been rejected vide order dated 11.07.2011.It is against these two orders that the present Original Application has been filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 2. The applicant was issued a show cause notice for censure on the allegations that while he was posted in East District as SHO/Welcome, a complaint was received from one Mohd. Aftab Alam, alleging that he along with one Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Mahzoob consumed liquor at Seemapuri Border, and after some time he realized that something had been mixed in the liquor as he started losing consciousness. The complainant further alleged that he took a TSR and reached Metro Welcome Station, where Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Mahzoob tried to gag him, and he became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he disco...
B.L. Chauhan Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray, J. 1. The Applicant has superannuated as the Sub-Regional Employment Officer under the GNCTD on 31.8.2011.Prior to his superannuation, a major penalty disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against the applicant vide the Charge Memorandum dated 6.6.2000.Vide the Presidential Order dated 5.8.2010, a penalty of withholding the pension in part and reducing it to Rs.3,500/- per month for a period of five years and withholding the entire gratuity permanently has been imposed. By way of relief, the OA seeks setting aside and quashing the Charge Memorandum dated 6.6.2000, the inquiry report dated 28.11.2003 and the impugned Presidential Order dated 5.8.2010.Besides, directions for release of all retiral benefits of gratuity, commutation of pension and other benefits with 24% interest with consequential benefits have been sought. No interim directions in this case were issued. 2. The learned counsel Shri T.D. Yadav would appear for the applicant. The Respondents 1 and 2...
Nandan Kumar Goila Vs. Cce, Delhi-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. In this case, the appellant provided the service of Management Consultancy Service to M/s Usha International Ltd and during the year 2008-09, he received an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. Under the impression that he had to pay service tax, he made a remittance of Rs. 2,13,360/- on 26.3.2009. But before filing the return, he realized that he is eligible for the exemption for the small service provider as provided under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 1.3.05. Therefore, at the time of filing the first yearly return which was to be filed during April, 2009, he had indicated that he had made excess payment and that his liability did not work out to the amount which he had paid on 26.3.09. He also filed a separate refund claim after filing the return. The refund claim filed by the appellant has been rejected on three grounds: i) The first proviso to Notification No. 6/2005-ST provides that any option exercised by the assesse in any financial ...
M/S Sai Fire Vs. Cce, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-2012
Per Mathew John: 1. In this case, the appellants are providing service of repair and maintenance for Indian Railways. They did not pay service tax on the value of such services for the period July 03 to March 06 because they were not aware that service tax has to be paid even for the services rendered to the Railways. When they came to know that there is service tax liability, they took service tax registration and paid tax regularly from April 2006. Even for the prior period from July 03 to March 06, they on their own initiative paid the service tax along with interest. Thereafter, Revenue issued a show cause notice demanding tax and proposing to confirm the demand for tax and also to impose penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act. 2. The matter was adjudicated and adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-under Section 78. This adjudication order was not contested by either side. After about two years, the Commissioner invoked power under sect...
inder Raj @ Inder Ram and ors Vs. State and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 382/2012 % Judgment delivered on: 1st February, 2012 INDER RAJ @ INDER RAM and ORS ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. versus STATE and ORS ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Satish Mishra, learned Proxy counsel for Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP. Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Adv. for R2 along with R2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CRL. M.A. 1324/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.C. 382/2012 1 Notice issued.2. Mr. Satish Mishra, learned Proxy counsel for Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned counsel for State accepts notice on behalf of Crl.M.C. 382/2012 Page 1 of 4 State/respondent No.1.3. Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 4 With the consent of both the parties, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal.5. Learned counsel for both the parties have jointly stated that vide FIR No.596. dated 15.08.2007, a case...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »