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.
Jai Prakash Vs. Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: January 12, 2011 Pronounced on: February 01, 2012 + LA.APP. 115/2011 (VILLAGE BAMNOLI) JAI PRAKASH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Amit Maan, Mr.R.S.Verma, Mr.Jai Prakash, Ms.Smita Maan and Mr.Jitin Tewathia, Advocates (R-14-16, 22, 30, 34, 38- 45, 51-53) Mr.Mohinder Singh Charak, Advocate for appellant in R-112 and respondent in R-63 Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Mr.B.K.Routray, Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocates in (R-84 to 86, 88-102, 104) Mr.S.K.Rout and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates (in R-74 and for respondent on R-79) versus UNION OF INDIA and ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Ms.Navlin Swain, Ms.K.K.Kiran and Mr.S.N.Pandey, Advocates for UOI Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for UOI (R-1 to 5, 18-37, 47, 49, 50-52, 55-73, 75-81, 113-123 Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Bankey Bihari Sharma, Ms.Amita Singh, Mr.S.K.Sethi and Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocates for DDA in (R-74-77 and 80) Mr.Mohinder Singh C...
Uoi Vs. Sr Tewari and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 10.01.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 01.02.2012 + W.P.(C) 4207/2011 UOI ... Petitioner versus SR TEWARI AND ANR ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr M.K. Bhardwaj For Respondent No.1 : Mr Paras Kuhad, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ravi Prakash, Ms Avni Singh and Mr Jitiin Chaturvedi 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 11th February, 2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in OA No. 3234/2009, whereby the order dated 08th September, 2010, dismissing respondent No.1. from service, was set aside and he was reinstated in service with consequential benefits. W.P(C) 4207/2011 Page 1 of 54.2. The respondent No.1, an officer of Andhra Pradesh Cadre of Indian Police Service joined Border Security Force (BSF) o...
Sri Sai Enterprises and anr Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
$~41. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CEAC 2/2012 SRI SAI ENTERPRISES and ANR. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. R. Krishnan, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE.. Respondent Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER % 01.02.2012 The present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act, for short), is directed against the order dated 29th July, 2011, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) dismissing the rectification application filed by the appellant. The appellant had earlier impugned order dated 1st July, 2010 dismissing their appeal, before this Court in CEAC No. 4/2011. The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 25th January, 2011, inter alia, recording as under:- " In this appeal preferred by the CEAC No. 2/2012 Page 1 of 12 appellants the only issue which is raised relates to penalty imposed ...
Delhi Nagar Nigam Karamchari Parishad Through Its President Rajender K ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
Oral: M.L. Chauhan, J. 1. The Delhi Nagar Nigam Karamchari Parishad has filed the present OA through its president Rajender Kumar and employee Rajesh Kumar, thereby praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) to quash and set aside the impugned circular no.570/DA-I/AC/DEMS/HQs/2011 dated 3.2.2011. (ii) to direct the respondents to fill up the post of ASI as per the RRs notified for the said post. (iii) to direct the respondents not to consider any outsider candidates serving in departments other than DEMS for promotion/appointment to the post of ASI by ignoring RRs. (iv) to pass any such and further orders which their lordships of this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The grievance of the applicants in this case is that as per the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector, the said post is required to be filled up 50% by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment and 50% by dir...
Chandra Shekhar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant was an O.B.C. candidate for appointment to the post of Primary school teacher for which advertisement was issued on 25/26.07.1996.He was selected on merit, but disqualified on the ground that he was over-aged by 30 days, though there was provision for relaxation of age limit for prior teaching experience in recognized schools. The grievance of the applicant flowed from the fact the experience certificates submitted by him from recognized schools were not taken into account. He filed WP(C) No. 1619/98, renumbered as TA-438/2009 on transfer, in which the following directions were given: “8.We have given the above direction because initially applicant No.2 was also denied appointment on the ground that he had not applied through proper channel as such was not entitled to age relaxation but during the pendency of the petition, he was given appointment. Respondents have not explained how he was given the appointment, therefore, this aspect ...
Dilip Kumar Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, Northern R ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
Oral: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged orders dated 11.2.2010, 9.11.2009 and Medical Certificate dated 10.10.2009 and has sought a direction to the respondents to get him medically examined by an independent Medical Board at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi or at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi or in any other Government Hospital on the question whether applicant had undergone any Lasik surgery or is having any other problem as per the medical requirement of the Railways for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (hereinafter referred to as ALP) and his case may be considered for appointment to the said post on the basis of medical report given by an independent medical board. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh, had advertised 12 posts of Apprentices Assistant Loco Pilot (hereinafter referred to as AALP) in the year 2008.Applicant appeared and was selected and even offer of appointment was issued t...
M/S. Jabalpur Motors Ltd Vs. Cce, Indore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
PER: MATHEW JOHN, J. 1. This appeal is against an impugned order dated 10.11.2010 issued by Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of two appeals filed by Revenue against two orders passed by the adjudicating authority.2. The matter arose from two different show cause notices as under:- Sl.No. SCN No. and date Noticee Party to whom service was provided Tax demanded Period involved 1. V(ST)15-64/07-Adj.II/1461 dt. 5.6.08 M/s. Jabalpur Motors Ltd., Bamhori Maruti Finance Ltd 827838 09/04 to 03/06 2. V(ST)15.66/08-Adj.II/28490 dt. 21.10.08 M/s. Jabalpur Motors Ltd., New Siyaganj ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank 1122722 07/03 to 03/05 3. In respect of the matter dealt with in the first SCN the appellants were assisting Maruti Finance Ltd. in the process of granting motor vehicle loans to the customers of Maruti Udyog Ltd. They received commission from Maruti Finance Ltd for the services provided to them. The appell...
M/S Packaging India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Meerut
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-2012
Per: Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Both sides submit that there is no confirmation of demand of duty in the present proceedings, requiring any dispensation with the pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The impugned order denies the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003, an area based exemption notification. 2. It is seen that the impugned order was also challenged by the appellant before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Vide their order dated 14.12.2010, the petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court was dismissed with direction to the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal alongwith stay petition.. It also stands recorded by the Hon’ble High Court that until one month from the date of passing of the order and until the stay application is deci...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›