Delhi Court March 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Prem Chand, Tgt (Sc.) Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
G.Gerorge Paracken (J) The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 18.06.2010 by which the disciplinary authority has imposed upon him the penalty of ‘withholding increment for one year without cumulative effect’. He is also aggrieved by the Annexure A-2 appellate authority’s order dated 19.11.2010 by which his appeal has been rejected. 2. According to the applicant who is a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT for short), while he was working under Respondent No. 5, namely, Smt. Sharda Taneja, the then Vice Principal, Govt. Co-ed SSS and now Principal in GGSSS, Samaipur, Delhi, made complaints dated 13.01.2006 and 17.02.2006 against her stating that she was misusing the powers of her office by not forwarding his ‘ACR folder’ or the urgent non-availability certificate’, in case it was not available. When she came to know about it, she immediately issued the `non-availability certificate’ to the applicant but became very annoyed...
Sh. Mukesh Kumar Meena Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) This application has been filed with a prayer that the case of the applicant for appointment in an alternative post according to his medical fitness should be considered by the respondents without any regard to the Circular of the Railway Board dated 25.05.2009 which communicated the policy decision not to consider medically unfit candidates for alternative appointments. The second prayer is to quash the Circular dated 25.05.2009 by declaring it as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The applicant was a candidate for the post of Technician-III (Mech.) which was advertised by the Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad vide their advertisement No. 2/2006. The applicant passed the written test and was provisionally selected. His name was forwarded to General Manager (P), North Central Railway, Allahabad. At the time of medical examination, it was found that he is medically unfit for the post. The medical certificate dated 30.07.2008 declares him fit under ‘BEE TWO...
Deepti Puranik Vs. Union Public Service Commission Through Its Chairma ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
(ORAL) : Justice S. C. Sharma, Acting Chairman : The instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs:- “(a) allow the Original Application; (b) Issue an appropriate order and direction, quashing condition No.a of the portion relating to documents/certificates in Instructions and Additional Information To Candidates For Recruitment By Selection of Advertisement No.16 of 2011 issued by UPSC inviting the applications for recruitment by selection to various posts including vacancies against Item No.13 insofar as it stipulates that Matriculation/10th Standard or equivalent certificate indicating date of birth, or mark sheet of Matriculation/10th Standard or equivalent issued by Central/State Board indicating Date of Birth, or Where date of birth is not available in certificate/mark sheets, issued by concerned Educational Boards, only School leaving certificate indicating Date of Birth (like in case of Tamil Nadu and Kerala), will be considered as proof of da...
Rajneesh Yadav Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through Commissioner of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) : The applicant a Sub-Inspector with Delhi Police was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, vide order dated 25.9.2007 on the following summary of allegations, namely, :- “It is alleged against Sub-Inspector Rajneesh Yadav No.D-1204 (PIS No.16970012) that while posted at PS Dwarka, a case FIR NO.166/05 dated 04/05/2005 u/s 279/337/304-A IPC PS Dwarka was entrusted to SI Rajneesh Yadav No.D-1204 on 04/05/2005 for investigation and remained with him till 15/09/2007. He carried out the investigation of the case in a shoddy manner. He gave the notice u/s 133 M.V. Act to the registered owner of the vehicle Satish Kumar Grover, who told that the said vehicle was sold to one namely Dashrath R/o RZ-230-I/320, West Sagar Pur, Delhi. He failed to collect the documents relating to sale of vehicle on case file. He also failed to interrogate suspect Brijesh S/o Sh. Prempal R/o RZ...
Rajesh Babu Vs. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Through Its S ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
JusticeS.C.Sharma, Acting Chairman: Instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs: “(i) Set aside the Memorandum dated 14.11.2007 in view of the submissions made herein above; (ii) Pass such other or further order(s) as may deem fit and proper for ends of justice.” 2. Pleadings of the parties may be summarized as follows: It has been alleged by the applicant in the OA that he was recruited in the year 1988 by UPSC to the Indian Broadcasting Engineering Service, and he belongs to the 1988 batch. After joining on 07.12.1990 in the Junior Time Scale (JTS), the applicant was promoted on 30.08.1997 to the Senior Time Scale (STS). During the year 2000-01, the applicant was posted at AIR, Agra as Station Engineer. A note was circulated with regard to the use of items for purposes of office use only, and if any objections were to be raised by the auditor, the responsibility was to be of the person signing the demand letter. A preliminary enq...
Manoj Kumar Postal Assistant Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Min ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) : By way of this Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant working as Postal Assistant with the respondents is seeking directions to the respondents to allot him as IPO in any circle all over India wherever surplus vacancy is available. 2. The applicant is presently working as Postal Assistant Najafgarh Post Office, New Delhi-110043. Vide Office Memorandum dated 30.4.2007, a Scheme was introduced for three years regarding Inspector of Posts Examination and allotment of surplus qualified candidates in the said examination. A copy of the said OM is at Annexure A. The relevant extract of the said OM as narrated by the applicant in his Application are as follows:- “1. This is regarding promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The recruitment rules prescribe that 33.34% of the posts be filled by direct recruitment through the Staff Selection ...
M/S. Bansal Structural Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Noida
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
PER: D.N. PANDA, J. 1. Although the matter was fixed for stay hearing, the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that violation of law should not be left unpunished. This calls for the appeal itself to be disposed waiving requirement of pre-deposit. Accordingly stay application is allowed and appeal is disposed by this common order. 2. Ld. Counsel submits that sub-rule (2) under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 hereinafter referred to as the Rule was not in operation prior to 1.3.2007. Therefore, any commitment by the dealers of the goods covered by the said Rule shall not bring a dealer to the penal consequence of law. 3. On the other hand, ld. Representative for Revenue submits that appellant being a dealer of the goods and without actually receiving the goods passed on invoices to cause loss of Revenue. It is a case of buying of the paper but not the goods. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) properly penalized the appellant. 4. Heard both sid...
M/S. Rana Sugar Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Ludhiana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench), J. 1. The present appeal stands filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Ludhiana vide which he has disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs.1,77,10,796/- along with confirmation of ;interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount on the ground that capital goods, on which appellant availed modvat credit, were exclusively used for manufacture of non dutiable intermediate product. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ethyl alcohol and other spirits, along with denatured spirit falling under Chapter 22 of the first scheduled to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were holding valid Central Excise registration for the purpose of manufacture of such spirit as also denatured spirit. The appellants availed the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs as well as on the capital goods in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. As an audit objection, the Revenue entertaine...
M/S. Rishav Trading Company Vs. Cce, Noida
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
PER: D.N. PANDA, J. 1. Although the matter was fixed for stay hearing, the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that violation of law should not be left unpunished. This calls for the appeal itself to be disposed waiving requirement of pre-deposit. Accordingly stay application is allowed and appeal is disposed by this common order. 2. Ld. Counsel submits that sub-rule (2) under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 hereinafter referred to as the Rule was not in operation prior to 1.3.2007. Therefore, any commitment by the dealers of the goods covered by the said Rule shall not bring a dealer to the penal consequence of law. 3. On the other hand, ld. Representative for Revenue submits that appellant being a dealer of the goods and without actually receiving the goods passed on invoices to cause loss of Revenue. It is a case of buying of the paper but not the goods. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) properly penalized the appellant. 4. Heard bot...
Shri Om Pal Vs. Delhi College of Engineering and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.05.2001 in OA No.1371/2001, order dated 18.02.2000 in OA No.1810/99 and the order dated 21.09.2001 in RA No.290/2001 in OA No.1371/2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi. The facts giving rise to the filing of the OA can be summarized as under:- The petitioner was appointed as a safai karmachari with respondent No.1 vide office order No.1/1991 dated 8.01.1991. Vide order dated 05.03.1999 purporting to be passed in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service), Rules, (1965), respondent No.1 terminated the service of the petitioner. The petitioner filed OA 1810/1999 seeking declaration as a quasi permanent employee and also sought quashing of the order whereby his services were terminated. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.02.2000 noted that Rule 2 (b) and 3 on which reliance was placed by the petitioner in support of his claim for be...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »