Delhi Court March 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.
M/S. Vijay Bharat Road Lines Pvt. Ltd and Others Vs. Cce, Delhi-iv
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
PER: D.N.PANDA, J. 1. Shri A.C. Jain, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants 2 and 3 states that when the goods i.e. aluminium ingot carried by truck No. HR 38N-3274 moved from the factory of the appellant M/s. Namo Alloys Pvt. Ltd. at Faridabad for weighment of the contents in the truck to satisfy to the terms of the purchase order placed by buyer M/s. Quality Circles vide Ref. No.QC/152/2007-08 dated 29.1.2008 (at page 15 of the appeal folder in appeal case No.E-733/2010, Investigating authorities intercepted the truck on 01.02.2008 and without finding the invoice in the truck made out a case against the appellant alleging that the goods were dispatched without duty being paid. He invited attention to page 15 of the appeal folder of Appeal case No.E/733/2010 in the case of Namo Alloys (P) Ltd. to show the copy of invoice of the Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. According to the appellant the goods were purchased from Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. and were ...
Satish Kumar Dahiya Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 20th August, 1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority which was on the basis of the report given by the Inquiry Officer. He has also sought reinstatement in the service w.e.f. 20th August, 1997 with all the consequential benefits and back wages. 2. The petitioner, a Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as „CISF‟) was issued a charge memo dated 26th June, 1996 under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969 for the alleged acts of misconduct, indiscipline and moral turpitude. It was stipulated in the charge sheet that on 12th June, 1996 during the weekly checking, the petitioner was found to be absent from the duty without permission. It was further stated that he got involved in an altercation with Constable Kewal Krishna and W/Cr Pradeep Kumar of the CISF Unit and subsequently assaulted them under the influence of liquor thereby causing bodily injuries and disturbing...
NavIn Kumar Garg Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) CM 3210/2012 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 1466/2012 and CM 3211-3212/2012 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2012 passed in OA 292/2012 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 2. Initially, the petitioner had filed an Original Application being OA 1233/2011 assailing the confidential reports for the periods - 25.04.2005 to 06.09.2005, 07.08.2005 to 31.03.2006 and for the year 2006- 2007. At that point of time, the petitioner before the Tribunal had urged that the ACRs of the petitioner contained gradings which were below the prescribed benchmark of ‘very good’ for promotion to the higher grade and that the gradings had not been communicated to him. 3. On this solitary ground, the Tribunal, in the said OA 1233/2011, by an order dated 01.04.2011, directed as under:- “3 In our opinion, at this stage, it would suffice to direct the applicant to make representation to ...
Ex Rfn/Wm Jagsir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
1. The OA No.235/2011 was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 31.05.2011. 2. Vide this OA, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order of termination from service dated 03.06.2006 (Annexure A-1) with all consequential benefits and compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army in the Regiment of Rajputana Rifles as a tradesman (Washer Man). After completion of training he was posted to 19 Rajputana Rifles (19 Raj Rif) as Rifleman/Washerman (Rfn/WM). 4. The applicant was married on 22.11.1997 to Ms. Anita and their marriage was solemnised under the Christian rites. However, no child was borne out of the said wedlock. Owing to certain differences, the relationship between them got further strained. It is further alleged that the applicant was under tremendous family pressure and therefore, became a patient of Depression. 5. It is contended by the applicant that Ms. Anita, wife of the applicant filed a complaint o...
Ex. Sep. Balinder Pandey Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
S.S. Dhillon, Member: 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal award of the General Court Martial (GCM) held on 3rd June 1995 by which he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to be dismissed from service for an offence under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). He is also aggrieved by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter of 9th September 2002 whereby his statutory complaint has been rejected in the most arbitrary manner without due application of mind. 2. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 18th March 1983 in the Army Service Corps (ASC). During the relevant point in time he was posted to 898 Animal Transport (AT) ASC Battalion which was at that point of time located in the hostile counter insurgency environment of Jammu and Kashmir. The incident for which he was punished occurred on 17th January 1994 at approximately 7.15 in the evening when liquor was being issued, the Petitioners loaded rifle Butt No. 95 accidentally fired a shot killing...
S.L. Dave and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY 1. Both the applicants are Economic Officers under the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. They are aggrieved by the rejection of their case for induction in Grade IV of the IES. By way of relief, the OA seeks quashing the impugned order dated 24.2.2011 (Annex A/1) as illegal, unreasonable and discriminatory. Besides, directions for consideration of their case in proper perspective as per the relevant rules with effect from the date they became eligible have been sought. Additionally, directions for grant of all consequential benefits of pay and allowances, seniority, promotion etc. and passing any such other or further order or direction as deemed fit and proper by the Tribunal have also been sought. 2. The present OA is the second in the series. The earlier OA No.894/2009 agitating similar relief was decided vide the Tribunal’s order dated 18.11.2010 in which one of us (i.e. the Member ...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority Through Chairman and Othe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
ORAL: M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J): 1. The grievance of the applicant in this case is that his pay has not been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 w.e.f. 19.9.1989 i.e. when his services were regularized and further that the respondents have also not paid pay and allowances w.e.f. 19.9.1989 to 18.3.1999. For that purpose, reliance has been placed by the applicant on the letter dated 24.02.2008 (Annexure A/2) 2. Respondents have filed reply. In the reply, respondents have stated that there appears to be typographical/clerical error in the letter dated 24.02.2008 in which the CPIO/APIO has allegedly stated that the file bearing no.F.1(8)83/PB-IV/+3 was sent to AO/NG-III on 09.10.2007 after approval (instead of FOR APPROVAL) of the competent authority, Commissioner (Personnel) for making payments of arrears due for the period i.e. 1989-1999. It is stated that this letter dated 24.02.2008 is in contravention to the actual records and hence, cannot be relied upon in as much as the issue of br...
Jeet Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation I.P. Depot, I.P. Estate New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
SHAILENDRA PandEY, MEMBER (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant, an Ex.Driver in the Delhi Transport Corporation, has challenged the respondent’s order dated 07.06.2011 in terms of which his request for payment of arrears of wages till the age of 60 years or till he was medically examined and found unfit, has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the pleadings, are that the applicant was removed from the service of the Corporation vide Order dated 06.09.1992 on the allegation that he had remained absent from duty unauthorisedly. The application filed by the respondent-Corporation before the Industrial Tribunal vide O.P.No.263/1992 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was dismissed vide its order dated 16.10.2000 and the proposal of the respondent to terminate the services of the applicant herein was not agreed to. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed WP(C) No.4161/2001 before the High Court of Delhi, which was also dismissed vid...
Dr. Sunil Kakkar and Others Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (Heal ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
ORAL: S.C. SHARMA 1. All these five Original Applications bearing OA No.856/2012, OA No. 857/2012, OA No. 858/2012, OA No.868/2012 and OA No. 860/2012 are inter connected and involve the same controversy, hence all are decided by a common order. These Original Applications have been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i) call for the records of the case; quash and set aside the charge memo dated 04.06.1999 (Annexure-I) inquiry report dated 25.11.2005 (Annexure-V) and impugned O.M. dated 19.04.2006 (Annexure VI) with all its consequences; direct the respondents to release all the arrears of increments w.e.f. 22.07.1999 (date of suspension) and to grant the benefit of sixth pay commission to the applicant and also direct to open the sealed cover for due promotion to Senior Specialist (Radio-diagnosis) w.e.f. the year 2003 and to consider him for the next promotion to Consultant Radio-diagnosis (SAG) w.e.f. the year 2008; allow costs of application; pass any other order or orders wh...
Suraj Kumar and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Sec ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
G. Gerorge Paracken (J): The applicants Nos. 1 to 20 in this Original Application are working as Caretakers, applicants Nos. 21 to 23 are working as Chowkidars and applicants Nos. 24 to 25 are working as Malis, under the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The respondent No. 2 had invited applications for various posts including the posts of Caretakers and Chowkidars on contractual basis on fixed consolidated salary, Rs.12,000/- in the case of Caretakers and Rs.10,000/- in the case of Chowkidars in February-March, 2010. Thereafter, an organization called the ‘Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited’ (`ICSIL’ for short), on behalf of the respondents, held a walk-in interview in April, 2010 and the applicants were selected. Subsequently, they were engaged in May, 2010, vide order dated 18.05.2010 issued by the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. According to the said order, the applicants and other similarly placed persons appointed as Caretakers and C...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »