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.
S.K. Chaudhary Vs. the Esic and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
ORAL: S.C. SHARMA: 1. Instant Original Application has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i) To direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant sympathetically and permit the applicant to retain the quarter till 30th June 2012. The respondents may also be directed to charge only the license fee as per the Government rule. To allow the OA with exemplary cost. To pass the order and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. We have heard Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj proxy for Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned advocate for the applicant and perused the entire facts of the case. It will be relevant and material to state that applicant was serving with the respondent’s department on deputation post. He was repatriated to his parent department and instead of reporting to the parent department, the applicant opted to challenge the repatriation order by filing Original Applic...
Antam Dev Arora Vs. Shashi Kant Sharma and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
M.L. CHAUHAN: 1. The applicant has filed this contempt petition for the alleged violation of Tribunal’s order dated 7.4.2011. Notice of this contempt petition was given to the respondents. Initially the respondents apprised this Tribunal that in pursuance of the directions of this Tribunal, order dated 29.11.2011 has been passed but when the matter was listed on 16.2.2012, this Tribunal passed further order, which is reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:. “Item No.15 This CP has been filed by the applicant alleging non-compliance of the directions of this Tribunal passed on 7.4.2011 in OA No.356/2010. The operative portion of which is extracted below:- 8. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, the following factors are hereby declared:- It is declared that the applicant was appointed as LDC in MES on 3.3.1945 and on his deputation to ONGC on 31.3.61 and he was drawing maximum of pay i.e. Rs.180 + DA in the scale of pay of Rs.110-180. On the basis of the above decla...
Ratan Lal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
ORAL: SHAILENDRA PandEY, MEMBER (A) 1. This OA has been filed against the order of Respondent No.1, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation, Patpar Ganj, Delhi No. PPG/AI(T)/CC127/91 dated 01.11.1991 and order of Respondent No.2 i.e. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, No.F-24(2004)/93-Lab-25866 dated 23.09.2004, and it is prayed that these orders be set aside and the increments of the applicant be restored. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working as a conductor with respondent DTC. On 03.12.1990, he was suspended on the complaint of checking staff, and a charge-sheet was issued to him on 17.12.1990. Subsequently his suspension was revoked on 31.12.1990, and he was allowed to resume his duties. In the inquiry held against him, the applicant was found guilty and the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 01.11.1991 imposed punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The applicant preferred an appeal to the Regional Manager (Appellate Authority) but the same...
M/S. Suvidha Sign Studios Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. Cce, Delhi-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
Per: Justice Ajit Bharihoke, J. 1. With the consent of both the parties, pre-condition of deposit of duty and penalty is dispensed with. Argument on appeal heard. 2. The appellants are contractor. They are in contract with M/s Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited etc. for installation of retail visual identity (RVI) at various petrol pumps run by them. These retail visual identity are sign and visual indicators for the assistance of customers who visit the outlet of oil supply companies for purchase of products. 3. The proceedings are initiated against the appellants on the ground that such retail visual identity (RVI) are classified items under chapter heading 9405 6090. The proceedings resulted in passing of impugned orders confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 8,52,10,740/- and equal amount of penalty on the company besides Rs. 40 lakhs penalty on the Director. of company, namely, Anup Chawla (appellant i...
Associated Journal Limited Vs. Icra Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Suit filed by the respondent and counter-claim filed by the appellant have been disposed of, decreeing respondent”s suit in sum of Rs.46,72,500/- together with simple interest @9% per annum with effect from November 27, 1997 till date of payment and dismissing the counter claim filed by the appellant. Hence, the two appeals in our lap. 2. The parties are not at variance on facts and thus we note the admitted facts. 3. Vide lease-deed dated April 24, 1996, Ex.D-1, respondent took on lease from the appellant 4450 sq.ft. area on the fourth floor of a building popularly called “Herald House” at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg and for which the monthly rental agreed was Rs.125/- per sq.ft., to be increased by 15% on May 01, 1998. The lease commenced on May 01, 1996 and vide clause-3, duration was 8 years. As recorded in clause-4 of the lease deed an interest free security deposit in sum of Rs.66,75,000/- was received by the appellant and three months”...
Kei Industries Ltd. Vs. D.V.B. (Since Renamed And#8220;delhi Power Sup ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. The agreement between the parties having an arbitration clause, claim raised by the appellant and counter-claim by the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board was referred to an arbitral tribunal consisting of three members and the claim of the appellant was in sum of Rs.2,06,10,961.64. As per the appellant a contract concluded between the parties on August 10, 1993 when appellant”s offer as per Notice Inviting Tender was accepted. The appellant was to supply 760 km cable within the period prescribed under the contract. It was pleaded by the appellant that it could not commence the supply of cables within the prescribed period on account of delay on part of respondent No.1 in approving the cables to be supplied. It was further pleaded that payment had to be secured by opening a Letter of Credit which was not opened in spite of the appellant writing a letter on January 13, 1994 requiring an irrevocable Letter of Credit to be opened. It was the case of the appellant t...
R.P. Niranjan and Others Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
ORAL: M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J): MA No.686/2012 MA for joining together is allowed. OA No.826/2012 1. The applicants have filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(i) To grant pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the applicants w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with all arrears and interest thereon @ 24%. (ii) To extend the benefits of the judgment and order passed in O.A. No.299/CH/2007 in CM Malhotra and Ors. V/S Union of India and Ors; O.A. No.471/CH/2010 in Gurmej Singh and ors. V/S Union of India and Ors and benefits of the fitment in the grade of 7500-12000 w.e.f. 1996 with all consequential benefits deserves to be granted to the applicants as considered by this bench in O.A No.1514/2010; O.A. No.1528/2010 and O.A. No.1849/2010. (iii) To grant pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 as given to the similarly placed persons and juniors vide office order dated 06.04.2010. (iv) To allow the O.A. with costs. (v) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem appropriate, fit and proper in...
Chander Prakash Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
ORAL: M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J): 1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the grievance of the applicant has been substantially redressed and retiral dues have been given to him. However, there is dispute regarding payment of interest w.e.f. 25.01.2010. Since the grievances of the applicant have been substantially met out by the respondents, we are of the view that the present OA can be disposed of at this stage. In case, applicant is aggrieved by non-payment of interest, as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant, it shall be open to him to file substantive OA after making representation before the authority, at the first instance and the same shall be decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of such representation. In case the grievance of the applicant is not settled by department, it will be open to him to file substantive OA. 2. With these observations, OA shall stand disposed of. No costs....
M/S Engineers India Ltd Vs. Cst, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
Per Mr. Mathew John, J. 1. The appellants had provided the services of consulting engineers to IPCL and other parties for setting up of chemical plants. They paid service tax on the amounts billed as their charges towards providing service of consulting engineers. However, they had also incurred certain expenditure on behalf of their principals like placing advertisements for procurement of materials required for executing the project, clearing and forwarding of such material from the port to the project sites etc. They did not include such reimbursed amounts in the value of services on which tax was paid. The Revenue has made out a case that such reimbursements formed part of value of service and they issued a show cause notice demanding service tax on such value not taxed during 01.04.02 and 17.04.06 by issuance of show cause notice dtd. 27.03.08. 2. The first submission of the counsel for the appellants is that, in the case of similar contracts of the s...
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Vs. Canbank Mutual Fund and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. The issue at hand is short and thus, we shall be brief; additionally for the reason we are affirming the impugned decision dated September 10, 2007. The reasoning by the learned Single Judge is correct and each and every word spoken is affirmed by us. 2. Brushing aside the first three technical issues, pertaining to the plaint being signed and verified and the suit instituted by a duly authorized person; the suit being barred by res judicata; and being barred by limitation, the core issue was: Whether with the payment of Rs.5.5 crores made by the defendant to the plaintiff on March 31, 1999, was by way of a full and final settlement being given effect to. 3. The issue argued in appeal is premised on the said issue, which we find is linked to the next two issues which were settled on September 02, 2005 i.e. whether the payment made on March 31, 1999 was pursuant to a meeting held on March 03, 1999. Needless to state if it was opined or held that Rs.5.5 cr...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »