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.
C.K. Sharma Vs. the President Indian Council of Agricultural Research ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Mr. C. K. Sharma, the applicant herein, is seeking intervention of the Tribunal to quash and set aside the order dated 11.07.2008 (Annexure-A228) whereby the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, have compulsorily and prematurely retired the applicant from service of the ICAR. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Tribunal in OA No.1748/2009 decided on 9.07.2009, the first respondent has issued order dated 25.08.2009 (Annexure-A236), wherein, the President of the ICAR has approved the issuance of the said order and the applicant’s request/representation to reconsider his premature retirement was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the action, and assailing those orders, the applicant is before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Tribunals Act, 1985, with the following relief (s):- “8.1 That the impugned order dt. 11.07.2008 of premature retirement of ...
Deepak Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A) 1. Shri Deepak Sharma, the applicant herein, is seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 9.6.2010 (Annex.-P1) wherein the respondents refused to reconsider /review their action on his request for acceptance of voluntary retirement sought by him after completion of 22 years of service. Feeling aggrieved and assailing the said order dated 9.6.2010, the applicant is before this Tribunal with the following prayers: “a. that the present OA be allowed; b. that the Respondents be directed to produce the original records pertaining to the voluntary retirement of the applicant and the issuance of the impugned orders for perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. c. that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned action/order dated 09.06.2010 of the respondents refusing to reconsider it action/order and to treat the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement as resignation w...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Mcd and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Applicant has sought the following relief:- “(i) To quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 29.06.2010. To direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to forward service book and dossier of applicant to respondent No.3 after counting his past service rendered in Chandigarh Education Department and treating him under old pension scheme. To direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to give all benefits to the applicant as given to the other similarly placed Assistant Teacher (Primary) appointed under post code 013/2002.” 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that he was working as JBT Teacher on contract basis in the Department of Education, Chandigarh. After getting NOC from Chandigarh, he applied for the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to the advertisement given by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as DSSSB) for recruitment in MCD. He joined the post of Assistant Teacher in post code 0163/04 as selection...
M/S Midi Extrusions Ltd Vs. Cc, New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. The Appellants imported two consignments of aluminium alloy billets and filed two Bills of Entry for home consumption bearing Nos. 447920 and 447923 dated 1.9.2005 for clearing the goods. The Customs EDI systems assessed the Bill of Entry showing Basic Customs Duty at the rate of 7.5%, the Appellants paid Custom duties on the said Bills of Entry based on such assessment. 2. But actually the Customs duty was reduced from 7.5% to 3.75% vide Notification No. 79/2005 which came into force on 1st September 2005 i.e. the date of filing of the Bills of Entry. When the importer went for clearing of the goods from the shed and a final print outs of the Bills of Entry were taken the Bills of Entry were seen assessed adopting the new rate of 3.75% which had come into force on 1st September 2005 itself. The importer took delivery of the goods and also the final print out of the Bills of Entry showing the new lower rate and thereafter filed an application fo...
Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi Vs. M/S. Fankaar Interiors Pvt. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Per Archna Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the respondents appeal, Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned DR appearing for the Revenue and Shri A.K. Batra, learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. As per facts on record, the respondents filed an application on 27.4.05 for refund of Rs.5,44,421/- on the ground that the said amount stands wrongly deposited by them as Service Tax under the impression that the said activities undertaken by them amounts to providing construction services. However, subsequently, they were advised that the activities carried out by them does not amount to construction services inasmuch as they were carrying out the various works as per drawings and blue print supplied to them by the architects and interior decorators appointed by their clients directly. 3. They were issued a SCN proposi...
Union of India Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
REVA KHETRAPAL, J. IA No.21069/2011 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC) 1. By way of present application, an anti-suit injunction is sought by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from pursuing Claim No.2009, Folio 1382 filed in the High Court of Justice, Queen‟s Bench Division, Commercial Court, London. The aforesaid application is filed in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction instituted by the Plaintiff to restrain the above named Defendant from pursuing the aforesaid claim in London in relation to the issue and matter already finally determined by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India by its judgment and order dated 11.05.2011 between the parties. 2. The chronological factual matrix leading to the institution of the suit in which the present application is instituted is delineated as follows. 3. The Union of India, the Plaintiff herein, as the owner of natural resources including petroleum in the territorial waters of India, through th...
institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences Vs. Govt. of Nct of D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
GITA MITTAL, J. “Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex” (Regard for public welfare is the highest law) 1. The present case reinforces the principle that adjudication on a factual situation by strict application of law would maximise public welfare. 2. By this order I propose to dispose of IA No. 4518/2006 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and IA No.8011/2006 (under Section 151 of the CPC) filed by the plaintiff. Identical questions of fact would arise for the consideration of both applications. Similar legal objections have been urged by the private defendant to these applications. The same are accordingly being taken up together for the purpose of consideration and disposal. 3. The present suit has been filed by IHBAS against the Government of NCT of Delhi (Secretary-Land and Building Deptt.); Delhi Development Authority and Land and Development Department, Office of the Ministry of Works and Housing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi as defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The plaintiff h...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd, New Delhi Vs. Rani Sharma New Delhi
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President, J. 1. The facts of the are that the complainant owned a car for which he obtained Private Car Package Policy on 25.1.2008 from the OP Insurance Company. Copy of the policy is available at page 44-45 of the record. The car was stolen on the intervening night of 31.1.2008 and 1.2.2008 and the Complainant lodged an FIR(copy Annexure D)of theft on 2.2.2008 at Police Station Dilshad Garden, New Delhi. The police failed to trace it. The untraced report is available on record(Copy Annexure D-1). The complainant thereafter lodged a claim before the OP Insurance Co. for Rs.5,50,000/- but the OP Insurance Co. did not settle the claim within the stipulated period. 2. Feeling weary with the attitude of the OP, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, subsequent to which, the OP paid an amount of Rs.5,49,000/- towards the claim of the complainant. The OP opposed the claim and filed a written version. 3. The Trial Forum found the OP deficient in servi...
Ms Salvia International Vs. Aimil Pharmaceuticals (India).
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-2012
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.3. Whether the judgment should be Yes. reported in the Digest?HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)1. The plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs.48,54,472.87 in this Summary Suit, under Order-37, Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm, engaging itself in the business of advertising on behalf of its clients. The defendant, a limited company, had entered into a commercial transaction, under which, according to the plaintiff, various release orders were issued on 12.02.2005, 2.3.2005 & 7.6.2005, for advertisement and publicity of its products with a programme "BHAKTI ARADHANA" in the Doordarshan National Network. The plaintiff contends having ensured that the publicity and advertisement in the concerned channel was broadcast.3. The plaintiff refers to 18 invoices issued from time to time on the defendant which are CS (OS) 1244/200...
Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. This application has been filed on the grievance of the applicant that although on merit he had secured high marks and was eligible for appointment on the post of Inspector (Central Excise), Inspector (Preventive Officer) and Inspector (Posts), his candidature has been cancelled on the ground that though his name was recommended for the post of SI(CBI) he could not make the grade as his height was less than the prescribed limit. 2. The applicant has made the following prayer:- “(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.5.2009 and declare the action of the SSC to have called for revised option before interview, notwithstanding the fact that it was advertised in the employment news that the option exercised in the application for Main Examination shall be final, as illegal. (b) Direct the respondents to offer the applicant appointment in the next preferred choice as per merit of the candidate. (c) Direct the respondents to grant the applican...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »