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.
Mukhtiar Singh Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to grant grade pay of Rs.2800 instead of Rs. 2400 in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 as per upgraded pre-revised pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 from Rs.400-100-6000 (pre-revised) having been merged in the revised pay band of Rs.5200-20200 as per 6th CPC w.e.f. 19th March, 2008 to 17th November, 2008 at par with similarly situated employees applying the principle of equal pay for equal work and difference of arrears with effect from 19th March, 2008 to 17th November, 2008 with interest thereon as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. They have further prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant 2nd ACP (MACP) in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200 as per 6th CPC w.e.f. 18th November, 2008 and difference of arrears with interest since 18th November, 2008 to till actual date of payment, to direct the respondents to make payment of benefits of 6t...
Mrs. Vandana Prasad Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant is seeking stepping up of pay at par with her junior (Smt. Sudesh Pruthi) whose pay has been fixed at Rs. 9750/- as against the pay of Rs.9250/- of the applicant as on 01.01.2005. It is the case of the applicant that she was senior to Smt. Pruthi all along her career. Both of them are working as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) with the respondent department, having identical responsibilities. Therefore, there was no reason why she should get lower salary than her undisputedly junior. The following table would indicate the comparative position:- Mrs. Vandana Prasad joined as TGT on 23.10.1979 Mrs. Sudesh Pruthi joined as TGT on 17.11.1980 Rs.1700/- as on 01.01.1986Rs. 1650/- as on 01.01.1986 Rs.1880/- as on 01.05.1988Rs. 1800/- as on 01.11.1988 Rs. 8250/- as on 01.05.2000Rs. 8100/- as on 01.11.2000 Rs.9000/- as on 01.05.2003Rs.8900/- as on 09.01.2003 Rs. 9250/- as on 01.05.2004Rs.9100/- as on 01.01.2004 Rs.9250/- as on 01.01.2005 Promoted as PGT ...
M/S. Ashwani Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Krishna Traders
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Manmohan Singh, J. Oral: I.A. No.2846/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.4 CPC, by defendant), I.A. No.2222/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.1 and 2 CPC) 1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts and damages against the defendant seeking to restrain it from using the trademark MADHU BAHAR in respect of chewing tobacco. 2. The suit along with interim application was listed on 06.02.2012. The court passed an interim order thereby restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in “Chewing Tobacco” under the trade mark “MADHU BAHAR” or any other trade mark which may be deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. Today the matter was listed for disposal of the pending applications and arguments on behalf of the plaintiff as the learned counsel for the defendant already made her submissions on 29.02.2012. The following points were raised by the counsel ...
M/S Krishna Construction Co. Vs. Dda and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Rajiv Shakdher, J. 1. By way of the present appeal, in effect, the appellant is seeking a reference of disputes to arbitration after nearly two and a half decades of the disputes having arisen. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of the Single Judge dated 14.3.2005, passed in Suit No.2010-A/1987, has preferred the present appeal. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant‟s petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short „the Act‟). 2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised before us, it would be necessary to notice, the essential facts and circumstances, which led to the institution of the petition under Section 20 of the Act, and then, the present appeal. 2.1 On 27.10.1980, the appellant was awarded the contract to construct 200 dwelling units, in phase-II, at the Village complex at Siri fort near Hauz Khas (in short the said works), in connection with the Asian Games, which were t...
Ravinder Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
V.K. Shali, J. Oral 1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner in respect of FIR No. 425/2010, under Section 498A/304B IPC, registered by P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.09.2010 at about 2.00 AM an information vide DD No. 97B was received at P.S. Mehrauli from Duty Constable Satbir at Safdarjang Hospital that Smt. Meena Manpreet Kaur, W/o Ravinder aged around 21 years, R/o D-755, Chhattarpur Pahari, Mehrauli, Delhi was admitted by her husband at Safdarjang Hospital where after checkup the Doctor has declared her dead. This information was handed over to ASI Rajpal Singh who on enquiry found that the deceased Meena Manpreet Kaur was got married to Ravinder Singh on 21.02.2008. Ms. Juhi Mukharjee, SDM (Hauz Khas) recorded the statement of Mahinder Singh and Smt. Paro Bai, parents of the deceased respectively. They levelled allegations against the father-in-law/Mohinder Singh, Mother-in-law/Banso and husband/...
Shri Ved Prakash (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs Vs. Shri Suraj P ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. Oral: 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 9.12.2002 by which the suit of the appellant/plaintiff seeking partition and possession was dismissed. The suit was filed for partition and possession of the properties which were in the name of late Sh. Hans Raj, father of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 alleging that the properties were HUF properties. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit for partition and possession with respect to four properties alleging them to be joint family properties. The aforesaid properties are as under:- (i) Plot No.9 (new)/plot no.98 (old) measuring 300 sq. yards, on G.T. Road, Khasra No.35, 36, 38 situated in the area of village Bharola, Abadi Adarsh Nagar, Delhi; (ii) Plot No. 12 (new)/101 (old) measuring 300 sq. yards on G.T. Road, Khasra Nos.35, 36, 38 s...
Drs Dilip Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Drs Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Rajiv Shakdher, J. Caveat No. 229/2012 Since learned counsel for the caveator has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. CM No. 3948/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. FAO(OS) No. 99/2012; CM Nos. 3946/2012 (Stay) and 3947/2012 (for condonation of 129 days‟delay in re-filing the appeal) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 07.09.11, whereby the ex-parte injunction granted on 03.06.2011, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, has been confirmed and the application of the appellants/defendants seeking its vacation being IA No. 11799/2011, preferred under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code), has been rejected. 2. Being aggrieved, by the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been preferred. In order to appreciate the scope of the challenge laid in the present appeal the following broad facts need to be noticed. 2.1 The respondent/plaintiff is in the business of operating...
Yahoo! India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Suresh Kait, J. Oral: 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 23.12.2004 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the petitioner has been summoned. 2. Mr.Arvind Nigam, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi is without application of mind because of the fact that neither averments were made against the petitioner in the complaint nor any evidence produced against him. 3. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the complaint being filed by respondent No.2 vide complaint case No.136/11 wherein the petitioner has been impleaded as respondent/ accused No.11. 4. Learned counsel has submitted that respondent No.2 in para No.11 of the complaint does not contain any allegation against the petitioner and same reads as under:- “11. That the main social networking websites are Google, Facebook, Youtube, Orkut, Br...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Mrs. Kusum Billaiya and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
G.P. Mittal, J. Oral: 1. The Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited (in MAC APP.739/2011) impugns the judgment dated 23.05.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) awarded a compensation of Rs.8,72,000/- for the death of Narayan Das Billaiya in an accident which occurred on 27.03.2007. 2. There is twin challenge to the award. Firstly, it is contended that the Appellant Insurance Company was entitled to avoid its liability as the driver did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. Secondly, it is urged that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded towards the loss of love and affection which is on the higher side. 3. It may be mentioned that at the time of admission of the Appeal notice was ordered to be issued only to the Respondents No.1 (a) to 1(e). Thus, notice of the Appeal was not issued to the owner and the driver. 4. The Claims Tribunal gave detailed reasons for reaching the conclusion that there was no willful breach of the ...
Munch Food Products Limited Vs. Commissioner and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
ORDER 1. The petitioner, Munch Food Products Limited, are manufacturers and traders of chocolate confectionary, chocolate covered biscuits and remoulded chocolates. Chocolate confectionary is classified under Tariff Chapter Heading No.18 and chocolate covered biscuits are classified under chapter heading No.19. On both items, excise duty is payable. On remoulded chocolates, as per the case of the petitioner, which has been accepted by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short), no excise duty is payable. 2. Superintendent of Central Excise issued assessment memorandum dated 1st May, 1995 finalizing the provisional assessment. In terms of the said order, he had raised a demand of Rs.1.19.775.39/- in respect of the periods April, 1993 to July, 1993 and the RT-12 returns filed for the months of February, 1994 and March, 1994. The said order further records that refund claim for the excise duty paid in the month of February, 1994 and March, 1994 and in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »