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.
Ms. Jaswinder Kaur Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
SHAILENDRA PandEY, MEMBER (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant has challenged the respondent’s order dated 10.06.2009, cancelling her candidature for the post of Sorting Assistant of Air Mail Sorting Division in the recruitment drive of 2008 and also the letter dated 25.05.2009, directing the SSRM to take a decision in accordance with the provisions of Para 3.2 (a) of prospectus and clarification given vide Circle Office letter of even no. dated 11.08.2008 and 19.08.2008, and also the Notification dated 09.01.2002, to the extent that it provides for `excluding vocational streams’ in Column 8 of its Schedule. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who had passed 10+2 examination under Vocational Stream, applied for the post of Sorting Assistant, in response to the advertisement against the recruitment quota of vacancies in the year 2008. She participated in the written test, etc. and was declared successful in the selection process and was called for completion ...
Rajesh Gupta Vs. National Highway Authority of India (Nhai) and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Shri Rajesh Gupta, the applicant in the present OA, has been aggrieved by the action of the respondent National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) in the appointment of the 2nd respondent (Shri P.K. Aggarwal) as Deputy General Manager (FandA) vide order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure-A1) and General Manager (Finance) [GM(F) in short] vide order dated 15.2.2010 (Annexure-A1A) and has sought his case to be considered for appointment to the post of GM(F) by opening the sealed cover in which the recommendation of the Selection Committee meeting held on 21.12.2009 was illegally put with malafide intention. He has also challenged the charge sheet issued to him on 10.3.2010. He has, therefore, approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with following relief(s):- “(a) strike down the appointment of Respondent No.2 herein Shri P.K. Aggarwal as Deputy General Manager (FandA) dated 21.12.2009 and the subsequent app...
Rajavelu Simon Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A) 1. Shri Rajavelu Simon, applicant herein, while working as Administrative Officer, JPNA Trauma Centre at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 12.7.2011 (Annexure-A) for the alleged misconduct of the use of sexually coloured remarks and advances by him against three women employees. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, he has approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, with following prayers:- “(a) Call for the original file(s)/record(s) of the respondents dealing with the impugned Order No.F.Vig./2-857/2010 dated 12.7.2011 (Annexure-A impugned); inquiry report dated 15.1.2010 forwarded vide letter No.F.W.O./CSHQ/2009-2010 dated 15.1.2010 [Annexure-A-1 (Colly) impugned] and Memorandum No.F.W.O./CSHQ/2009-2010 dated 20.08.2009 (Annexure-A-2 impugned). Declare the impugned Order No.F.Vig./2-857/2010 d...
Ajay Kumar and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: The TA 1038/2009 has arisen out of the Writ Petition (Civil) No.757 of 2001 on transfer to the Tribunal vide the Delhi High Court’s Order dated 12.3.2009. The present orders are being passed under CAT (Procedure) Rule 15 in the facts and circumstances stated below. 2. The applicants are degree holder JEs agitating claims for upholding certain amendments decided to be made in the Recruitment Rules in 1998 by way of increasing the promotion quota from erstwhile 50% to 75% and by bifurcating the latter by prescribing separate quotas for degree holders (30%) and diploma holders (45%). Through this TA, the applicants are challenging the subsequent withdrawal of the proposed amendments by the MCD in the year 2001 on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment. 3. On the listed date, the respondents’ counsel Shri Praveen Swarup would submit about the instant TA having been rendered infructous as certain amendments in the RRs had already been notified in pursuance of ...
Radhey Shyam Vs. Union of India Through General Manager and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
SHAILENDRA PandEY, MEMBER (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant, formerly a Parcel Porter at Hapur Railway Station, has challenged the order dated 08.09.2009 imposing a penalty of reduction in the same time pay band for a period of five years with postponing future increments, the order dated 03.02.2010, in terms of which a penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him, the order dated 05.04.2010, passed by the Senior DCM, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, and the revisional authority’s order dated 29.11.2010, rejecting his appeal. Also challenged is the show cause notice dated 19.11.2009, issued by the appellate authority, inquiry officer’s report dated 30.04.2009 and the charge sheet dated 1.12.2008. The following relief(s) are sought: to pass an order quashing the order of the disciplinary authority dated 08.09.2009, the order dated 03.02.2010, order dated 5.04.2010 passed by Senior DCM, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, the revisional authority’s order dated 29.11.201...
Capt. Yashraj Tongia Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Captain Yashraj Tongia, the applicant herein, is aggrieved by the impugned action on the part of 1st and 2nd respondent in not issuing appointment order to him pursuant to the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the post of Director of Flying Training in the Office of the 2nd respondent. He has, therefore, approached the Tribunal with the following prayers:- “(a) To direct the respondents to consider issuing letter of appointment to the applicant without any further delay in pursuance of the recommendations of the select committee of Union Public Service Commission communicated vide letter dated 18.02.2011. (b) To consider appointing the applicant as on the back date along with all consequential benefits like arrears of salary and allowances, seniority etc; (c) to grant any other relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case along with costs of the application for harass...
M/S. Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut I
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Per Archna Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses as also in the manufacture of special denatured spirit and ethyl alcohol denatured. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the Cenvat credit of Service Tax availed by the appellant in respect of various services received by them, in relation to civil construction work in the factory. It is seen that originally show cause notice was issued denying the benefit of credit in respect of various services. However, Commissioner vide his impugned order disallowed the Cenvat credit in respect of the following: (i) Labour hutments; (ii) Kisan sheds; (iii) Vastu consultancy (iv) Dismantling for building structure of sugar house. The above credit stand denied by the Commissioner on the ground that the above services are not covered by the definition of input services as available under Rule ...
S.S. Ingaleshwar and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The present application has been made by two Superintendents Gr.II, National Water Development Agency (NWDA), an autonomous body under the Ministry of Water Resource seeking parity of pay scale with the Office Superintendents of Central Water Commission (CWC) w.e.f. 01.01.1996, the date when the revised pay scales following recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission were implemented. 2. The case of the applicants, in brief, is as follows:- The employees of NWDA had parity of pay scales with their counter-parts in CWC till implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The following table would indicate the pay scales applicable to Head Clerks and Superintendent Gr.II of NWDA, Head Clerks and Office Superintendents of CWC:- Head Clerk in NWDAAssistant in CWCRs. 1400-2300 (IV CPC)Rs.1400-2300 (IV CPC)Rs. 4500-7000 (V CPC)Rs.5000-8000 (V CPC)Superintendent Gr.II in NWDAOffice Superintendent in CWCRs.1600-2660 (IV CPC)Rs.1...
Cce, Jalandhar Vs. Zoloto Malleables
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri I.Baig, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Ravi Chopra, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Though the ld. advocate appearing for the respondent has advanced arguments on the maintainability of the appeal itself in as much as the authorisation letter was not signed by the Committee of Commissioners but was signed by the Commissioner, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits in as much as we find that the issue stands covered by the precedent decision. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Central Excise staff visited the factory premises of the party on 27.10.01 and it was found that the party was using the brand name ‘ZOLOTO-m’ on the Pipe Fittings manufactured by them under the SSI exemption notification in operation at the relevant time. In terms of the SSI notification, exemption to the specified goo...
M/S. Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Duty of Rs.32,83,102/- stands confirmed against the applicant by denying them the benefit of Modvat Credit of service tax paid on various services. In addition, penalties stands imposed upon him under various sections of Finance Act, 1994. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. For sale of their final product, they availed the services of the commission agent, and are paying Service Tax on the said services under the category of Business Auxiliary services. They availed the Cenvat credit of Service Tax so paid by them on the services of commission agent. Revenue is of the view that they are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit inasmuch as commission agent services cannot be considered to be eligible cenvatable services. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellants by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 01.02.10 raising demand of duty for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »