Delhi Court March 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
B.S. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Chapter II Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967, against the order dated 11.08.2011 passed in I.A. No.14024/2010 by the Joint Registrar. The plaintiff’s application seeking direction against the defendant to file a fresh affidavit as evidence in conformity with the pleadings or alternatively prayer was made that the paragraphs-2 to 10, 14 and 17 to 20 of the affidavit be not read in evidence has been rejected by the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance for enforcement of Agreement to Sell dated 24.12.1997, between plaintiff and defendant with regard to the property bearing Khasra No. 266 situated in Village Tughalaqabad, near EDPF Colony, New Delhi admeasuring about 2175 sq yds (hereinafter referred to as suit property) for an agreed consideration of Rs.48 lac. 3. The plaintiff states that in the written state...
Devi Dayal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
(ORAL) : Justice S. C. Sharma, Acting Chairman : The instant Contempt Petition has been moved for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1765/2008 with OA No.1771/2008 decided on 21.08.2008. Certain directions were given by the Tribunal to the respondents. Firstly, to pass a final order regarding the enquiry within two months from the date of communication of the order. It was regarding the first enquiry. An order was also passed regarding second enquiry and it was directed that it may also be concluded. It may be relevant to reproduce Para No.7 of the OA, which is as follows:- 7. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that a directions needs to be issued to the respondents to expedite both the enquiries. Insofar as, the first enquiry pertaining to memorandum dated 8.1.2003 is concerned, the entire process is over and, therefore, we direct the respondents to take the said enquiry to its logical ends by passing final order...
Mrs. Pratibha Saxena Vs. Govt. of Nct and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
The brief facts are that applicant was appointed as TGT (Sanskrit) vide order dated 19.6.2009 after being duly selected by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as DSSSB). After one year, she was given show cause notice dated 10.9.2010 (page 19) to explain why her services should not be terminated on the ground that during verification of documents, it was found that she was awarded B.Ed marks on 2.7.2008 and B.Ed. degree on 22.12.2008 whereas the cut-off date was 29.10.2007 as decided by the DSSSB. It was further mentioned in the show cause notice that as per Column No.11 of the offer of appointment issued by the Assistant Director of Education on 23.2.2009, it clarified that if at any stage it is found that any information/declaration and submission given by the candidate is false and any information has been concealed/misrepresented, the appointment will be terminated and he/she will be proceeded in the manner deemed fit. 2. It is submitted by the appli...
Om Pal Singh Vs. Union of India Through Secretary to Government of Ind ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
Justice S. C. Sharma, Acting Chairman:Instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs: “A. That the impugned action of going ahead with process of promotions and holding DPC for the post of Joint Director without preparing the inter se seniority of the feeder grade be declared as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, improper and discriminatory and be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to prepare the inter se seniority of the feeder grade as per law and their own admission in the amalgamation order dated 16.1.2008 and then hold the DPC to consider the case of all eligible persons including the applicant for promotion to the post of Joint Director in terms of the provisions of the relevant rules, instructions and the law and render justice. B. That award exemplary costs against the respondent No.1 Department and in favour of the applicants. C. Pass any such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and pr...
Ms. Kanchan Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary(Gnctd) a ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
ORAL G. George Paracken, Member, (J) This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 alleging unreasonableness, malafide and unconstitutionality in the recruitment policy being followed by the respondents while making appointments to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT for short) for the schools run by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD for short). According to her, classifying of seats available only for male candidates to the exclusion of female candidates is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts in this case are that the Respondents i.e. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB for short), vide Annexure-A advertisement published in the employment news dated 20-26.02.2010, invited applications for the posts of TGT in Natural Science. The applicant applied for the same and participated in the competitive examination held by them. According to her she o...
Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S Parveen Tobacco Co. (P) Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
Per: Justice Ajit Bharihoke, J. 1. This appeal of the Department is directed against the impugned order dated 24.09.2009 of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby while agreeing with the finding of the adjudicating authority that the tobacco pouches marketed by the assessee were covered by classification only No. 24039910 Section V Chapter 24 and set aside the order of the adjudicating authority confirming the demand, interest and penalty on the ground that the demand raised by the department was barred by limitation. 2. The respondent has also filed a Cross Objection wherein he has challenged the classification of the goods marked by him under Chapter 24. According to the respondent the goods marketed by him ought to have been classified under entry No. 24012090 Section V Chapter 24. 3. Briefly put facts relevant for disposal of appeal and cross objection are that the respondent M/s Parveen Tobacco Co. (P) Ltd. is engaged in manufacture of small pouches of unbranded chewing tobacco and market...
Government of Nct of Delhi and Others Vs. Satpal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.12.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, whereby OA No.2040/2010 filed by the respondent was allowed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition can be summarized as under: The respondent before this Court was prosecuted under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was laced under deemed suspension, vide order dated 16.8.1993. The suspension order was later revoked vide order dated 31.10.1995. He was acquitted vide judgment dated 29.7.2005 wherein it was held that the case against the respondent did not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was noted that the complainant, who was the star witness had not supported the prosecution and the only independent witness had denied recovery of money from him. The trial Court was of the view that the recovery of money from the possession of the respondent was therefore doubtful. However, the ...
Mesco Airlines Ltd Vs. M/S. Aviaexport and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
1. The challenge in this petition by Mesco Airlines Limited (‘MAL’) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) is to the impugned Award dated 22nd August 2005 being the majority award of two of the learned Arbitrators constituting the three-member Arbitral Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) adjudicating the disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 M/s. AviaExport. 2. It is stated that the Petitioner was to start a new venture of providing helicopter services to various organizations in India and in particular to the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (‘ONGC’), a Government of India undertaking, which required helicopters to transport its oil exploration specialists and stores for off-shore operations in the Mumbai High Sea. 3. The essential requirements stipulated by the Director General of Civil Aviation (‘DGCA’) for granting licence for flying an helicopter were as follows: (a) The helicopter should ha...
Directorate of Education and Others Vs. Ajit Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
V.K. JAIN 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby OA No. 4158/2010 filed by the respondent was allowed. The facts necessary to the extent of deciding this petition can be summed up as under: The respondent was working as a teacher in an aided school viz. Shrimad Dayanan Gurukul Mahavidyalya Khera Khurd, Delhi. On closure of the said school in the year 1996, the respondent along with other employees was adjusted in a State run school under the petitioners. He superannuated from there on 31.7.2010. Vide notification dated 29.1.2007, the petitioner promulgated a scheme for automatic re-employment of all retiring teachers upto PGT level subject to fitness and vigilance till they attain the age of 62 years. The benefits of the said scheme were also extended to retiring teachers in Government aided school retiring on or after 31.1.2007. The...
Uoi and Others Vs. Bansi Dhar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, whereby OA No. 2760/2010, filed by the respondent was allowed. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the petitioner are as under:- On 12.06.1978, the respondent was engaged as a Mazdoor in the pay scale of Rs 70-1-80 (196-3-220). The post of Mazdoor was upgraded and re-designated as Motor Pump Attendant (MPA) w.e.f. 12.06.1981 in the pay scale of Rs 210-290. On 02.10.1999, the respondent, on passing the prescribed trade test was promoted as Fitter General Mechanic HS (II) in the pay scale of Rs 4000-6000 w.e.f. 02.10.1999. On 12.06.1995, he was granted second ACP benefit in the pay scale of Rs 5000-150-8000 on completion of 24 years of service. An amount of Rs.55430 representing 40% of the arrears, consequent to fixation of his pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 consequent to acceptance of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, was paid t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »