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.
Divyash Pandit Vs. the Management of National Council for Cement and B ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.4.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 8451/2009. The brief facts of the case can be summarized as under: The appellant was employed as a Graduate Engineer Trainee with the respondent in February, 1982. On completion of training he was appointed in the category of “NCB Cadre Official Level M”. A charge-sheet dated 21.7.1986 was issued to the appellant and pursuant to the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer, he was removed from the service on 29.1.1987. The appeal filed by him having been dismissed on 29.4.1989, an industrial dispute was raised by him which was referred to the Labour Court. Vide order dated 8.4.1996 an award was passed declaring the domestic inquiry invalid and directing reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages. WP(C) 3724/1996 was filed by the respondent challenging the award passed by the Labour Court. Vide order dated 2.12.2002, this Court r...
Ramana Industries Represented by Its Authorized Representative K. Raha ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
This application is filed challenging the order in Preceeding No: T-7/YNPCB/F.19425/MMN/Compl/2011-1 dated 13.09.2011 of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (R-1), whereunder the applicant was directed, while exercising provision under section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as amended in 1987, directing the concerned authority to stop the power supply to the unit of the applicant with immediate effect. This was preceded by an order of even dated 13.09.2011, asking the applicant to close down the unit with immediate effect. There is no necessity of going through all the details. The only controversy arisen in this matter is as to whether the location of the unit falls within CRZ or not .When the matter came up for hearing on 4th January, 2012 the following order was passed: The appellant, Party in person has drawn our attention to the rejoinder and the letter dated 15.12.2011 issued by the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Manag...
Shri Devender Kumar Gupta Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
(ORAL) Shri M.L. Chauhan: The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: (i) issue direction to the Respondent to grant the promotion to the next higher grade for the post of O.S. (Hindi) w.e.f. from Feb. 2004 and for the post of Manager (Hindi) w.e.f. 01.02.2012 as per the Rules to the applicant; (ii) direct the Respondent to transmit all the records before this Hon’ble Tribunal; (iii) grant the costs of this O.A. in favour of the applicant; (iv)grant any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.” 2. When the matter was listed on 20.3.2012, after hearing the learned counsel for applicant, it was adjourned to 28.3.2012 at his request, as he sought sometime to place on record the copy of the Apex Court’s judgment whereby it has been held that promotion can be given with retrospective effect. When the matter was heard today, learned counsel for applicant has fail...
Dr. Dhum Singh Vs. Shri Shashi Kant Sharma Secretary to Govt. of India
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) This Contempt Petition was filed by the applicant on 24.01.2012 making a single person Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, as the opposite party respondent/alleged contemnor. The petitioner had earlier filed Contempt Petition No.46/2012, making three persons as respondents/alleged contemnors. However, during the course of hearing on 18.01.2012, the Bench had observed that the applicant had impleaded three respondents in the Contempt Petition without specifying as to who, out of those three respondents, was responsible as per the Rules of Business, to implement the order passed in his favour in OA No. 1620/2011. Therefore, his Contempt Petition was dismissed, with an observation that the petitioner may file a fresh Contempt Petition by specifying as to against whom he was seeking the relief. 2. Thereafter, this Contempt Petition has been filed, in which he has alleged that through the judgment in order dated 07.09.2011 passed in his OA No.1620...
Om Prakash Verma Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry o ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) 1. The applicant is before us in this fourth round of litigation. He had earlier come before this Tribunal first in the OA No.2551/2000, and then in OA-1482/2005, in which orders had been pronounced respectively on 02.08.2001 and on 04.09.2006. Thereafter, in the third round he had filed a Contempt Petition No.224/2007 in OA No.1482/2005, which came to be disposed of an year later on 05.09.2007. This being the fourth round of litigation by the same applicant, we have to first examine as to the extent of the overlapping between the reliefs as prayed for by him in the second OA No.1482/2005, which reliefs were found to have been satisfied while dismissing his Contempt Petition, and the reliefs as now prayed for by him in the present OA. 2. The first OA of the applicant No.2551/2000 had been filed on account of clubbing of pay scales in Delhi Police, and also for parity not having been accorded in the pay scale of ASI (Drivers) at par with the Grade-I Staff Car Dr...
Hayat Ram Retired Asi (Ex.) of Delhi Police Vs. Gnct of Delhi Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) : This Application is directed against the order dated 3.5.2011, as at Annexure A-1, passed by the respondent no.2 and the proceedings of Departmental Screening Committee on the basis of which the order dated 3.5.2011 has been so issued. 2. The applicant’s grievance is that the Departmental Screening Committee erred in not considering the name of the applicant for the grant of 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short ‘MACPS’). 3. The applicant initially joined Delhi Police as Constable (Executive) on 15.7.1976. He has retired on 30.6.2010 after attaining the age of superannuation. The applicant’s case is that he was to be given 2nd ACP w.e.f. 15.7.2000 after completion of 24 years of service under the old ACP Scheme of 1999. The same was, however, deferred by 20 days on account of the punishment of censure awarded to him vide order dated 4.2.2000. He was given the benefit of ACP S...
Shri Rajender Kumar, Lab Attendant Vs. the Director, National Institut ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has sought direction to the respondents No.1 and 2 for review of the case of the applicant for promotion to the existing vacant post of Laboratory Assistant instead of filling of the post by direct recruitment for which they have already put up an advertisement calling applications with last date on 31.12.2010. 2. It is submitted by the applicant that he has been working as Lab Attendant in the Institute since 1987. Earlier the post of Laboratory Assistant used to be filled by way of promotion of Lab Attendant with 2 years of service but as per the existing recruitment rules, the post of Laboratory Assistant is required to be filled by way of direct recruitment. The applicant had given representation to the Director, National Institute of Health and Family Welfare dated 01.07.2004 followed by other representations (page 17 onwards) for revising the recruitment rules in order to make it promotional post, whereupon he was informed vide letter dat...
Mohd. TahsIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. As per facts on record, the Customs officers intercepted one truck on 24.7.06, coming towards Faizabad. Four persons were found to be sitting in the vehicle. On being questioned, driver of the vehicle deposed that the zinc was loaded in the vehicle from a place beyond Adapur village at Indo-Nepal border. Search of the truck resulted in recovery of 162 bags of zinc. Revenue by entertaining the view that the said goods stand smuggled from Nepal, seized the same along with seizure of the truck. 2. During post seizure investigation, statement of various persons including the driver of the truck were recorded. Shri Rajendra Prasad, driver of the vehicle, deposed that he had loaded 162 bags of zinc in the vehicle from a place which is near Indo-Nepal boarder. He further stated that the said zinc was brought from Nepal by truck and the same were subsequently loaded in the truck. The statement of other cleaner of the truck was also to the same effect. 3. Further inqu...
Deepak Kumar and Others Vs. State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT (Oral) Crl.M.A.No.3882/2012(exemption) in Crl. M.C. 1098/2012 Crl.M.A.No.3866/2012(exemption) in Crl. M.C. 1099/2012 Crl.M.A.No.3887/2012(exemption) in Crl. M.C. 1100/2012 Exemption applications allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A.s stand disposed of. + CRL.M.C. 1098/2012 + CRL.M.C. 1099/2012 + CRL.M.C. 1100/2012 1. Vide the instant petitions, petitioners have sought for quashing of FIR no. 74 dated 01.04.2009 registered for the offences punishable under Section 354/509/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, FIR no. 75 dated 01.04.2009 for the offences punishable under Section 323/354/509/506 and FIR no. 76/2009 dated 02.04.2009 for the offences punishable under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 all registered at PS-Kalyan Puri. 2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that all the three FIRs are crossed FIR against both the parties. 3. It is further submitted that now the parties have entered into a settlement and all th...
Gurinder Singh Bedi Vs. Dinesh Mills Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
SURESH KAIT (Oral) 1. Vide the instant petition petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings pending before the Trial Court at District Courts, Saket in the Complaint Case No.1486/1 titled Dinesh Mills Ltd. V. Gurinder Singh Bedi. 2. Vide order dated 27.09.2011 the Registry of this Court was directed to seek status report from the ld. Trial court judge. However, the report was not received by 16.12.2011, on which date the matter was listed. Vide order dated 16.12.2011, the Registry was again directed to seek the status report from ld. Trial Court Judge. 3. Now, the status report has been received and is placed on file. 4. In the aforesaid status report it is stated that the ld. MM took over the charge of that Court w.e.f. 18.02.2011 and since then the file has come up for hearing only on one occasion, i.e., on 01.06.2011 and on that date no effective work could be done as both the parties had sought adjournment. 5. On 10.02.2012 the matter again came up for hearing and the e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »