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.
Delhi Transport CorporatioIn Vs. Sh. Deep Chand Through Lrs and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Caveat Pet. No.240/2012. 1. The counsel for the caveators/respondents has appeared; the caveat stands discharged. CM No.4208/2012 (for condonation of delay). 2. This application is filed for condonation of 40 days delay in filing the appeal. The counsel for the respondents states that subject to the appeal being finally heard at the admission stage itself, the delay be condoned. This is acceptable to the counsel for the appellant. Since the appeal is being finally heard today itself, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The CM stands disposed of. LPA No.188/2012 and CM No.4207/2012 (for stay). 4. This Intra-Court appeal impugns the judgment dated 17th November, 2011 of the Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.(C) No. 5979/2001 preferred by the appellant DTC. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant DTC impugning the award dated 14th November, 2000 of the Industrial Adjudicator. The Industrial Adjudicator vide the said awar...
Parma Nand Vs. Mani Ram Aggarwal and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
VALMIKI J. MEHTA (ORAL) 1. At the commencement of hearing in this appeal, Counsel for the respondent No.1 states that respondent No.1 expired on 14.9.2009. The counsel who appears for other respondents was also the counsel for respondent No.1 and in terms of the duty fixed on the counsel under Order 22 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the counsel did not inform the factum of death of respondent No.1. In any case, the controversy in this regard is immaterial inasmuch as Mani Ram Aggarwal was the husband of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 and therefore so far as the present appeal is concerned, the interest of the respondent No.1 is represented. I therefore accept the oral prayer of the appellant to treat the respondent No.2 as a legal heir of respondent No.1. Of course, this is subject to just exceptions and the appellant will subsequently in the subject suit bring on record all the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1. 2. This Regular First Appeal filed under...
Shashi Kohli (Deceased Through Legal Representatives) and Another Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. These intra court appeals impugn the separate but identical orders, both dated 29th April, 2011 of the same learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No. 4330/2010 and WP(C) No.2173/2010 respectively preferred by the appellants. Notice of these appeals was issued; the appeals were admitted to hearing; the appellant in LPA 414/2011 died during the pendency of this appeal and her legal heirs were substituted. The same counsel represent the appellants and the contesting respondents in both the appeals and common arguments have been addressed. We have as such taken up these appeals together for disposal. 2. The appellants in both the appeals were employed as teacher in the respondent no.2 Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi and on attaining the age of 60 years on 31st July, 2010 and 30th April, 2010 respectively, were retired from service. Their grievance was that though the notification dated 29th January, 2007 of the Directorate of Education of Government ...
Union of India Vs. Modi Industries Limited and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
1. The Petitioner, Union of India through Director General Supplies and Disposal (‘DGSandD’), has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) challenging the Award dated 29th August 2002 followed by corrigendum dated 12th September 2002 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator arising out of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 Modi Industries Limited pertaining to the Running Contract dated 26th February 1979 for supply of two items of “branded Enamel Synthetic Exterior”. 2. Pursuant to the tender notice issued by DGSandD, the above contract was entered into between the parties for the period from 1st February 1979 to 31st December 1979. The value of the contract was Rs. 13,42,269.70. The delivery schedule prescribed in the running contract was at 50,000 litres per month commencing from 30th April 1979 and completion by 31st August 1979. The contract also provided an increase or dec...
Dr. Vishakha Kapoor Vs. National Board of Examinations Through Its Pre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
(ORAL) : Justice S.C. Sharma, Acting Chairman : The instant OA has been instituted for the following reliefs:- “1. The respondents should be directed to provide the copy of the discharge order dated 12.12.2011, so that the applicant can take appropriate legal measures as per law which is her constitutional right. 2. To restrain the defendants from filling up the vacancy created due to the illegal discharge. (The vacancy created has been advertised on the National Board of Examinations website on 21.12.2011). 3. To pass any other or further order which this Hon’ble Tribunal may think fit and proper in view of the present circumstances in the interest of justice.” 2. It has been alleged by the applicant that she was appointed as Assistant Controller of Examination on 9.10.2006 and thereafter she was re-designated as Deputy Controller of Examination w.e.f. 9.10.2006 and she accepted the offer. Initially, the applicant was appointed on probation for a period of two years ...
Nanag Ram Meena Vs. Union of India Through General Manager and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
ORDER: (ORAL) DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the orders of the Disciplinary Authority (DA), Appellate Authority (AA) and the Revising Authority (RA) with a prayer to set aside these orders. 2. The applicant, who was posted as Chief Ticket Inspector (CTI) Incharge of Delhi Junction, was subjected to a vigilance check on 21.10.2005. A major penalty charge sheet was issued against him on 02.12.2005 on the allegations that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification o Rs.500/- from a decoy complainant; he had not declared his private cash but Rs.2035/- which was recovered from his possession; he ran away at the time of vigilance check snatching the vital document of seizure memo relating to the amount of Rs.500/- and did not sign any papers. 3. An inquiry was held. The Inquiry Officer (IO) held all the three charges to be proved. However, the DA held that the charge of demand and acceptance of money was not proved; the other two charges were held as proved. ...
Hari Kishan Sharma Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A): 1. The applicant, initially brought on deputation to the BSNL, had been appointed as a Junior Accounts Officer vide the order dated 7.3.2005. He has superannuated w.e.f. 31.3.2009. Though the applicant has got the benefit of the IDA pay scale from the date of his regular appointment in the BSNL; through this OA he is agitating claims for grant of arrears on this account for the period prior to this. The OA seeks the following relief:- “8 (b) To direct the Respondents to consider and finalize the claim of the applicant for granting the Arrear of IDA Pay Scale for the period 1-10-2000 to 7-2-2005 (deemed deputation)” 2. The learned counsels Shri U.Srivastava and Shri P.K. Mathur would appear respectively for the applicant and the respondents. 3. The brief facts are that the applicant had been appointed as a Postal Clerk in the Department of Posts in the year 1973. He had passed the Junior Accounts Examination Part-II Postal in 1990. During the ...
Shri Narender Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Chairm ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
ORAL: Shri M.L. Chauhan: The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:- “a) set aside the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the respondent in denying the benefit of continuity of service to the applicant for the period from 20.11.2008 till 28.02.2012 and also denying the back wages for the said period. b) Direct the respondent to give the benefit w.e.f. 02.06.2008 of continuity of service and back wages alongwith regular pay scale as per the award dated 02.06.2008 in I.D.No.288/2004 after quashing the letter dated 29.02.2012 and holding the same to be illegal, invalid, improper, arbitrary and discriminatory; c) hold that the applicant is entitled to full arrears of wages on regular pay scale w.e.f. 02.06.2008 till 29.02.2012 i.e. when the applicant was reinstated in service. Cost of the proceedings may be awarded to the applicant. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Conductor with the Delhi Transport Cor...
Dharmender and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. This order is being passed in the OA at the admission stage itself after hearing the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Through this OA, the following reliefs have been sought:- “(i) To quash and set aside order 9.3.12 (colly) and further direct the respondents to engage the applicant for engagement as contractual employee in preference to the contractual employee who were employed subsequent to disengagement of applicant with all consequential benefits. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.” This is the third round of litigation. 3. As per the OA, the applicants had been engaged as casual labours under the Indian Institute of Mass Communication during the period 17.5.1999 till 23.2.2000. It is averred that their services had been discontinued by verbal orders. On approaching the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.2966/2000, the same got transferred to t...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary to the Govt. of I ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
M.L. Chauhan: The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(a)That Order dt. 28.04.2010, of the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Aligarh, in regard to suspension of process of appointment, resulting in metting discriminatory treatment of appointment of the applicant, may kindly be ordered to be set-aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal. (b) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to order appointment of applicant in the post of compounder for which he is held selected without any further delay within a reasonable time bound period. (c) That the respondents be imposed exemplary costs for denying appointment to the applicant treating him at discriminatory footing with other categories of selected employees, who were given retrospective appointments immediately after their selections. (d) Allow any other and further relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal, may deem fit and proper in the cir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »