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.
Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S Hansa Metallics Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
Per: Justice Ajit Bharihoke, J. 1. This is the department’s appeal directed against the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh whereby he confirmed the central excise duty of Rs.1,31,89,542/- against the respondent under section 11A of the Act and imposed the penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Act. He also raised demand of interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the decision of this appeal are that the respondent were engaged in manufacture of Galvanised Corrugated Sheets falling under the sub-heading 7210.11/ 7212.11 and Galvanised Plane Sheets falling under sub-heading 7209.20 and 7210.19 of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Case of the respondent is that during the course of preventive check and investigation, it was found that the respondent had willfully suppressed the information about his complete manufacturing process of Galvanis...
A.K.Tyagi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd October, 1996 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the order of dismissal dated 22nd December, 1995 passed by the Cantonment Board, Meerut by resolution No.110 was modified to that of compulsory retirement. The petitioner has also sought quashing of order dated 18th September, 1997 passed by the Revisional Authority dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the order dated 23rd October, 1996. The petitioner has also sought that he should be reinstated and be granted all consequential benefits such as salary, increments, seniority, promotion etc. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner was appointed as a Mate in the year 1963 in the office of the Cantonment Board, Meerut. Thereafter, while working as a Store Keeper he was placed under suspension by Cantonment Board Resolution No.231 dated 16th March, 1993 on the basis of a surprise physical verification of the stores conducted b...
Manoj Kumar and Others Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
S.P.GARG, J. 1. The appellants Manoj Kumar (A-1), Rajesh Kumar (A-2) and Rattan Dixit (A-3) have preferred the present appeal against the judgement dated 23.07.2009 and order on sentence dated 28.07.2009 of the Ld.Addl.Sessions Judge in SC No.252/2008 by which they were convicted for committing the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of ` 3,000/- each. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 29.09.2002 at 10.40 P.M. Daily Diary Entry (DD) No.35 Ex.PW-17/A was recorded at police post Shakti Vihar by Const.Mahesh Kumar on getting information from lady Const.Kismat of PCR that an individual had been stabbed near liquor shop, house No.6, Pitam Pura. Investigation was assigned to SI Dharambir Singh; HC Lala Ram, Const.Sukhbir and Const.Vinod Kumar were already on patrolling duty in the area, near Dudyal Apartments, near Madhuban Chowk. At about 10.00 P.M., on hearing cries of ‘pakdo-pakdo”they succeeded in nabbin...
State Vs. Alam Ramesh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29th April, 2011 in SC No.27/2007; the respondent was acquitted for the charge of having committed offences under Section 302/380/411 IPC. 2. The prosecution’s case in brief was that the concerned police, i.e., PS Mandir Marg, received information about the death of an STD Booth owner at 9:55AM on 1.2.2007 near the OPD of Lady Harding Hospital. The body was that of a handicapped individual; he appeared to have been strangulated. CRL.L.P.433/2011 Page 2 His body was preserved and sent for post mortem examination. The police case is that on 4th February, 2007, PW30, the Investigating Officer along with staff went to the concerned PCO booth and seized one passbook, some cheques, ration card etc; statements of the deceased’s relatives were recorded; the prosecution claimed that it then discovered that deceased used to own a mobile phone the number of whi...
Bharat Jhamb and Others Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash the FIR No.76/2008 registered at police station, Saket under Sections 364A/120B/368/201/ 387/386/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the complaint of petitioner No.9. 2. The facts in brief of the present case are that on 20.11.2008, petitioner No.9 Rohit Khandelwal, appeared in the police station mentioned above and got registered his complaint, regarding kidnapping, to the duty officer, wherein it is stated that Smt.Kulwant Kuar Verma/petitioner No.10, wife of late Shri Charanjeet Verma who is his mother-in-law, living at D-144, First Floor Saket, New Delhi - 110017. She has two daughters and one son namely Arjun Verma, who is aged about 14 years and studies in 09th standard, at Gyan Bharti School, Saket, New Delhi. On 20.11.2008, as per his daily routine, he alongwith his class mate namely Ankit, left his house for school at about 7.45AM. At about 09:45AM, class teacher of Arjun made phone call at hi...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/S Jagdish Chander Khanna and Sons En ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
1. These are two petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) against an Award dated 31st October 2008 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes arising between the Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) and M/s. Jagdish Chander Khanna and Sons Engineers and Contractors (‘Claimant’) which was awarded by the DDA for the work of construction of a Local Shopping Centre at Ashok Vihar, Phase- III, Pocket-B under the Agreement No.2/EE/ND-10/DDA/94-95. 2. The date of the start of the work was 23rd June 1994. It was to be completed within 15 months i.e. by 22nd September 1995. According to the Claimant the work remained incomplete as a result of the breaches committed by the DDA. The DDA rescinded the contract by a letter dated 15th May 1996 and decided to get the remaining work executed at the risk and cost of the Claimant. Compensation in the sum of Rs.3,69,578 was also levied. Before the learned sole Arbitrator the Cl...
Brijeshwar Jaiswal Vs. Sebi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the complaint case No. 19/05 dated 26.11.2009 and its subsequent proceedings pending before the trial court, titled as “Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Maha Bhairav Plantation and Finance ltd.”. 2. The facts of the instant case, in brief, are that the petitioner incorporated a company in the year 1995 under the name and style of Maha Bhairav Plantation Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 308, Vinay Place, 11, Ashoka Marg, Lucknow-226001. The Government of India issued a Press Release on 26.11.1997 and, thereafter, a public notice dated 18.12.1997 was issued calling upon all the companies engaged in collective investment scheme to file their details. In the year 1998 the petitioner sent its reply to the Government of India and intimated that the petitioner company is not going to raise any fund in future from the public under the collective investment scheme and is going to wind ...
Govt of Nct of Delhi and Others Vs. Nez Begum Khan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.03.2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2154/2010. The sole question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondent is to be given notional pay fixation from 1984 or from 1994 when she was actually appointed. It is not in dispute at all that the respondent had been given seniority with effect from 1984. This was pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri and Ors.1993 (2) SCALE 730. The respondent had been selected along with several others for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Urdu) in 1984. However, that appointment was nor given to her. There is a history behind this and the same is apparent from the Supreme Court decision in the said case of Ishwar Singh Khatri (supra). It had been contended on behalf of the petitioners herein that the number of vacancies w...
Janajagarathi Samithi Through Its Executive President Balakrishna Shet ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2012
1. Janajgrithi Samithi, a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, has filed this Appeal, assailing the order dated 1st September, 2011, passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), allowing amendment of Environment Clearance (EC) for installation / expansion of 2x600 MW imported Coal Base Thermal Power Plant, at Udupi in the District of Karnataka. The factual scenario reveals that on 20th March, 1997 EC was accorded by the MoEF to M/s Udupi Power Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No.4) for establishing 2x500 MW Power Project. On the basis of a further application filed by the Respondent No.4, the MoEF amended the earlier EC on 25th January, 1999 and 9th September, 2009 respectively, permitting enhancement of the capacity of the said Thermal Power Plant to 2x507.5 MW and subsequently to 2x600 MW. While matter stood thus, on the basis of further approach made by Udupi Power Corporation (Respondent No.4), the MoEF once again modified the EC and allow...
Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
(ORAL) Hon’ble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicants have challenged order dated 27.12.2010 with a direction to the respondents to include their names in the select panel for promotion to the post of Guard Passenger by reviewing the panel already issued by the respondents. Applicants have taken number of grounds in his petition to challenge the select list for the post of Guards Passenger, one of them being that there are already excess SC/ST candidates in the post of Guards Passenger, therefore, respondents could not have taken any ST candidates who were below in the seniority list by ignoring the claim of the applicants who were at Sl.Nos. 59, 66, 67 and 82 while persons who were taken were at Sl.Nos. 83, 85 and even respondent No.8 was not even in the seniority list of Senior Goods Guard in the year 2010, therefore, as per criteria followed by the respondents dated 03.09.2009 (page 47), respondent No.8 could not even considered. Being aggrieved, applicants had given repre...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »