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.
Niraj Kumar Vs. the Secretary Government of India, Department of Perso ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
G. George Paracken: The applicant is aggrieved by the Annexure A-1 letter No. 5/23/2007-CS.I (U) dated 31st May, 2010 of the Respondent No. 1, namely, Department of Personnel and Training (`DOPandT’ for short) rejecting his representation dated 14.05.2010 for grant of ad hoc promotion to the post of Under Secretary on the grounds that (i) he was not clear from vigilance angle (ii) a criminal case is pending against him in the Special Court of CBI and (iii) the departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are underway.2. The relevant incidences and events in this case in the chronological order are delineated here. The applicant is a Section Officer in the cadre of Central Secretariat Service (`CSS’ for short). He joined the service on 06.07.1998 and was posted in the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. While he was working there, he was placed under suspension w.e..f. 06.12.2000 under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of Rules...
National Capital Territory of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary and Other ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
O R D E R (in circulation) Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) : These three Review Applications are directed against the common order dated 25.1.2012 passed in OA Nos. 2063, 2072 and 2077 of 2011 and we, therefore, proceed to dispose of these Review Applications by this common order. Paras 5, 6 and 7 of that order whose review is sought, as are relevant in the present context, read as follows :- “5. At the hearing of the Applications, the applicants’ counsel submits that the applicants would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the applicants’ representations for extending such benefits to them as has been extended to Mrs. Victoria Masey and Mrs. Swaran Kanta, applicants in OA No.1330/2007 and 1331/2007 respectively, to which the respondents’ counsel has no objection. 6. In these premises and having regard to the limited prayer of the applicants’ counsel, we consider it expedient to dispose of these Applications, on consensual basis, by...
Mahavir Vats Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Hq)-kvs and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant was working as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in Kendriya Vidyalaya School (KVS) Headquarters, New Delhi. He was chargesheeted on 10.01.1994 broadly on the following two allegations:- (i) That while working as UDC during 1992-1994 he simultaneously acted as Manager to Sevti Devi Memorial Vidyalaya, Mahavir Enclave, Palam, New Delhi and looked after the day-to-day affairs of the said Vidyalaya at the cost of his official duties and the said Vidyalaya was a source of income to him. (ii) That the applicant was also functioning as the proprietor of Show Room Sales Agency of Bata India Ltd. At WZ-603, Palam Village, Main Road, Palam Colony, New delhi-45 and the said agency was a source of income to him. 2. The respondents have placed reliance on the following documents:- “1-Visiting card in respect of Shri MK Sharma. 2-Receipt of Rs.4000/- by Shri Mahavir Vats. 3-Offer of appointment in respect of Sh. Umesh Chandra. 4-Promotion letter in respec...
Union of India Through the General Manager and Another Vs. Roop Chand
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. This application has been filed for recall of the order dated 28.02.2012 passed in OA-1154/2011 on review. It is stated that the direction given to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant as and when vacancy arises on the post of Railway Parcel Porters is in conflict with the judgments of this Tribunal: (i) Ram Singh Vs. UOI (OA-167/2008) decided on 02.06.2009; (ii) Abdul Rashid Vs. UOI (OA-319/2006 and OA-320/2006) decided on 09.10.2006; and (iii) Radhey Shyam and Ors. Vs. UOI (OA-354/2008) decided on 17.01.2009 where the claim of the contract labour for regularization was dismissed. It is further submitted that if a different view was to be taken, the matter should have been placed before a Larger Bench. 1.1 It is further contended that regularization of employees who have not been recruited following the provisions of the rules are no longer permissible in view of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court...
Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow Vs. M/S. Shyam Traders
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
PER: D.N. PANDA, J. 1. Ld. Representative for Revenue submits that on interception of a vehicle MAX Pick Up (Regn. No.UP 53T 8867) on 28.11.2006 at about 6.30 A.M., ‘Shyam Bahar Gutkha’ valued at Rs.6,51,000/- carried therein were found to have been packed in 70 Bags. At that time, 7 invoices issued by Shyam Traders between 23.11.2006 to 26.11.2006 were detected. All those invoices remained undisputed to have been issued by the respondent Shyam Traders. When the Department examined the driver Shri.Iftikhar Ahmad and the helper Shri Sunil Kumar Shukla they could bring out entire story of investigation. It was found by the investigation that although goods were stated to be covered by invoices from 23.11.06 to 26.11.06, that remained in question till interception on 28.11.06 and even thereafter in absence of explanation in that regard from Driver. That caused anxiety to investigation to find out who was the vehicle owner. The second r...
Anil Kumar and Others Vs. the State Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) 1. Notice issued. 2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State/R1. 3. With the consent of the parties, instant petition is taken for final disposal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 424 dated 25.09.2006, case under Section 448/468/471/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 2 at PS-Mansarovar Park. 5. Ld. Counsel further submits that thereafter vide settlement dated 24.11.2011, respondent no. 2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners. Therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the case further. Thus, the instant petition may be allowed. 6. Respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court and submits that she has settled all the disputes and she is no more interested to pursue the case further against the petitioners. If the FIR mentioned above and emanating proceedings thereto are quashed, she has no objection. Inspector S.K. Sh...
Ruchi Agarwal and Others Vs. Nicolian India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
1. These four petitions challenge Award dated 10th June 2006 passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the predecessor in interest of the Petitioners late Mr. Rakesh Agarwal and Respondent No.1 in each petition. 2. The facts in OMP No.446 of 2006 are that Respondent No.1, Nicolian (India) Private Limited (subsequently renamed as Nicolian Securities and Finance Pvt. Limited) deposited a sum of Rs.50,08,500 with Respondent No.3, Gulmohar Estates Limited (‘GEL’) for the purpose of booking of properties in Garden Estates, Gurgaon, a project being executed by GEL. It is stated that the amount was advanced by two cheques dated 31st July 1991 for the sums of Rs.24,84,000 and Rs.25,24,500 respectively. Late Mr. Rakesh Agarwal, the predecessor in interest of the Petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Agarwal (HUF) executed a deed of personal guarantee on 31st July 1991 whereby both Mr. Rakesh Agarwal, as well as Rakesh Agarwal (HUF) stood guarantee for the payments of the advance ma...
Shiv Murat Dwivedi @ Shiva Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
SURESH KAIT, J 1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the charge-sheet arising out of FIR No. 54/10 under Section 3 MCOCA registered at PS-Saket, New Delhi and also sought to set aside the order on charge dated 03.08.2011 and framing of charge dated 10.08.2011 passed by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge-01, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on information being received that there was a racket of prostitution in the area, involving Immoral Trafficking, therefore informers were deputed to develop this information. 3. On 25.02.2010, while the SHO was present in the Office, informer came at the office at 8.40 PM and informed that pimps would be coming in Honda cars at PVR Saket Complex around 10 PM and would offer girls to the customers for prostitution. This information was passed on to Sh. Meher Singh, ACP, Hauz Khas, who directed to constitute a raiding party immediately. Accordingly, a raiding party comprising of Sh. Pank...
Sabra Begum and Others Vs. Mohd. Rafi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J: This revision petition has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased tenant Sh. Kifayat Ali against the order dated 07.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller(‘the Controller’ in short) allowing the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958(‘the Rent Act’) by the respondent-landlord against the deceased tenant in respect of premises no. 627, Ward no.VII, Gali Masjid Fakhrulla Beg, Farash Khana , Delhi(hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenanted premises’). 2. The respondent-landlord had filed the eviction petition on the ground that tenanted premises were required by him for residential purposes for himself and his family comprising of his wife, one married son and his wife and six children, five unmarried sons and three unmarried daughters. They were all residing in respondent-landlord’s brother’s house no. 618, Gali Masjid Fakhrulla Beg, Farash Khana, Delhi. 3. Th...
Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 4th May, 2011 passed by the Learned Special Judge CBI-I, Central Delhi framing charge for offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (in short „PC Act‟) against the Petitioner in CC No. 141/2007 arising out of RC No. 8(A)/91-SIU-VIII CBI. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that while framing the charge, the Learned Special Judge ignored all the documents, which were in possession of the CBI. He states that he is not basing his claim on the documents, which are not in possession of the CBI like the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate authority adjudicating finally the income of the Petitioner‟s family members, which would be the defence available to the Petitioner at the time of trial, in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568. The documents, which were in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »