Delhi Court April 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.
inder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, Phq, Mso Building, I.P. Estate ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
G. George Paracken: 1. The applicant in this Original Application is aggrieved by the Annexure A-3 Inquiry Report dated nil holding that the charge leveled against him has been proved, Annexure A-2 order dated 11.09.2009 of the disciplinary authority awarding the punishment of ‘Censure’ upon him and the Annexure A-1 order of the appellate authority rejecting his appeal and thereby upholding the aforesaid orders of the disciplinary authority dated 21.04.2010. 2. A regular joint departmental inquiry against the applicant and co-delinquent officials was ordered by the competent authority vide Annexure A-4 order dated 03.03.2008. The allegations made against them were as under: “It is alleged against Inspr. Inder Singh, No. D-1/660, ASI Suresh Kumar, No. 2001/D, Ct. Anil Kumar No. 1693/SW and Ct. Mahabir Singh No. 1781/SW that on 23.08.2007, while they were posted at Police Station Dabri, one Abdul Shamshad @ Raju s/o Shri Abdul Sattar R/o RZ-862-A, Gali No. 15-A, Sadh Na...
Jasmer Singh and Others Vs. the Director Central Bureau of Investigati ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) 1. These two cases cover similar set of facts, came to be heard together, and are, therefore, being disposed off by a common order. OA-3256/2011 2. The applicant in this case was earlier an employee of the State Government of Rajasthan. He had joined service in the State of Rajasthan as a Constable in the Rajasthan State Police (GRP) on 11.06.1993. Later, he came on deputation in public interest to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI, in short) w.e.f. 19.06.2011 in the same and equivalent post of Constable, carrying the same pay/grade Rs. 3050-4590 (pre-revised), in which he was placed in the State Government of Rajasthan also. 3. Subsequently, the applicant requested for his deputation to CBI to be converted into permanent absorption, and got absorbed in CBI in the rank of Constable on 17.04.2006, in public interest, through Annexure A-7. The applicant had, thus, completed nearly 5 years of service on deputation also, before his services came to be absorb...
Ex. Constable Rakesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the SSFC proceedings in which the petitioner allegedly pleaded guilty and the SSFC sentenced the petitioner to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and dismissed him from service. The petitioner has also sought that he should be reinstated with full back wages, all the consequential benefits and reliefs. 2. Brief relevant facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner joined BSF as a Constable in the year 1990. In June, 1999, he was posted in F „Coy.”of 62 Bn, BSF and deployed at FDL “Uragali”. According to the petitioner, on 18th June, 1999, he was detailed as line party member to repair telephone line between „Z”Gali and „Uragali”which was done by the party of the petitioner and they returned at about 1730 hours. 3. The petitioner alleged that on coming back after repairing the telephone line, he went to cookhouse to have his meal. Th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. PromaIn Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Sanjiv Khanna, J. ORAL: 1. Having heard counsel for the parties, we frame the following two substantial questions of law : “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in recording that the name of the respondent-assessee Promain Ltd. was not mentioned in the warrant of authorization issued under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 112(2)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in recording the finding that no addition could have been made in the block assessment proceedings as the Assessing Officer has not relied upon any material collected/seized during the course of search?” 2. We have heard counsel for the parties and proceed to dictate our decision on the aforesaid questions. 3. Search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) was conducted on 21.11.1996 pursuant to the warrant of authorization. Thereafter, the block assessment order dated 28.11.1997 unde...
Ratan Singh (Deceased) Th: His Legal Representatives Vs. Shanti Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Indermeet Kaur, J. Oral: 1. Impugned order is the order dated 20.7.2011; eviction petition filed by the landlord Shanti Devi seeking eviction of her tenant Rattan Singh had been decreed; application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been declined. 2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. Contention is that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the disputed premises which comprised of two rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine room with open courtyard (as depicted in the red colour in the site plan) forming a part of the property bearing No.8437, Arya Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi; petitioner is stated to be the owner of the suit premises having purchased it for a consideration from the earlier owner Chet Ram; the respondent is a tenant @ Rs.17/- per month; premises are required by the petitioner for her residence as also for the residence of her family members who are dependant upon her for their accommodation; ...
Hari Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Anil Kumar, J. CM No.3739/2012 This is an application by the petitioner seeking the condonation of 26 days delay in re-filing the writ petition. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and delay of 26 days in re-filing the writ petition is condoned. W.P.(C) No.1703/2012 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of order dated 28th January, 2011 passed by the Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal in O.A No.43/2011 titled as „Hari Kumar v. Union of India and Ors‟and has also sought direction to the respondents to select the petitioner into the SCO‟s current running course or in the next batch. 2. Relevant pleas and contentions raised by the petitioner in support of his petition are that petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Gunner (General Duty) in the corps of Artillery on 25th April, 1996. The petitioner contended that when he was enlisted in the Army, he was medically fit and was placed in the category of Shape I. 3. The petitioner was, thereafter,...
G.N.C.T.D. of Delhi and Another Vs. K. Srivatsan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) W.P.(C) 2495/2012 and CM 5338/2012(stay) 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2011 in O.A. No.1188/2011. The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in passing the impugned order, had allowed the respondent’s said OA by directing that retiral benefits be granted to the respondent who retired on 30.06.2008. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has misread the provisions of Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 while allowing the respondent’s Original Application. He pointed out that the respondent was an employee of the Government of NCT of Delhi and while he was on deputation with the MCD, a CBI case had been registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, the respondent was placed under suspension and while investigation was going on and during the period of suspension, the respondent had been se...
Ritu Pran Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
Pratibha Rani, J. Oral: 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 3rd April, 2012 passed by the Inchage A.S.J., Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Crl.A.No.3/2011. 2. The facts leading to registration of case FIR No.RC-9(S)/2005/SCB-I under Section 420/471 IPC, P.S. CBI/SCR-1/New Delhi have been incorporated in Para 3 of the impugned judgment and are extracted as under:- “The facts in brief are that while dealing with CWP No.5976/2003, the Hon’ble High Court directed the CBI to investigate and verify the caste certificates of the persons who have secured employment on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Certificates between the year 1995-2000. In pursuance of the said order, caste certificate of appellant was verified. The appellant was appointed on the post of Darkroom Assistant in Govt. of India Press, Mayapuri on the reserved post of Scheduled Tribe candidate. During investigation, it revealed that at the time of appointment, the ap...
Cit Vs. Vishal Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in these two appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short), which pertain to the assessment year 1995-96 and 1996-97, we formulate the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in quashing/setting aside the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the original re-assessment proceedings had abated? 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question of law and proceed to dictate our decision. 3. The respondent-assessee is an individual. Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ambala on 17th October, 1996 had conducted survey under Section 133A at the business premises of Hindustan Agro Tech at Karnal and books of accounts pertaining to Gupta and Gupta Agro Tech were impounded. The respondent-assessee is the proprietor of Gupta and Gupta Agrotech. Statement of the resp...
D.D.A. Vs. M/S Purnima Dutta Chaudhary and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2012
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the `DDA’) questions the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2004, allowing WP(C) No.4897/1998. The respondent had preferred the petition seeking a direction for quashing of demand dated 13.10.1997 for a sum of Rs.26,21,913/- (hereinafter called as the `impugned demand’) . 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was DDA’s lessee, pursuant to a perpetual lease deed dated 21.02.1986 in respect of the Plot No. AG-17, Shalimar Bagh, Residential Scheme, Delhi, measuring 300.85 square meters. The respondent had successfully bid for the plot in auction held on 22.6.1982. respondent had let out the premises to one M/s Body Temple, through a lease deed dated 24.07.1991, for a monthly rental of Rs.10,000/-. The purpose of letting (according to Clause 4 of the lease deed) was “residential/cultural use (fitness and health centre as per DDA/MCD Building Bye Laws)”. The lease wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »