Delhi Court April 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ram Prakash and Others Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, Nor ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Oral: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicants, numbering five, have filed this OA claiming the following relief:- “8.1 That this Hon’ble Tribunal in the interest of justice may be graciously pleased to allow this application and direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of andhra Pradesh as well as the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Chander Pal and Ors. V/s Union of India and Ors and Chhottan Prasad and Ors V/s Union of India and Ors and take into consideration full period of temporary status for the purpose of working of qualifying service and 50% period working before acquisition of temporary status. 8.2 That the Hon’ble Tribunal may also be pleased to award any other or further relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 8.3 That the cost of these proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of Applicants”. 2. It is submitt...
Sandeep Kumar Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Govt. of Nct of Delhi, I ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant has challenged the order dated 28.06.2011, in terms of which his services have been terminated under Clause 9(a)(i) of the D.R.T.A. (Condition of Appointment and Service) Regulation, 1952. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, after selection to the post of Driver (DTC) by the DSSB and on being adjudged medically fit by the Medical Board of the respondent-Corporation (DTC), had been appointed as Driver on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 4.02.2009. The conditions of his appointment and service were those as embodied in the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 and he would be governed by all other Rules and Regulations framed by DTC from time to time. While performing his duties, during the probation period, the applicant was involved in a fatal accident on 09.02.2009. As a result, on that day itself, FIR No.35/2009 in PS-Narela, District - North West, Delhi was registered ag...
Shiv Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority Through I ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): M.A.No.2452/2011: 1. The MA for joining together is allowed. O.A.No.3334/2011: 2. In this OA, the applicants (52 in number) are aggrieved by E.O.No.911 dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure A1) issued by Respondent No.4 (Deputy Director, DDA, New Delhi) in terms of which the second financial upgradation granted to them under the ACP Scheme of the Government of India have been ordered to be withdrawn. 3. The case of the applicants [who are working as UDC in the Delhi Development Authority], is that the above EO should not have been issued as they had been granted 2nd ACP, as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme of August, 1999, vide EO No.468 dated 13.02.2009, which was before the issue of the OM dated 19.05.2009 pertaining to introduction of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) of the Government. Further, while making the MACPS effective from 01.09.2008 it was clearly provided in Clause 11 of the Scheme that `no past cases would be re-opened&#...
Dalel Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. Both the aforesaid OAs have been filed by the same applicant, who superannuated as a Beldar in the Delhi Jal Board on 30.04.2006. 2. In OA 1436/2011, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: Re-fix the salary of the applicant as payable to him at the time of his retirement after granting him the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme and to pay the arrears with interest after adjusting the suspension allowance already paid; Grant post retirement benefits such as ex-gratia, gratuity and leave encashment, etc. Re-fix the pension on the basis of salary at the time of retirement and to pay the arrears of pension with interest. Grant arrears of 6th Pay Commission. 3. In OA No.2899/2011, the applicant has challenged the Memorandum dated 4.07.2011 in terms of which the respondents have given him an opportunity to make a representation against their proposal to withhold 10% of his pension permanently and that his suspension period from 21.07.1997 ...
Kamlesh Vs. Mcd and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in deciding the suspension period as dies-non vide order dated 28.06.2010 (copy of which is stated to be not received by the applicant), communicated vide order dated 09.07.2010 issued in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal dated 02.02.2010, passed in OA No.3024/2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant [a widow], who was working as a School Attendant in the MCD School, Mangolpuri, Najafgarh Zone, New Delhi, was implicated by her real brother in a criminal case under Section 323/341/34 IPC. She was placed under suspension from 28.12.1996, which was revoked on 2.11.1999 vide order dated 3.11.1999. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate punished the applicant under Sections 323 and 341. The applicant challenged the said order in appeal before the appellate Court, which was allowed and the applicant was acquitted vide order dated 4.03.2004. After the acquittal...
Ravi Kant Bhatia and Others Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council Through It ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
ORAL: M. L. Chauhan: 1. The applicants, three in number, have originally filed WP (C) Nos.18471, 18472 and 18473 of 2004 before the High Court of Delhi, thereby praying for issuance of the writ of mandamus directing the respondent-New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to forthwith promote them to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the quota of degree holders in terms of the recruitment rules with effect from the year 2000, with consequential benefits. These aforementioned writ petitions were subsequently transferred to this Tribunal when the jurisdiction in respect of cases pertaining to NDMC was conferred upon this Tribunal and was registered as TA No.1078/2009. 2. Before adverting to the main issue involved in this case, relevant facts may be noticed. The applicants were initially appointed as Junior Engineer (C), i.e., applicant on 15.7.1981 and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 on 28.6.1991. They were further entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (C). It may be stated h...
M/S Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke: (Oral) 1. This is an application of M/s Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd. for restoration of appeal dismissed on account of non compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri Kamal Jeet Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that Vide order in original No. 9-10/2009 dated 22.05.2009, Commissioner, Central Excise , Delhi I confirmed the demand and recovery of excise duty amounting to Rs. 34,83,70,332/- against M/s Sunrise Food Products besides penalty. The Commissioner, Central Excise also imposed penalty on various other parties including the penalty of Rs.25 lakhs on the applicant (transporter). The appeal against the order in original was filed by the main party M/s Sunrise Food Products and other aggrieved persons including the petitioner . Along with the appeal, respective appellants had filed stay applications seeking waiver of condition of pre-deposit. The Tribunal vide common stay order No.996-1003/2011-Ex. dat...
Shanmuga Patro Vs. Ministry of Finance
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J: 1. This petition filed in public interest seeks a direction to the respondent to appoint “Competent Authority” contemplated in Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and to frame Rules in relation to the procedure to be adopted by the said Authority for acquiring benami properties. It is the plea of the petitioner that notwithstanding the law having been enacted more than 20 years back in 1988, it has been allowed to remain toothless. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and a counter affidavit has been filed stating that during the process of formulating the Rules, it was found that owing to the grave infirmities in the legislation, it would not be possible to formulate the Rules without a comprehensive legislation by repealing the Act; that the new legislation has been introduced in the Parliament in the form of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Bill, 2011; that the lacunas in the law could not be filled merely by framing the R...
C. Rajaram, Advocate and Another Vs. Gnct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J: 1. This petition filed in public interest avers that the various authorized car dealers in Delhi impleaded as respondents No.3 to 70, who have also been authorized to register the vehicles sold by them, are in violation of the instructions / guidelines of the respondent No.2 Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi in coercing the purchasers to pay amounts over and above the registration charges which they have been authorized to collect. Notice of the petition was in the first instance issued to the respondent No.1 GNCTD and the respondent No.2 Transport Department only and they were directed to inform whether such practice existed and if so, the steps being taken to curb the same. 2. Upon the counsel for the respondents No.1and2 not getting any instructions, the personal appearance of Commissioner (Transport) and Deputy Commissioner (Operations) was directed. Though no notice to the other respondents was issued but the Automobile Traders Association of Delhi stated ...
Government of Nct of Delhi and Others Vs. Balbir Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 18th April, 2006 of the learned Single Judge allowing WP(C) No. 8620-22/2005 preferred by the respondents 1 to 3 and issuing mandamus to the appellants to give possession of 21 biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 333/3, Village Holambi Khurd, Delhi to the respondents 1 to 3 and to make the necessary mutation entry in the revenue records qua the said land in their favour. The appeal also impugns the order dated 27th July, 2007 of dismissal of the application filed by the appellants for review of the order dated 18th April, 2006. Notice of the application was issued. The respondents 2and3 died during the pendency of the appeal and their legal heirs were substituted. Shri Sultan Singh, Shri Ratan Singh and Shri Amar Singh filed CM.No.14/2010 for impleadment in the present appeal and which was allowed on 6th May, 2011 and they were impleaded as respondents 4 to 6. The counsels have been heard. 2. Gaon Sabha of Vi...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »