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.
Smt. Nirmala Kwatra Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J: 1. The petition impugns the letter dated 29.12.2008 of the respondent No.1 Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) of termination of retail outlet dealership of the petitioner and seeks mandamus to the respondent No.1 IOC to restore the said dealership and further seeks to restrain the respondent No.1 IOC from, in pursuance to public advertisement dated 15.10.2010 appoint any other dealer with respect to the said outlet. The writ petition came up before this Court first on 22.11.2010 when owing to the plea of the petitioner that her representation against the termination of her dealership had not been disposed of by the respondent No.1 IOC, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the IOC to within six weeks dispose of the said representation / appeal after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; it was further directed that till the disposal of the said representation, the retail outlet with respect whereto the petitioner was the dealer be not be allott...
Hav. Gopal Krishan Manjotra Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. This OA was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 12.01.2010 and was registered as OA No.20/2010. 2. Vide this OA, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order of Army Ordinance Corps Records letter dated 06.01.2009 and has sought entitled promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar with an amended seniority list of Havildars in terms of Army HQ policy letter dated 06.02.1960 and 13.10.1983. The applicant has also prayed that he be granted promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar with ante date seniority with all consequential benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 28.01.1984 in Army Ordinance Corps as a General Duty soldier. He qualified for the remustering as a Clerk (Store) and was thus remustered. He subsequently qualified in all the mandatory tests and was promoted to Lance Naik, Naik and Havildar at par with his batch mates. The applicant even qualified for the next promotion to a Naib Subedar on 1...
Mahesh Kumar Abhichandani Vs. Delhi Development Authority Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
M.L. Chauhan: 1. The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) set aside / quash the impugned order vide No.F 25(8)03/ Vig./D.C./8928, order No.341/Vig./8928 dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure A-1). (ii) quash and set aside the order No.88/Vig./2008/ D.C./3055 dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure A-2). (iii) quash and set aside the memorandum of Charge Sheet issued by the respondent No. vide No.F 25(8)03/Vig./ACB/ 7831 dated 28.08.2006. (iv) pass orders for release of all consequential benefits including the promotion. (v) award cost in favour of the applicant and against the respondents. (vi) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice.” 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Junior Engineer (C) was issued memorandum of charge sheet dated 28.8.2006 whereby the gravamen of the charges leveled against the applicant was that while functioning as Junior Engineer duri...
Rajbir Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commissio ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant an ex-Assistant Malaria Inspector under the M.C.D. has through this O.A. sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Call for the entire record pertaining to the aforesaid case along with inquiry proceedings. (ii) Quash the impugned order No. AMO/SH/ (N)/11/222 dated 05.02.2011 duly passed by the D.H.O./Shahdara (S) Zone, M.C.D. Delhi, the impugned order in the interest of justice. (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of a writ of mandamus against the respondent to reinstate the services of the applicant till his actual superannuation and direct further to settle his retiremental benefit and pension accordingly. (iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondent in the interest of justice.” 2. The present O.A. is second in the series. The impugned order dated 05.02.2011 has been passed in pursuanc...
Npc Employees Association (Regd.) Through Its General Secretary, Praka ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) 1. The CP-119/2012 has been filed by the original applicant alleging non-compliance of the Tribunal’s order dated 03.09.2009 passed in the TA No. 99/2009. It has been alleged that despite recommendations of the Equivalence Committee, the respondents have failed to implement the same on one pretext or the other. The present order is being passed after considering the reply-affidavit filed by the respondents in response to the notice in the C.P. and hearing the counsels on both the sides. 2. Through the TA-99/2009 the Junior Assistants and Junior Stenographers of the respondent National Productivity Council, through their Employees’ Association, were assailing the impugned order dated 12.07.2007 and seeking directions for continuance of payment of salary in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- as per the Administrative Instruction issued earlier. Besides, directions for suspension of the replacement of their salary in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7500/- ...
Jai Pal Singh Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary Ministry of Sci ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan: 1. This is a second round of litigation. Earlier the OA-1777/2003, in which the present applicant was impleaded as applicant No.6, was filed before this Tribunal, thereby praying to declare the circular dated 7.11.2002 issued by the Office of the Director, Survey (AIR), Survey of India regarding trade test, 2002 and circular order No.439 (Administrative) dated 1.8.1950 corrected upto 31.3.1983 as null and void on the ground that in terms of the OM dated 19.10.1994 the only requirement for placing the Draftsmen in different grades is completion of maximum residual period prescribed in the said circular and not based upon the trade test. This Tribunal vide judgment dated 27.3.2004 allowed the said OA and held that the circular dated 31.3.1983 is not applicable to the case of the applicants therein and they cannot be subjected the test in the absence of new recruitment rules for further promotion, rather they are entitled to govern by OM dated 19.10.1994, which has bee...
M/S. Delta Lectronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Meer ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa ( for the Bench): 1. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is a small scale unit engaged in the manufacture of compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) in their factory situated in Ramnagar, Uttarakhand and was availing the benefit of area based exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE(NT) dated 10.6.03. The dispute in the present appeal revolves about the imports of various parts of CFL and leviability of Anti-dumping duty in respect of the same under Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. dated 10.12.02 read with Section 9(A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The said notification imposed Anti-Dumping Duty on the CFL. 2. The show cause notice dated 9.9.08 issued by the Revenue for confirmation of demand of Anti-Dumping Duty in respect of imports of CFL effected by the appellants during the period 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 resulted in confirmation of demand of duty to the tune of Rs.2,31,70,58,722/- and imposition of penalty of identical amount. The said duty stands con...
Cc, New Delhi Vs. M/S S.M. Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Per Mathew John: 1. The Respondent filed two Shipping Bills 1426317 and 1426319 dated 20-10-04 for export of Automobile Spare Parts. On examination of the goods the goods were seen to be carrying markings like suitable for Mercedes Benz and ‘SM products Mercedes Benz’. ‘Mercedes Benz’ is a trade name of goods produced by Daimler Chrysler AG, Germany. Revenue was of the view that the goods were prohibited for export in view of,- (i) Notification 135/60-Cus dated 31-12-60 issued under section 11 of the Customs Act read with provisions under Section 117 of the Trade and Merchandise Act and SO 1272 issued under the said section and (ii) Notification 1/64 Cus dated 18-01-64 issued under section 11 of the Customs Act. So the goods were seized and Show Cause Notice issued proposing its confiscation, denial of DEPB benefit of Rs.1,72,569.91 and denial of drawback of Rs. 33,483.37. 2. The adjudicating authority dropped the proposals for the reason that SO 1272 issued und...
M/S JaIn and Co Vs. Cce, Meerut
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Per Mathew John: 1. The Appellants were engaged in the activity of repairing damaged electric motors. Such work was done against rates agreed for each work against rates contracts. The Appellant had no contract with any person for maintaining or repairing any goods. They were only executing specific orders received by them. The Appellants were not paying any service tax on such activity. The period involved in this dispute is Jul 03 to Dec 03. 2. Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice dated 24-09-04 demanding service tax amount of Rs. 54,544/- for value of such services received during the said period. The adjudicating authority confirmed demand only for the value of service rendered from 01-07-2003 when the activity was brought under tax net. Such liability was calculat...
Rohtas Singh Saini Vs. Secretary General Tnai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
SURESH KAIT, J. Oral: 1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has sought to direct the respondent to implement the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006 and to pay arrears to the petitioner accordingly. 2. The petitioner worked with the respondent for 34 years and retired from the service as Officer Supervisor on 31.07.2010. On 09.09.2009, the petitioner gave a representation to respondent requesting for implementation of the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission and he was drawing the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000. Through representation, he requested for implementation of the revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200. 3. Subsequently, the respondent implemented the recommendations of the Pay Commission from September, 2009 and implemented the revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200. 4. On 15.02.2010, the petitioner made representation to the respondent, for granting of the extension, after...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »