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.
Union of India Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Anothe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J 1. The petitioners, Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Anr., have challenged the order dated 6th February, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1179/2008, titled as „Kamal Kishore Dhawan v. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Anr.‟, allowing the original application of the Respondent No.1 and quashing the charge-memo dated 28th April, 2003, the dissenting note recorded by the Disciplinary Authority dated 5th March, 2007 and the final order dated 1st April, 2008 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the Respondent No.1. The petitioners were further directed to reinstate the Respondent No.1 in service with all consequential benefits and to pay the costs of Rs 10,000/- to the Respondent No.1, in view of the long agonizing departmental enquiry to which he was subjected with regard to assessment orders passed by him in his quasi judicial capaci...
Union of India and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar JaIn and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioners, Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training and Ors., have challenged the order dated 7th July, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.3663/2009, titled as ‘Smt. Prachi Nigam and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.’with OA No.3097/2009, titled as ‘Vinod Kumar Jain v. Union of India and Ors’. The Tribunal by the impugned order has quashed the order dated 2nd September, 2008 passed pursuant to order dated 26th May, 2008 in OA No.1317/2005, titled as ‘Vinod Kumar Jain v. Union of India and Ors’. By the impugned order dated 7th July, 2010, the Tribunal, while quashing the order dated 2nd September, 2008 passed by the petitioners, has remanded the matter back to the petitioners with the directions to consider the aspect of the merger of AFLEs and DFLEs and grant of seniority on merger of both the categories of AFLEs and DFLEs in accordance with...
Ex. Naik (Ta) Sita Ram Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
1. Petitioner vide this petition has prayed that impugned orders dated 19.07.2010, 03.06.2009 and 20.04.2010 be quashed and respondents be directed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on 10.06.1997 and allotted the trade of Technical Assistant. After successful completion of training, he was posted to 197 Field Regiment (now 197 Medium Regiment) in October 1998. During his service of 12 years, he worked with complete dedication and unflinching loyalty to the organization. 3. On 02.02.2008, petitioner was given a Show Cause Notice by his Commanding Officer (CO) Col Pankaj Dimri. Petitioner gave reply to the same on 09.02.2008 giving justification of each alleged misconduct. No further action in the matter was initiated by his CO, therefore, it was presumed that reply of the petitioner was accepted and the alleged misconduct was condoned by the CO. After 13 months of the above said incident, petitioner was issued anoth...
Krishna Gopal Sharma Vs. the Union of India Through the Secretary Mini ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
M.L. Chauhan: 1. This is a second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant has filed OA-3185/2009, which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.11.2009, whereby this Tribunal has declined to interfere with the matter being a stale claim. Further the prayer of the applicant that liberty may be reserved to him to make representation before the respondents was also declined on the ground that no specific direction is required for this purpose and it is open to the applicant to file such representation as he considers necessary, which upon receipt be disposed of in the normal course within a reasonable period of time. A copy of the said order of the Tribunal dated 10.11.2009 has been placed on record by the applicant as Annexure A-23. Thereafter the applicant made representation dated 4.12.2009 (Annexure A-24) claiming benefit of the judgment dated 17.7.1997 passed by the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal in OA-52/1996. The said representation was rejected by the respondents v...
Dr. Sunil Kumar Vyas Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Nct of Delhi, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
S.C. Sharma, Acting Chairman: 1. Instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs: “(1) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2009 and pass a fresh order granting pay scales of Lecturer and Reader to the applicant from due dates at par with his other similarly placed colleagues/teachers working in the College with grant of benefits of V-th and VI-th C.P.C. recommendations correspondingly; (2) Direct the respondents to work out/calculate consequential pay fixation in the UGC pay scale which the applicant had been enjoying from the start of his career as Demonstrator in the College with further promotions of Lecturer and Reader at par with his other similarly placed colleagues/teachers who have since long been paid the benefits of the V-th and VI-th Pay Commission recommendations; (3) Direct the respondents to pay interest @ 12 per cent per annum as per settled law on the dues/arrears accruable to the applicant from the due date till the date ...
Meer Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Healt ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 08.12.2010 (page 10) and has sought direction to treat his initial appointment to the post of LDC as regular w.e.f. 15.10.1982 with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that he was initially appointed in the Department against Group ‘D’ post of Stretcher Bearer on 17.2.1982. His name was registered with the Employment Exchange and had passed the typing test at the speed of 31.8 w.p.m. while working as Group ‘D’ employee. The circular dated 6.8.1992 was issued by the respondents for inviting applications to fill up 2 posts of LDC from amongst Group ‘D’ employees under 10% quota for LDC wherein the eligibility for appointment to the post was prescribed as under:- “Matriculation or equivalent qualification from a recognized Board. Speed of 30 w.p.m. in typewriting”. 3. It is stated by the applicant that since he fulfilled the el...
M/S. Gates India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi-iv
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
D.N. Panda, Judicial Member None present for the appellant. There are written submissions with prayer to dispose of the stay application granting waiver of penalty of Rs. 67,590/- imposed on the ground that Cenvat credit was taken by oversight and that was deposited on being pointed out. 2. Learned Representative for Revenue submits that for wrong availment of Cenvat credit the appellant was penalized. 3. Heard Revenue. 4. There is no dispute by the appellant on the Cenvat credit demand which was appropriated as has been recorded in the adjudication order. Therefore, waiving requirement of pre-deposit appeal itself is disposed finding reasonable ground for disposal. 5. The appellant did not appear before the adjudicating authority to defend his case. That authority found that the appellant took wrong credit of Rs. 67,590/- on a date mentioned in the adjudication order. Cenvat credit so availed was reversed on 17.11.2007. There must be a time gap between recording of credit and the date...
Cce, Ghaziabad and Another Vs. M/S. Hvr Alloys and Steels Ltd. and Ano ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
D.N. Panda, Judicial Member E/2050/2009 While reading paragraphs 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 with paragraph 5.8 of the Appellate Order, it is not possible to understand why there was contradictory approach of appellate authority to reach to his conclusion. In para 5.5, he noted that there was admitted shortage and has also appreciated that it was obligation of the assessee to account for goods on which Cenvat credit was claimed. He also recorded that against admitted shortage duty was paid. When this is the factual position, the authority in para 5.6 says that there has been no admission of clandestine removal and that was not proved by the department. He further proceeded to say that clandestine removal is a serious charge and mere shortage without any evidence cannot lead to any conclusion of clandestine removal leading to invocation of provision of Section 11AC. He also recorded that there was no demand of interest in the order-in-original. On such factual position, he concluded that there was...
X Minor Thr. Father Natural Guardian Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
1. The Petitioner is a 12 year old victim in case FIR No. 04/2009 under Section 376/342 IPC registered at PS Neb Sarai. On registration of FIR, an inquiry for age determination of Respondent No.2 was conducted and Respondent No.2 was found to be juvenile at the time of committing the alleged offence. Thus, an enquiry was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board-II. The proceedings in the inquiry qua Respondent No.2 culminated on 8th July, 2011, however the Petitioner is not aware of its final outcome. The Petitioner was orally informed that Respondent No.2 was found to have committed the offence and was directed to be placed in the special home for the period he had already undergone, which, according to the Petitioner, is around 2 to 3 months. The Petitioner filed an application before the Juvenile Justice Board seeking certified copy of the order dated 8th July, 2011 so that she could exercise her right of appeal/ revision against the said order. Learned Juvenile Justice Board vide im...
Mehboob Ali Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
SURESH KAIT, J: 1. The instant petition is being filed while challenging the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2011, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 394/34 and 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Also challenged the order on sentence dated 08.08.2011, whereby, he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. He is further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years for the offences punishable under Section 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. It is also ordered that the substantive sentences awarded to the convict shall run concurrently. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.01.2010, Joginder along with his friend Tinku were going to her house after purchasing clothes from Seelampur. When they reached near Subway Seelampur, appellant and his associate Rahul met them. Appellant asked about time fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »