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.
Raghunath Lal Vs. the Accountant General (Aande), Haryana, Lekha Bhawa ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
1. The applicant has been denied by the respondents interest on an amount of Rs.21,000/- deposited by him in his GPF Account No.HR/PWD/14442 for the reason that his deposit was in contravention of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi, instructions dated 14.10.1997 and 16.4.1998 providing for payment of arrears of pay revision in cash and as such, no interest is payable on the unauthorized amount deposited by the applicant in his GPF account. The respondents orders to this effect dated 20.4.2010, 20.8.2009, 19.5.2009, 19.3.2009, 11.6.2007 and 24.4.2007, as at Annexure A collectively, in response to various representations of the applicant are being assailed in these proceedings. 2. The applicant has worked out the interest so payable from February, 1998 to the date of filing of this Application at Rs.77,801/-. He seeks direction for payment of this amount along with interest upto the date of actual payment. 3. The applicant who had been work...
Dr. S. Mokkapati Vs. Director General, Indian Council of Medical Resea ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Applicant has challenged memorandum dated 29.07.2011 (page 26) whereby charge sheet has been issued to the applicant and order dated 31.10.2011 (page 32) whereby Inquiry Officer Prof. R.N. Salhan was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the applicant. 2. It is stated by the counsel for the applicant that applicant has challenged these orders on the ground that his leave was already sanctioned on 03.09.2010 (page 67) and he was given ‘No Objection’ on 26.08.2010 (page 42). In his application, he had clearly mentioned that he wanted to go to Spain (page 38). He had already applied for leave on 10.09.2011 (page 47) which was signed by the Administrative Officer, therefore, the charge leveled against him is absolutely wrong and illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the charge sheet was issued to the applicant on the last date when he was being given the farewell as he was due to retire on 31.07.20...
parties : Deepika the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Dsss ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) 1. The applicant, in this case, had applied for a job in response to the advertisement in Employment News dated 1-7 September 2007 through which the Respondent No.1 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) had called applications for the posts of Auxiliary Nurse/Midwife for Municipal Corporation of Delhi, by stating the number of vacancies, essential qualifications etc. as follows:- “AUXILIARY NURSE/MIDWIFE, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Post Code-07/2007 NUMBER OF VACANCIES- 100(UR-50,OBC-27,SC-15,ST-08) Essential Qualifications (i) Matric pass from a recognized University/Board/School or equivalent. ii) Qualified Midwife registered with Nursing Council of India as Auxiliary Nurse/Midwife. Desirable: (i) Professional experience in Government or Semi Government Hospitals, Nursing Home or Welfare Centre. (ii) Working knowledge of Hindi. Pay Scale: Rs.4000-6000/- Group C Period of Probation: 2 years Age Limit between 18 and 27 years (Relaxable fo...
Jai Prakash Vs. Union of India Ministry of Urban Development Nirman Bh ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan: 1. This is a second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant has filed OA-364/2011. This Tribunal vide its order dated 21.1.2011 disposed of the said OA whereby a direction was given to respondent No.3 to look into applicant’s representation dated 29.5.2010, treating the OA as a supplementary representation and take a decision in the matter in accordance with the rules by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 25.5.2011 (Annexure A-1), which is under challenge before us in the present OA. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for applicant at admission stage and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that the respondents have not dealt with the contentions raised by the applicant in his representation dated 29.5.2010 (Annexure A-8). He has drawn our attention to paragraphs 2 to 6 of the aforesaid representation of...
Sadhu Ram Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, Baroda House ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
ORAL: MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Applicant has challenged Medical Certificate dated 10.3.2010 and order dated 18.10.2010. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to treat the whole period from 21.8.2009 to 8.3.2010 as on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances and not to treat the said period as Earned Leave. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that he was working as Guard when he became sick on 20.8.2009 due to high fever. He remained under the treatment of Medical Officer till 28.8.2009. During this period he had some hearing problem. When he approached the DMO Ghaziabad for issuing fitness certificate on 28.8.2009, he was referred to the ENT Specialist under Senior Divisional Medical Officer Shri Divya Aggarwal. The Senior Divisional Medical Officer examined the applicant but did not give any treatment and referred him to the Chief Medical Superintendent on 14.10.2009. After examining the applicant, the Chief Medical Superintendent tol...
G.P. Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through the Commissione ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
M.L. Chauhan: 1. The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(a) Direct the Respondents to follow sealed cover procedure in making promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) either on ad-hoc basis or regular basis and grant promotion to the Applicant after reviewing the Applicant’s case in terms of Office Memorandums dated 10.4.1989, 23.2.1999, 14.9.1992 and other applicable law from the date when the person junior to the Applicant was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) i.e. 23.7.2009; (b) Order Cost to be paid to the appellant for driving him to litigation. (c) Issue any other order that the Hon’able Tribunal may deem fit and proper.” 2. As can be seen from the prayer clause, the grievance of the applicant is that the respondents are not following the sealed cover procedure for making promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) either on ad hoc basis or on regular basis and has prayed that direction ...
M/S U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd Vs. Cce, Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke: (Oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad confirming the duty of Rs. 56,87,665/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the appellant and also the penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Act as also the interest under Section 11AB of the Act.2. At the outset, we may mentioned that this is second round of litigation. Briefly put relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant is U.P. State Government undertaking engaged in the manufacture of cotton and synthetic yarn. The appellant claims to have supplied cotton and synthetic yarn to 28 Co-operative Societies against the orders received from National Handloom Development Corporation (NHDC). Payment for which was made by the NHDC by cheques drawn on its bank account. During the relevant period, Notifications No. 5/9...
Smt. Gurcharan Grewal and Another Vs. Dr. Adarsh Bajaj and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
MANMOHAN SINGH, J 1. The plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit/damages for use and occupation against the defendants in respect of the flat situated at the first floor of the property bearing No.D-33, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 (hereinafter referred to as the „suit property‟). In the suit, issues are yet to be framed and written statement filed by the defendants is already on record. 2. There was an agreement dated 14.4.2004 for sale of Portion „B‟Flat on First Floor of property No.D-33, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-1100 27 in favour of the defendants for a total consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- by the plaintiffs. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of their written statement. 4. The reasons given by the defendants is that after filing their written statement on 03.02.2010, on the basis of...
Manoj Kumar Bhatt and Another Vs. Sewak Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
P.K.BHASIN, J This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(in short „the Rent Act‟) has been filed by the petitioners-landlords against the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller („the Controller‟in short) dismissing their eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act against the respondent-tenant in respect of one shop no. 386, built on Plot no. 24, Khasra No. 235/35-36-39, Block BD, Ward No. 16, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi(hereinafter to be referred as „the tenanted shop‟). 2. The brief facts which led to filing of this petition are that the petitioners-landlords had filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant seeking his eviction from the tenanted shop on many grounds, one of which was the bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop. The Controller when took up the eviction petition for the first time on 01.06.2009 had passed the following order...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-2012
On 9th February, 1999, petitioner had filed an application before the concerned Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer seeking cancellation of the acquisition in respect of land measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas in Khata No.453/Kila No.92/14/2, 14/4, 15/2 in Revenue Estate of Bijwasan, New Delhi and to allot deficient land at the earliest possible. Patwari’s report of 16th February, 1999 on the aforesaid application was sought and thereafter, no proceedings took place which had compelled the petitioner to file a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, seeking direction for early disposal of the aforesaid application of the petitioner. Parawise comments were made by the concerned Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer in response to the aforesaid petition, which has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi vide impugned order of 18th November, 2010. Undisputed factual position as noted in the impugned order, is that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »