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.
Gunjan Sinha JaIn and Others Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners seek the quashing of the notice dated 23.12.2011 issued by the High Court of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DHC’) whereby, on the basis of performance in the Delhi Judicial Service (Preliminary) Examination (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said DJS Exam’) held on 18.12.2011, 276 candidates have been short-listed for being provisionally admitted to the Delhi Judicial Service Examination (Written), subject to verification of their eligibility. The petitioners also seek a writ directing the DHC to evaluate the marks afresh of all the candidates who appeared for the said DJS Exam based on the corrections/ deletions/ amendments to the questions and answer keys. The petitioners also pray that the DHC be restrained from conducting the Delhi Judicial Service Examination (Main) till the entire results of the said DJS Exam are processed afresh. 2. The DHC had, in September 2011, issued a public n...
Kamla Rani Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
HIMA KOHLI,J (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing the communication dated 27.10.2010 and 12.11.2010 issued by the respondent/DDA rejecting her application for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold in respect of property measuring 325 sq. mtrs. situated at Plot No.7, Pocket-I, Block-A, Sector-29, Rohini Residential Scheme, Rohini, Delhi and for further directions to respondent/DDA to convert the lease hold rights of the subject premises to free hold. 2. Though pleadings in the matter are complete, during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has filed an application registered as C.M. No.17620/2011 stating inter alia that the subject property was originally allotted to one Sh. Dal Chand, who had expired on 27.05.1998. He was survived by his wife, 5 sons and 3 daughters. One of the legal heirs of Dal Chand, namely, Sh. Sri Niwas had pre-deceased Dal Chand. All the legal heirs of Late Sh. Dal Chand except the legal...
Messrs Ijm-gayatri Joint Venture Vs. National Highways Authority of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
ORDER: 1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (`Act’) is to the majority Award dated 24th December 2005 of the Arbitral Tribunal whereby the claims of the Petitioner arising out of the award of the work of Four-Laning of the Ongole - Chilakaluripet section on NH -5 in the State of Andhra Pradesh by an Agreement dated 25th May 2001 were rejected. 2. Since one of the principal grounds of challenge to the impugned majority Award is on the ground of bias, other facts are not being detailed in this order. 3. The three-member Arbitral Tribunal comprised of Mr. Jagdish Panda, the Presiding Arbitrator, Justice S.S. Sodhi, Co-arbitrator (a nominee of the Petitioner) and Mr. L.R. Gupta, Co-arbitrator [a nominee of the Respondent National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)]. Mr. Jagdish Panda was appointed as Presiding Arbitrator by a letter dated 29th December 2004 of the Indian Roads Congress (`IRC’) in keeping with the proce...
Girish Kumar Vs. Uoi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 4136/2012 (exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 1893/2012 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.04.2011 passed in OA 1263/2011 as also the order dated 26.05.2011 passed in the review application being RA 159/2011, both of which were dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of removal which had been passed by the disciplinary authority on 02.04.2007 and had been confirmed by the appellate authority on 30.07.2007. His revision petition was also rejected by the revisional authority on 11.12.2008. 2. The petitioner was working as Junior Intelligence Officer -I/ Mechanical Transport. He received a charge-sheet vide memorandum dated 25.01.2006 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The charge framed against the petitioner read as under:-“That said Sh. Girish Kumar, while working as JTO-MT in SIB-Jaipur left his headquarte...
Daljit Singh, Delhi Vs. M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd, Through Its Br ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. Complaint case bearing No.14/2011 filed before the District Forum, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi by the Complainant was dismissed in complainants default vide order dated 27.7.2011. Thereafter the complainant filed an application for restoration, as stated by the Counsel for the appellant complainant, which be withdrew on 25.11.2011. 2. That is what brings the Appellant Complainant in appeal before this Commission. 3. We have heard Shri Sanjiv Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage. 4. It has been the consistent policy of the courts to allow a little latitude, so that parties may contest the case on merits and an effective order may be passed. Adopting the same policy, we are inclined to allow the appeal for contesting the case on merits. We, therefore, order that the appeal be restored to its original number, and be decided on merits. 5. The case is remanded back to the District Forum Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi and Appellant Comp...
Pradip Kumar Dey and Others Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary t ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
M.L. CHAUHAN: 1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of both these OAs, as the question involved in these OAs is the same. 2. The grievance raised by the applicants in OA-96/2011 is that the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer should not be held without making regular promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineer from a seniority quota and the respondents may be directed to take immediate steps for filling up the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis against the seniority quota, whereas the grievance of the applicants in OA-1026/2011 is regarding impugned notice dated 5.11.2009 (Annexure A-1) whereby the respondents have undertaken to fill up the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and (Electrical) by way of LDCE quota and it has been prayed that the same be filled in from seniority quota. 3. In order to decide the matter in controversy, few relevant facts may be noticed. As per the existing recruitment...
Nagendra Kumar Vs. Union of India (The Secretary to the Government of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
1. By way of this Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) That order dt. 05.05.2005 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Sr. Suptd. of Post Offices, Mathura Division, Mathura, canceling candidature of compassionate appointment of applicant on illegitimate and non-tenable grounds casting repercussion on his Educational Certificate may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set-aside by the Hon’ble Tribunal. (b) That the respondents may further be directed to provide compassionate appointment, to the applicant to Group ‘D’ post for which he was approved by Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow, vide its order No.Bharti-5/14/94/7 dated 12.09.1997 (Annexure A-2) (c) That as directed in para 6 and 7 of Hon’ble Tribunal order dt. 28.09.2006 (Annexure A-4), the Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow, may be redirected to institute proper inquiry on the lines direct...
Nagachandran Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Sta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. The applicant joined the Indian Statistical Service on 05.05.1999. He was promoted to the Senior Time Scale on 22.09.2005. He was placed under suspension on 04.08.2009. The suspension order was revoked on 13.08.2010. 2. The applicant has filed this O.A. with the following prayer:- “8.1 to allow the present application; 8.2 to quash the impugned Order of Revocation of Suspension (Annexure : A-1) as bad in law inasmuch as it is detrimental to the Applicant; 8.3 to declare that the period spent by the Applicant on suspension (04.08.2009 to 13.08.2010) should be treated as duty for all purposes; 8.4 to direct the Respondent Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation to pay the Applicant full salary for the periods spent by the Applicant on suspension (04.08.2009 to 13.08.2010) immediately; 8.5 to direct the Respondent Ministry to pay the Applicant interest @18% per annum, compounded monthly, on the arrears of pay that is due to the Applican...
Cce, Lucknow Vs. M/S Eggro Fibers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Per Mathew John, j. 1. The Respondents are manufacturers of excisable goods. They have been paying excise duty following the procedure laid down in Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. During January 2005, the Respondents were required to pay duty amounting to Rs. 44312/- which they did not pay though they filed ER-1 return showing that such amount is due. Later they paid the amount on 30-03-05. Revenue issued SCN demanding interest on delayed payment as was provided under Rule 8 (3) of the said Rules and also proposing a penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The SCN was adjudicated confirming interest amount of Rs.44312/-, that is equal to the amount of duty defaulted for a period of 53 days and also imposed penalty of Rs. 44312/- under Rule 25 (1) (a) of the said rules. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the Respondents filed appeal with Commissioner (Appeal). The Commissioner (Appeal) ordered that interest is to be reworked at 2% per month or 24% per year. He also...
Cce, Meerut-i Vs. M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. Two appeals filed by Revenue against two different orders involving the same issue are being decided in this proceeding. 2. M/s BSNL is a company formed with effect from 01-11-2000 by carving out the business that was carried on prior to that date by Department of Telecommunications of the Government of India. These matters relate to delay in payment of service tax for the period of Oct 2000 to June 2001, covered by two Show Cause Notices. 3. The tax amounts involved in these cases have already been deposited. Presently the dispute is about interest and penalty. The appellate authority waived in both the cases the demand for interest but confirmed penalty of Rs. 1000/- in one case and Rs.10,000/- in another case. Revenue is in appeal against dropping of interest and reduction in penalty ordered by Commissioner (Appeal). The Respondents prays for waiver of penalty by filing cross-objections. 4.The submission of Revenue is that interest is a statutory liability an...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »