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.
M/S Aspen Online Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Delhi-iv
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. The appellants are manufacturers of aluminum ingots. The Appellants informed the excise department and the police department on 18-01-2003 that there was a theft of excisable goods from the factory on the night of 17th / 18th January 2003 and there was loss of 860 Kgs of aluminum ingots, 3412 kgs of aluminum scrap and 1009 Kgs of Copper scrap. On 18-03-2003 the party informed the excise department that the police recovered 500 Kgs of aluminum Ingots. 2. The Revenue issued Show cause Notice demanding excise duty on 360 Kgs of aluminum Ingots, 3412 Kgs of aluminum scrap and 1009 Kgs of copper scrap involving excise duty of Rs.42869.20 along with interest and penalties. The demand was adjudicated confirming the duty demand of Rs. 42869 along with interest and imposing penalty of Rs. 42869/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal filed with the Commissioner (Appeal) he set aside the penalty but confirmed the duty demanded. Aggrieved by the order o...
Nb Sub Gulab Rao Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
1. This OA was filed in the Armed Forces Tribunal on 22.11.2011 and was registered as OA No.513/2011. 2. Vide this OA, the applicant has sought cancellation of his discharge order dated 09.07.2011 being arbitrary by which he was discharged with effect from 31.01.2012 and extension in service was denied. He has also sought extension of service for two years with all consequential relief. 3. Thereafter, he sought an amendment in the main OA as well as in the relief clause of the OA seeking quashing/setting aside the classification of differentiating the date of eligibility for extension in the new policy letter dated 20.09.2010 issued by the respondents. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 30.01.986. In the course of his service, he got promoted to various ranks. He was posted as Havildar at 1 FOD at Udhampur in May 2009. On 04.07.2009 he was admitted to the Command Hospital and his medical category was downgraded to P-3(T-24) w.e.f. 09.01...
Rakesh Kumar Suri Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
Oral: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J): 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 23.11.2011 and has sought direction to the respondents to allow him to join the duties. 2. It is stated by the applicant that he was initially engaged as daily wager in April, 1984 with respondents. He rendered his service honestly and diligently to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. He was thus appointed as Store Keeper-cum-Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150 with effect from 6.5.1987 to 5.11.1987 for a period of 6 months purely on ad hoc and temporary basis vide order dated 6.5.1987. In the meantime, applicant was called for interview vide letter dated 16.9.1987 to prepare for interview for the post of Store Keeper-cum-Clerk and finally he was appointed to the post of Store Keeper-cum-Clerk on 30.10.1987 in substantive capacity and transferred from Parliament to Okhla vide order dated 5.8.1993. He was given memo dated 6.10.1993 calling upon him to report for duty immediately as he has been abse...
Gulshan and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Chairma ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
M.L. Chauhan: 1. The widow of one Shri Suresh Kumar, who was engaged as Sweeper by the respondent-Corporation, filed writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, which was registered as CWP No.6318/2001. The grievance raised in the writ petition was regarding payment of back-wages of the deceased employee and also to employ the widow of the deceased on compassionate grounds. The said writ petition was transferred to this Tribunal and was registered as TA No.472/2009. 2. At this stage, few relevant facts may be noticed. The petitioner was employed as Sweeper with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) w.e.f. 28.12.1977. The conduct and the past records of the deceased were very dismal and showed a very gloomy picture and on 4.5.1989 at about 2.30 p.m., it was found that the petitioner workman (deceased employee) had indulged in theft of about 5/6 kg. of aluminum sheets and thereby causing financial loss to the Corporation. Charge sheet dated 22.5.1989 was served upon the deceased on the...
Devender Kumar Vs. the General Manager, Nw Railway, Jaipur and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
Oral: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has sought the following relief:- “(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to re-promote the applicant as Boiler Maker Chargeman B by making status-quo as on 29/09/88 and regularise his services as BMC-B grade Rs.1400-2300/- RPS w.e.f. April 1983 from the date of Ad-hoc promotion under the extant policy on the subject. That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent to arrange arrears along with all consequential benefits”. 2. It is stated by the applicant that the applicant was working as Boiler Maker Chargeman (hereinafter referred to as BMC). Vide order dated 29.9.1988 he was reverted as Boiler Maker Mistry (hereinafter referred to as BMM) which was challenged by him by filing an OA. The order of reversion was quashed by the Tribunal and applicant was even found suitable for the post of BMC on 27.7.1989 yet he was not promoted as BMC. He f...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary Department of Rev ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
M.L. CHAUHAN: 1. The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records and quash and set aside the actions and omissions of the respondents in treating the applicant as a general category instead of Scheduled Caste category excluding him from eligibility list of the Inspectors and thus denying the applicant his due promotion from the post of Inspector to the post of Superintendent, Central Excise against a vacant roster point meant for SC w.e.f. from the due date after the applicant became eligible and available and sufficient number of vacant roster points were available. ii) Direct the respondents to conduct a review DPC and promote him to the post of Superintendent treating the applicant as a Scheduled Caste candidate w.e.f. the due date from the year 2003 when the applicant became eligible and available to be considered for promotion from the post of Inspector to the post of Superintendent, Central Excise, on a due vacant ...
Avm N.M. Vaishnavi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
ORDER 1. This review application No.13/2012 in OA No.300/2011 was filed on 29.02.2012. Vide this review application, the applicant has prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 23.01.2012 passed in OA No.300/2011. 2. The applicant sought review of the order dated 23.01.2012 submitting that order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC lays down two main grounds for seeking review of an order, one of such grounds being an error apparent on face of record. The applicant specifically sought the review on the following grounds:- (a) That the words at para 45 Learned counsel for the applicant argued that since the applicant was promoted on 18.10.2010, he did not have the service in the rank of AVM for one year upto 31.03.2011 and therefore, he was not eligible as per the policy letter dated 20.02.2008 for consideration in the Special Promotion Board for 2011. be amended as it was not made by the learned counsel for the applicant. (b) The applicant has also sought interpretation of the work qualifying...
Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs. the Chief of Army Staff and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2012
By Chairperson: 1. Petitioner by this petition has prayed for quashing the Summary Court Martial proceedings of 26 Oct 2006 and declare that petitioner be treated as having continued in colour service with all consequential benefits. He also seeks quashing of the cryptic rejection order of the Chief of Army Staff dated 02.07.2008 and forwarding letter dated 04.07.2008. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the ASC on 29.07.1998 after having obtained training at ASC Centre(S) Bangalore. Petitioner put in 18 years and 117 days colour service. While serving in 517 ASC Bn he was granted leave after expiry of which he had sought extension, but nothing was conveyed. However, as such the Petitioner reported back on duty to the parent unit but was not taken on strength and had to shuttle between his unit location and ASC Centre. Meanwhile, the petitioner had suffered Jaharkhurani while enroute and later on was found by someone who could recognize the petitioner, and was treated. After recovery he ...
K.B. Asthana Vs. the Union of India (Through Secretary) Ministry of Fi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan, J. 1. The applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) Direct the Respondents to approximately fix the applicants pay by accord of notional promotion at par with the similarly situated Shri D.V. Handa who had been arbitrarily granted promotion to higher Cadre than the applicant and accord the consequential benefits pensionary and otherwise with pay of Arrears worked out with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date it fell due, till it is paid keeping in view the fixation of pension as per the VI-th Pay Commissions Reports as decided by the Hon’ble CAT (PB) New Delhi in full Judgment. (b) Pass any order or direction as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) Award the cost of this OA in favour of the Applicant against the respondents.” 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Sub Inspector on 23.5.1959 in the Department of Customs and Centr...
Sumer Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police Phq, Mso Building, Ip Estate, N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J): 1. The orders impugned in this Application filed by the applicant a Constable with Delhi Police, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 are as follows:- “(i) Order No.469-70/P.Sec./Addl.C.P./PCR dated 8.6.2010 (Annexure A/1) vide which appeal against penalty of censure has been rejected. Order No. 1376-1410/HAP (P-III)/PCR dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure A/2) vide which a penalty of censure has been inflicted. Order No.32414/P.Br. (AC-III) PHQ dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure A/3) to the extent it denies promotion to the applicant. Order No.3885/P.Br. (AC-III) PHQ dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure A/4) informing the applicant that his promotion has been denied because of penalty of censure. Order No.1801/P.Br. (AC-III) PHQ dated 27.1.2010 (Annexure A/5) to the extent it denied promotion to the applicant.” 2. In view of the facts mentioned in para 4 and on the strength of the grounds mentioned in para 5 of the Application, the applicant pra...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »